Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

(Redirected from Wikipedia:GA/R)
MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsFAQDiscussionReassessmentReport
Reviewing initiatives:Backlog drivesMentorshipReview circlesPledges
Shortcuts
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment

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 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 delisting.

Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment instructions

Before opening a reassessment

  1. Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
  2. Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
  3. Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
  4. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.
Manual opening steps
  1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
  2. Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
  3. 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.
  4. The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
  5. Transclude the assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste {{Wikipedia: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.
  6. 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

  1. Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them. Comments should focus on the article's contents and adherence to the good article criteria.
  2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
  3. Interested editors can indicate their intention to fix the article and give updates on their progress in the GAR. Commentators should periodically check the GAR and give additional comments when necessary. Wikipedia is not compulsory and editors should not insist that commentators, interested editors, or past GAN nominators make the suggested changes, nor should they state that edits should have been completed before the GAR was opened.
  4. 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.
  5. If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.

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).

  1. GARs typically remain open for at least one month.
  2. Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
  3. 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.
  4. After at least one month, 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.
  5. If the article has been kept, consider awarding the Good Article Rescue Barnstar to the editor(s) who contributed significantly to bringing it up to standard.
Manual closing steps
  1. 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.
  2. 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)
  3. Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)

Disputing a reassessment

  1. 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.
  2. Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
  3. If discussing does not resolve concerns, editors should post at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the coordinators.

Articles needing possible reassessment

Good article reassessment

Talk notices given
  1. Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States 2024-08-11
  2. Pest control 2024-08-22
  3. New England Patriots 2024-08-28
  4. The Chariot (band) 2025-02-12
  5. Dragon Quest 2025-03-13
  6. 18th Military Police Brigade (United States) 2025-05-01
  7. TNA X Division Championship 2025-08-24
Find more: 2023 GA Sweeps Project
See also: Wikipedia: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 {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, remove the template from the article talk page.

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

Articles listed for reassessment

Off-Road Velociraptor Safari

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

This is an older GA nomination from 2008 and the lighter standard can be seen in the article. The article is quite bloated for the limited sourcing, and many sections rely on one source for its content. It's unfortunately just not at the standard I would have thought reflect GA anymore.

  • The article's lead is enormous.
  • The gameplay section is substantially cited from one source and contains half an uncited paragraph.
  • The development section is substantially based on one interview source, with almost all three paragraphs attributed to this source.
  • The Reception section is fine and uses valid sources, although can't decide whether it wants to group or synthesise review reactions or just list them off one by one.
  • The Planned Sequel section is based off of one source, with some information, like the planned Q4 2010 release date not being covered in the source.
  • The article is horribly outdated, with content like " The company also revealed plans to continue developing free games with a development time of four to eight weeks. The most popular of these games will be further developed and released on platforms such as WiiWare, PlayStation Network or Xbox Live Arcade" and that the remaster "will most likely not see the light of the day" being inappropriate and outdated speculation. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of Isle de France

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Uncited statements, including a paragraph in the "Background" section and citation needed templates from June 2020. Z1720 (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph in the "Background" section had been moved from the lead; I moved it back as it was completely redundant to the paragraphs below. Citation needed templates fixed (one actually needed a citation and one was left unreferenced from a paragraph break). 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Yorktown

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

There are uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. The entire Articles of capitulation are quoted in the article, without much context for important sections (except for a controversy about article 10). I think a summarised version highlighting the most important aspects, as identified in secondary sources, would be more appropriate. Z1720 (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Overview was split off from the lead in 2023 by a longtime well experienced user who I presumptively will assume should have realized that putting entire paragraphs without citations into the body of the article would degrade it. But apparently the editor was so focused on cutting the lead that the flaw didn't come to mind. The edit summary shows that the user thought the lead was too long and that was the reason for splitting the "overview" out. Now it seems to me that the lead is too short for a long article. I think the lead likely would not be too long if most of the overview text was restored to it. Also, since the overview material came from the lead, much of the content in that section should be, and probably is, repeated or summarized later in the article with citations. The fix is probably to put the uncited material back into the lead, with any required editing, and to put any remaining material not already in the body into the body with any needed citations and omission of anything that is duplicated but not necessary for the lead.
It seems to me that a summarized version of the articles of capitulation, with citations as needed, as your suggest, is a revision that should be made.
I am confident that I have the sources available in my home library (and via JSTOR if necessary) for any needed citations.
I am preparing to give an hour long presentation on September 9, and have written that I should be able to add needed citations and/or rewrite later sections of P.G.T. Beauregard. I have some coordinator tasks that I have been doing as the months come to a close - and some real life to fit in. So I may not be able to get to this for at least two weeks. That will still be within the usual time to start work on editing an article up for reassessment.
I think this is likely to be an article that would be of interest to other editors who may be able and willing to work on it sooner, although I should get to it in good time if not. Donner60 (talk) 06:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ivalice

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Uncited statements. Some might be covered by MOS:PLOT, but others definately need citations. Z1720 (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know the exact timeframe for GARs, but I'm willing to take a stab at saving the article. I've done work on other games within the Ivalice world, so I should be able to pull something together that's less of a mess. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ProtoDrake: GARs will remain open as long as editors are working on the article. They stay open for a minimum of a month before delisted (although remain open for longer if work is continuing) or can be closed earlier if there is a consensus to keep the GA listing. Z1720 (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I've done some tidying, condensing and restructuring. The Reception's still the awkward one, but that should be doable. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Hero 5

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like an easy enough fix; did you make sure to notify Masem ahead of time when you raised the issue on the 15th? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukie Gherkin: While the GAR instructions ask editors to consider posting a notice on an article's talk page, it is not required, nor is contacting or pinging an editor prior to opening a GAR. Pinging and posting on user talk pages yield mixed results: some respond positively, some question why I did not fix it myself (which is a different discussion), some are annoyed that I pinged them and asked that I stop, and some don't respond. If anyone thinks notifying an editor before opening a GAR should be required, I invite them to open a thread at WT:GA. Note that I would probably oppose this as it adds another bureaucratic step to the GAR process, and I think if editors care about an article's status, they should maintain the article without prompts. Masem did receive a notice from the GAR helper script after this GAR was opened. Z1720 (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Kingdom of This World

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

The article contains lots of in-universe information. The plot summary is over 1,300 words, which exceeds the recommended length at MOS:PLOT. There is also lots of in-universe information for each individual character, which I think can be reduced Z1720 (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing Galleries

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

The article hasn't been updated since 2015. However, The City of Chicago website about the space lists several past exhibits from 2015 to the present day. The lead could also be expanded to include more information about the topic. Z1720 (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Albany Free School

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

The "History" section does not have much post-1970s information. When I looked for sources online, I found news stories about how the school is decreasing in numbers and selling its real estate, but also past events like a film produced by its students screened at Sundance and retrospectives during the 50th anniversary. The "Reception" section also only includes perspectives from the 2000s: I think the article should include opinions from when the school opened and recent reviews of the school. Further exploration of sources will probably find additional information about the 1980s-present day that should be added. Z1720 (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might be a matter of organization. The sale of the building is mentioned in the high school program section. The "History" section is more of an "Overview" since the Program is also technically the History of the institution. Can you link to these news stories you found? czar 14:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some links, though I encourage interested editors to search themselves: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], Making It Up as We Go Along: The Story of the Albany Free School, Political and Civic Engagement among Free School Alumni: A Range of Outcomes, Do Free Schools Promote Chaos?. These were found after a quick search. GAs do not need to be complete, but they do need to cover all major aspects of the topic and I think there are several gaps missing in the article, as outlined in my original statement. Z1720 (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone

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

Uncited text, including entire sections. MOS:OVERSECTION in the "Mesoscale" section. Z1720 (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will be fixing it up shortly, would hate to see this get demoted. EF5 15:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5: Do we think the mesoscale section might benefit from a section-transclusion from the main articles? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 15:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sounds like a good idea. EF5 15:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hilaria Baldwin

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Hilaria is featured in The Baldwins, but this article only has one line about it in the lead. Information about her involvement with the show should be added to the Career section. When looking for sources, I found an event in 2021 where Hilaria was interupted by/interupted her husband at a red carpet event. Many pop culture news outlets covered the event, but this article does not have information about it. I suggest that this be mentioned in the article. There doesn't seem to be much post-2019 career information. Besides The Baldwins mentioned above, is there other information to add here? Some unreliable sources are used in the article like Meaww, Hola! and New York Post. These should be replaced by reliable source. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Folk metal

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

There are uncited statements in the article, including most of the "Americas folk metal" section. Unreliable sources used in the article, including www.metal-archives.com, www.spirit-of-metal.com, and ONSP. Z1720 (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would delete the "Americas folk metal" section, as all it adds is a load of redlinks. I’ve only left it because this discussion is taking place. --Northernhenge (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Baltimore

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

Some uncited paragraphs and other uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Euro

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Several uncited statements and paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some citations. I'll continue to add more citations to this. If there is anything else you feel needs improving, let me know! LunaExplorer (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Almost Full

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Uncited statements, including most of the "2007 mini-tour releases" section. Z1720 (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist – I know it's early to say but I'm honestly surprised this became a GA to begin with. The reviewed version was practically the same as it is now. However, the entire "2007 minitour releases" section was absent: I assume that was merged into here from a previously deleted page. Even without that though, critical reception has only had one review in prose since its promotion (unacceptable even by 2013 Wikipedia standards); the general prose, although thoroughly sourced, isn't exactly sourced by quality ones. The article realistically needs a complete overhaul to keep GA status by today's standards, and I don't have the interest in doing so. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of the New York Giants

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. At over 11,000 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. I suggest that information be spun out, summarised more effectively or removed. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheddar Gorge

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rùm

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Berkhamsted

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Article is over 11,000 words and could be summarised more effectively. Demographic information is from 2011 and needs to be updated. "Sites of interest" section seems to have a promotional tone. Z1720 (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, There's a lot of work to be done on this. I will chip in as soon as I've finished getting another UK delisted GA done (currently waiting on the reviewer's close). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've already given the lead a very brief CE, and updated the Wikilinks. However:
• It is verbose, the language is not sufficiently succinct
• It contains too much detail that should be in the body (the lead should summarise what is to come in the article)
IMO this probably reflects much of the style of the rest of the article. See a snapshot of its its listing as GA in February 2019. A further 539 new edits made since. Although the article has not been delisted, the scope of the work to be done is possibly as much as a full GAN. I'm not the assessor but for anyone who also wishes to help out, I'm posting this basic GAN checklist of possible items to be addressed. If you make any improvements, to avoid duplication or edit conflicts please add a {{done}}, or {{fixed}} or a {{doing}} template, plus a brief description and your signature (~~~~). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is massive duplication in the lead and the main sections. There is so much detail in the history it would be preferable to split it off into a separate page History of Berkhamsted, and leave a shorter, summarised history in the parent article. There is no miniumm size requirement for GA and with a little bit of work this article will retain its GA status. As a consequence, I have removed the huge history from the lead and redistributed its parts to the relevant history sub sections. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Checklist
  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check? Do the sources still address the referenced content? (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).
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. 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):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Y Checked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Ngoia Pollard Napaltjarri

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

No information about her death in the article body as well as missing information about later aspects of her career. Z1720 (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Quarrymen

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Uncited statements, especially entire paragraphs in the "Reformations: 1994–present" section. Z1720 (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yankees–Red Sox rivalry

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There are some unreliable sources used in the article like sbnation, PR newswire and a wordpress source. At over 13,000 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. Can any of the information be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed as too much detail? Z1720 (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

There's uncited text, including entire paragraphs and sections. The article has lots of block quotes. These should be written in summary style or reduced in size to its most important aspects. At over 14,000 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. I suggest that text be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed. Heritage Foundation is used as a source, which is considered unreliable on English Wikipedia. This citation should be replaced or its text removed. Z1720 (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich event

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Along with the considerable uncited text, there is image jamming, which is often an indicator that no one is maintaining the article. Unless someone takes this on, it looks like a delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Climate of North Carolina

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and the "Southern Oscillation" section. Z1720 (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Harries

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Filmography section is unsourced and is also not up-to-date based on his IMDb (which has a different birth date). Sahaib (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drexler–Smalley debate on molecular nanotechnology

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Almost the entire "Debate" section is uncited, which includes block quotes. Z1720 (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the citations. They were there, but just one at the beginning of each section instead of the expected one for each paragraph. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:40, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clevedon Court

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shriya Saran

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Uncited statements, some of which have been tagged with "citation needed" since 2024. The "Career" section stops at 2016, although the "Awards and nominations" section mentions several post-2016 awards she has won, so I think this section needs to be updated. Z1720 (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Nowitzki

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

Lots of uncited paragraphs. There are also lots of long sections that should be broken up with headings and short one-sentence paragraphs throughout. Z1720 (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of botany

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending
  • Took a look, and noted the following:
    • Engvar: was mixed, but majority UK English. I've done a copyedit to gravitate all the engvar differences I could find to UK English. I may not have found all of them of course. - MPF (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Formatting: the page preview gave me 3x "Script warning: One or more {{cite book}} templates have errors; messages may be hidden". I couldn't find the messages (presumably hidden!); they need finding, and dealing with. - MPF (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Refs format - these are in a format style I'm not familiar with; the one ref I added (for the exact title translation of Mendel's work) needs reformatting to the page style, please! - MPF (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin McCarty

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

There is an "update" needed banner from 2021. It seems like this BLP has continued as a professional coach for the Hamilton Tiger-Cats in 2024, so there is probably information that can be added. Z1720 (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Age of Comic Books

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

This article, which was promoted in 2009, has since then accumulated a number of maintenance tags related to uncited material, with several of those tags dating back to 2010 and 2011. In its present state, the article does not meet the WP:Good article criteria (in particular, 2b). Pinging editors involved in the original GAN review that led to promotion and some additional major contributors: @Cirt, Peregrine Fisher, BOZ, Hiding, Casliber, EyeSerene, Tenebrae, Clayton Emery, Kchishol1970, Kaijan, and Mark Staffieri:. TompaDompa (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paris

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

As noted on the talkpage, this is a very extensive article that includes within that extent unsourced text. Even within the apparently sourced text, there are issues, for example the Regional government source does not cover all its text. Other issues include the recent history section entering WP:PROSELINE, other areas having similar dated statements, and the overall article going into MOS:OVERSECTION. The WP:LEAD contains unique information rather than being a summary of the article. The length (>14,000 words) suggests this article does not "stay focused", and contributes to issues such as the unsourced text and the oversectioning. These issues would take significant work to fix. CMD (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article was pretty lengthy when I last looked at it, and is now considerably lengthier. I don't mind that too much at GA level (quite another matter at FAC) but unsourced additions are another matter and decidedly a no-no. Tim riley talk 13:49, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CMD, Tim riley: I have tried to fix WP:PROSELINE and the lead (although it probably should be rewritten); I'll try to fix the other issues soon. The article is probably a bit too long, but not by a lot: Boston (FA) contains just under 10,000 words, while Paris contains just over 14,000. Some of the difference is probably because there are more things to write about (as the capital city of France); I have proposed the "Culture" and "Infrastructure" sections to be split. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Progress for cleanup by section (for my convenience):
Section Progress Comment
Lead   Not done Needs to be rewritten.
Etymology   Done Can't see any citation problem (if there is please tag it).
History   Not done Q few claims need citation, some claims probably need to be moved to History of Paris, a claim needs to be clarified.
Geography   Done Sourced and enough coverage.
Administration   Not done A paragraph without cite, there are probably more claims without reference.
Cityscape   Not done Several claims without cite.
Demographics   Maybe done It appears well sourced but haven't thoroughly checked yet.
Economics
Education
Culture   Not done Probably needs split and actually needs to address the culture of the city.
Sport   Mostly done Spin-off from the culture section, mostly sourced but the Rugby League part may need some more.
Infrastructure   Not done Probably needs a split, and if not OVERSECTION needs to be addressed. Also there are some claims without sources.
International relations   Not done Needs some sources and cleanup, but not an overhaul.
Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Igbo people

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

This article has a 2500 word long section which is entirely uncited, in addition to numerous other uncited paragraphs. IAWW (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh generation of video game consoles

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Many entries in the table are uncited, especially in the "Release dates", "Included accessories", "Accessories (retail)", "Controller", "System software features", "Online services", "I/O", and "Storage" rows. There is also uncited prose, including entire pargraphs, after the "Comparison" table. Z1720 (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matangi

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Uncited statements, including the entire "Temples" section. Z1720 (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look to find refs. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Wintour

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

A significant portion of the article is dedicated to criticism and non-neutral content. The concerns raised at its 2010 FAC regarding the article's tone are still relevant. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:33, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've folded the essence of the old 'Criticism' and 'Race' chapters into the 'Personal life' chapter, and deleted the rest. The article is 37kbytes shorter and a lot more neutral. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

German invasion of the Netherlands

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

After a discussion on the article's talk page with @MWAK:, I am bringing this article to GAR to get more perspectives on if this article meets the GA criteria. My observations are:

  • There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs, and
  • The article, at over 14,000 words, is WP:TOOBIG: information can be spun out with more detailed information moved to the spun out articles, and summary style deployed to various sections more effectively. This point has been the focus of discussion in the talk page notice.

The article also relies upon two sources: "Amersfoort, Herman" and "De Jong, Louis". I am not sure if this is covered in the GA criteria, as I do not think any major aspects of the topic are missing. However, I think if there are other sources that can be used for the article (perhaps already cited in wikilinked articles?) they can be cited in this article. This last point was not raised in my talk page notice, but I would also like perspectives on if this overreliance on two sources should be addressed if this article is to keep its GA status. Z1720 (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simply Delist. Splitting is an awful amount of work. I doubt people will know these standard sources well enough. And it will all be a waste of time, for then I'll take over and grumpily split it myself to safeguard the quality...--MWAK (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pullman Square

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Back in 2018, Esw01407alt (talk · contribs) re-assessed the article as "C" class when adding the {{WikiProject Shopping Centers}} template to the talk page, as seen here. When I asked them, they felt the article was no longer GA-class and was out of date. I pointed them to GAR and this was not followed up on.

  • None of the Herald-Dispatch sources have page numbers or access dates. While I did find an archive of the Herald-Dispatch, it's (as usual) paywalled, meaning I can't verify the accuracy of any sources. The formatting of the citations is also massively inconsistent.
  • No notable updates since 2019 on the condition of the mall. Was it affected by the pandemic?
  • Issues with WP:COATRACK, naming random businesses that existed prior to the mall and their condition after the fact.
  • Until very recently, the article didn't even have an infobox. I would think this would be expected of a shopping center to use {{infobox shopping mall}}, in the same way I would be surprised if a GA-class musician article didn't have {{infobox musical artist}} or at least {{infobox person}}.

Previous GAR was in 2009 during sweeps, was done solely on the talk page, and barely skimmed the surface of any possible issues with the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Esw01407:. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in participating, thanks. Esw01407 (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lana Del Rey (EP)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

After being heavily cut down since it got accepted, this article desperately needs a GAR. The writing feels weird IMO, and the lead certainly not suitable, almost being longer than the body itself and also having information not stated later. - Dents (talk2me 🖂) he/him btw!!! 10:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the article was massively cut in this revision, which seems to have a fair point about the background going slightly overboard with detail, but went about addressing it in an overly-aggressive manner. Given that this EP hasn't received much traction since its original release (i.e. little has changed), and that the version before this deletion seems suitable enough for GA status, would reverting the article back to this point be sufficient for bypassing GAR? This is more of a thought, I have little vested interest in this particular article. Leafy46 (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dentsinhere43: I've decided to boldly re-add the section, and gave the article an overall trim. It may not be perfect, but I think that it's of sufficient quality to retain its green badge. What do you think? Leafy46 (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've copyedited it a bit, and it seems fine for a GA now. - Dents (talk2me 🖂) he/him btw!!! 21:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I've also just re-vamped the 'Music and lyrics' section (after your copyedit), if you want to take a look at that too. Leafy46 (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P. G. T. Beauregard

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Lots of uncited statements, including the first two paragraphs in "Political views after the end of the Civil War" and a block quote in "Louisiana Unification Movement". Z1720 (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have only skimmed this but "Political views after the war" grabbed my attention. It could almost be entirely deleted or in the alternative would need to be rewritten. Almost none of the section is about his views. The end of the final unreferenced sentence in the second, long paragraph "had the threat looming of being arrested, exiled, or executed by the Federal Government for having joined the Confederacy" is utter nonsense. No soldier who accepted the parole at the end of the war and took the oath of allegiance was under threat of punishment, much less execution, or had any looming threat of execution or any other serious punishment. True that Robert E. Lee was under threat and some action was started against him. However, Grant, the most popular man in the country, said he would resign if action were taken against Lee since Grant had paroled the entire Army of Northern Virginia, including Lee, who took the oath (although he waited until October 1865 to do so). That put an end to any notion of prosecuting Lee and presumably any other soldier in the same position. Even Jefferson Davis himself, after spending two years in prison, was released even though he never took the oath of allegiance. So, for me, that brings into question, not just the sourcing and relevance of the section, but even whether it is totally accurate.
I think that sentences in "Legacy" that cannot be sourced should just be eliminated as superfluous. That has been done in another article recently.
I have eight of the sources listed in the references, including the Williams biography. A few others appear to be available online. As I have time, I likely can provide some citations. There may be obscure additions in the non-military related sections that may be hard to source, but these perhaps could be omitted if so.
I have a busy schedule, in addition to any of my usual coordinator work, over the next three of four weeks, but I think at least some of the needed work may not take much time. I am rather sure this GAR will attract other editors who are interested in the American Civil War and may be able to fix problems sooner. Donner60 (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After a closer look, it seems that the problems occur after the military career sections. That will eliminate at least some, but probably not all, of the cited sources as useful references for citations. Donner60 (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Donner, please let me know if there's something you're struggling to source. I don't have a whole lot of time for a sustained project right now, but I do have the ability to make a library run now and then. Hog Farm Talk 02:19, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Medal of Honor

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

The "Evolution of criteria" and "Revocation" sections have long bullet point paragraphs that is difficult to read, especially on mobile. These should be broken up with headings, summarised and trimmed of excess detail, and split into paragraphs. There is an "outdated" orange banner at the top of the "Legal protection" section. There are external links in the "Authority and privileges". Instead, this section should use prose to describe the information. There is some uncited text in the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Test Track

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Several sections of the article are missing citations. Joeykai (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joeykai, I noticed you put [citation needed] tags after literally every sentence without a direct citation even if that sentence was cited at the end of the paragraph. Please don't do that, because it makes it much harder to determine which passages are actually uncited. This also goes against WP:REPCITE, which recommends using a citation once at the end of a passage, if multiple consecutive sentences are backed up by that source.
For example, the sentence "In August 1998, Disney announced that the opening of Test Track would be delayed once again" is tagged as unsourced even though there is a source for this (number [16]) that covers the three sentences before it. Since you tagged the entire article like this, making it unreadable, I'm afraid I'm going to have to revert all of these tags for now. You can re-tag the sentences that are actually unsourced, not just backed up by a reference further on in the paragraph. Epicgenius (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, I recommend delisting this article as a GA at this time. There is a lot of info about the ride description that is unsourced or unsourceable (essentially being original research). More to the point, however, it's missing any kind of commentary about critical reception or ridership, as would be expected of many major amusement rides (let alone this one), so I cannot say in good faith that this topic is covered broadly. I can probably work on that later, but can't make any promises. Epicgenius (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survival horror

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Currently, the article peters off after the 2005 as an overview of the genre. The later parts of the article just list various new and popular games that are not really reflective of the genre in their sources (i.e: The Last of Us states it has "survival horror" elements, but does not elaborate. The article it cites does not even state this). It basically makes the last 15 years of the gerne vague and becomes a list of "Game: brief plot summary" instead of how it contributed to the genre or how the genre did or did not change. There are decent amount of unsourced statements, statements that are not backed up by their source, that make the article fail WP:GACR6 on it being Verifiable and broad in its coverage and not containing original research Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From The Last of Us down, the article is kind of a mess. But I think it's salvageable. There's some things mentioned there like asymmetrical horror games, FNF, and the RE remakes, that were landmarks in genre evolution. I don't think anything is really "missing". TarkusABtalk/contrib 03:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomy

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

This level-2 WP:Vital article was promoted back in 2006. It has since been through GAR in 2010 and 2023. The main issue in the latter was uncited material. Since then, the article has yet again accumulated a number of maintenance tags related to uncited material, and as such does not meet the WP:Good article criteria (in particular, 2b). Pinging editors involved in the previous GAR and some additional major contributors: @AirshipJungleman29, Onegreatjoke, XOR'easter, Iazyges, Vsmith, and Materialscientist:. TompaDompa (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added some refs, removed some uncited material, and done a little copy-editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The physical cosmology section had quite a few dubious bits which I worked on. I hope others will take a pass at other sections. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up several sections for you. The main issue I've addressed is the presence of descriptions of the findings of astronomy, rather than descriptions of the science itself. An analogy is describing what an animal is rather than saying what zoology is: obviously, we have articles of both kinds, but they're different. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnjbarton and TompaDompa: are you satisfied with the edits? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a couple of spot-checks and added additional maintenance tags related to sourcing. TompaDompa (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed those to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. In the meantime, I have continued spot-checking a bit. I have found a number of additional issues and tagged them accordingly. I suspect that further spotchecking would reveal even more issues. If this were at WP:GAN rather than WP:GAR, I would at this point have probably gone for a WP:QUICKFAIL on the grounds of serious WP:Text–source integrity issues. This article has turned out to be in a much worse state than was apparent at the surface level. TompaDompa (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please tag the article and post when you feel that your review is complete. Multiple cycles of "all fixed" followed by "here's more" is discouraging. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I've removed the unneeded accretions, added several refs, and tagged "citation needed" for the useful bits. There are some "page needed" tags also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's one way of avoiding a WP:FIXLOOP, and probably the easiest way when there are only a handful of discrete issues. Another way, considering that this particular article pretty much needs to be rewritten to deal with the widespread issues, is to wait until the article has been rewritten before checking again. Resolving this much WP:Text–source integrity issues requires determining what needs to be sourced better and what can be removed entirely, which means that the overall WP:WEIGHT of the article is highly likely to shift. Adding sources to material that was originally added without any always runs the substantial risk of not reflecting the balance of different aspects in the overall literature on the overarching topic correctly. TompaDompa (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weight has indeed shifted. I've cut, as mentioned above, a large amount of material that concerned findings rather than the astronomical method, and I've restructured quite a bit to make this clear. The remaining text mainly concerns either history or types of astronomy, and those are certainly the correct subject-matter for this article, so I don't think we need worry too much on that front. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I should have clarified. You are right: a re-review after major changes is useful. The only reason to complain about drip-drip reviews is that once I located and loaded sources it much easier to get several fixes at once. So reviewing and reporting a section at a time is perfectly fine. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have spot-checked a sample of sources, and found serious issues in something like three quarters of my checks. Now this wasn't a random sample but a targeted spot-check where I deemed issues to be likely, so it very well may be non-representative, but it is still enough for me to say that fixing issues identified via spot-check is highly unlikely to be sufficient to bring this up to snuff. I believe this article needs to be overhauled basically from the ground up to ensure that there are no WP:Text–source integrity issues. Now I can always keep doing spot-checks for straightforward verification and WP:Close paraphrasing issues (as long as I'm able to access the sources, at least), but when it comes to the more subject-specific things (e.g. whether the sources used are appropriate for the material they support, ensuring that everything that should be covered in the article is covered, avoiding overemphasizing WP:Minor aspects, and so on), that's where more familiarity with the topic and sources is required. TompaDompa (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TompaDompa, I've overhauled the text, removing a large amount of off-topic description, including many "minor aspects", and restructuring; and I've asked Johnjbarton to check he's happy with that in terms of the science. He and I have added or replaced numerous references. We are thus doing quite a root-and-branch reform of the article: it's still in progress.
BTW You just found that Forbes 1909 had gone missing, flagging up multiple maintenance issues: I've reinstated it, and checked and documented each individual ref to it. That was a single small error (probably mine some while back), now fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. I suppose I'll check back later. Forbes 1909 appears to be available at the Internet Archive with proper pagination (but different ones depending on the edition), by the way. TompaDompa (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been through the whole article, sorted all the citations you flagged and checked many others. The text is far tighter (and shorter). I've removed one or two images either for reasons of space or of relevance to their sections, and added one or two new ones. The remaining statements, which cover all the major areas of the science, will be seen as broad and obvious by astronomers; they are well attested by the sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johnjbarton - I've done all but 7 or so of the citations needed; if you can fix those and satisfy yourself that the reworked article, minus a lot of off-topic text, covers what it should, that'd be very useful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I completed a pass through the entire article with special attention to the History. That section still has too much early and not enough later history, but adequate for GA. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manor Hall, Bristol

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Most of the sources are primary sources to the university: the article needs to use more secondary sources to verify information. There are lots of uncited statements in the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This building seems to have a surprising lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. I guess that's why this article cites literally none. The following sources mention it not at all or only in passing:
  • The 2011 version of the "Pevsner Architectural Guide – Somerset: North and Bristol" does not mention it at all. For context this is an almost 900 page long dense book on buildings in Bristol
  • It is mentioned once in passing in the 2004 version of "Pevsner Architectural Guide – Bristol"
  • "T. H. B. Burrough, Bristol" mentions it only as one of the buildings George Oatley designed
  • Not mentioned in "Bristol: City on the Edge"
  • "A university for Bristol: an informal history in text and pictures" mentions it a few times in passing as one of the halls or residence
I was not able to access "Sir George Oatley: Architect of Bristol", which may have contain significant coverage. The most detailed sourcing I can find is the National Heritage England entry, where it is listed as a Grade II listed building. This may mean it's notable per WP:GEOFEAT, but it's hard to interpret that guideline (see this discussion). I'm curious what you make of that, and what you think of "The Manor Hall Association" as a source? It contains only university alumni, but it could be seen as an association outside of the university? The other potential source mine is the British Newspaper Archive: this search gives over 1000 results which would need to be sifted through for non-trivial mentions (it seems almost everything hit is about some event happening there). Unfortunately I don't have access to that site though, as it's not available through the Wikipedia Library anymore. IAWW (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @It is a wonderful world: Thanks for commenting. I dislike having notability discussions on GAR pages, as I think WP:AfD is a more appropriate place to discuss that. Primary sources can be used in good articles and are sometimes the only places where information has been published. However, WP:RSPRIMARY states "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources". If the majority of the article is cited to primary sources, my opinion is that the article does not meet the GA criteria.
  • I don't think "The Manor Hall Association" is a secondary source, as university alumni have a clear conflict of interest with the school's reputation. I don't know if they are connected to the university, but I would only use them if a secondary source was not available.
  • I also do not have access to the British Newspaper Archive. Newspaper Archive might have some sources, as well as some other databases accessed through WP:LIBRARY or your local library system. Z1720 (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Z1720, I agree with all you said. I reached out to a fellow editor in the hopes they may be able to help with the British Newspaper Archive sifting. IAWW (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

173rd Airborne Brigade

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 04:49, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally there is heavy use of non-RS Global Security. Hog Farm Talk 22:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looked to me like a lot of the GS stuff is either sandwiched between reasonable RS or could be replaced easily with RS (for the Vietnam-era bits just about anything by Shelby Stanton would work). I only saw a couple of uncited paragraphs in my quick look, but at least one of them (in the section on Dak To) probably was sourced from Murphy's book which is used extensively in the rest of the section. Intothatdarkness 12:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brick Community Stadium

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

The history section is quite large. I recommed that level 3 headings be used to break up the text and the later paragraphs be merged together. There is an orange "update needed" banner at the top of "Wigan Warriors R.L.F.C.". There is uncited text, including entire paragraphs. The "Surroundings" section is something I have never seen before in an article, and perhaps should be removed. I also think the "Robin Park Arena" is offtopic and potentially a WP:COATRACK. Z1720 (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Tomkins

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Lots of uncited statements. Two "update needed" orange banners are in the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Synth concerns expressed in an article tag. Z1720 (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hero (Mariah Carey song)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Uncited statements, some of which have been tagged with "citation needed" since Oct 2021. Z1720 (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

King of Pop (album)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Lots of MOS:OVERSECTION. Discogs (an unreliable source) is used several times and should be removed. Z1720 (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Black Holes and Revelations

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and most of the "Tour" section. Z1720 (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've done some work here and there over the years, so it's in better shape than I found it, but it still isn't GA-worthy. The uncited and lengthy tour section alone undoes that. There are also uncited statements in other sections and the critical reception section is not as rich as it should be. This was a widely reviewed album and the article doesn't reflect the depth of coverage in reliable sources. Popcornfud (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good album. I would normally be interested in fixing something like this but my hands are tied elsewhere at the moment. In fact, I'm not even sure that based on today's standards this article ever had enough depth to be a GA to begin with. mftp dan oops 04:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erromintxela language

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who originally took it to GA. I understand the reqs have changed but since there aren't are sources beyond what's on the page, and since I don't have much time, the best thing is probably to remove the GA tag. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Dunham

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Lots of short, one-sentence paragraphs added after its GAN promotion that need to be formatted more effectively. Extensive use of block quotes which do not adhere to a summary style and might have copyright concerns. Z1720 (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I haven't really been involved in this too much since the GAN, but I'm willing to take a look and see if there's anything I can do to help. Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Making my way through 16 years of revisions isn't an easy task. Do you know if there's a way to use a WikiBlame-like tool that only shows me major deletions and additions? That's all I need to see really. Viriditas (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: I'm not aware of any such tool, other than comparing diffs. Z1720 (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just realized. The page statistics page basically does this in a compact form. I will start there. Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the page statistics tool does all of this and more. Very handy. Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Z1720: I'm looking through the article now and I see there are some minor issues with what newer sources have reported. I also don't like how the family life section is given precedence over her other achievements. If this was an article about a single father pursuing a career you can guarantee that the article wouldn't be structured this way. Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Viriditas: Is there information from sources about her other accomplishments that can be added? I am fine with de-emphasizing her family life in favour of giving more information to her accomplishments. I suspect this happened because she is Obama's mother, so many sources give information in relation to him. Z1720 (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My overarching point is that the article needs a renewed effort at clarification and verification. I was browsing through Scott 2011, which I don't believe is used as a source since it was published years after the GAN. There's been a lot of new information and analysis since that time. For example, the opening line in the early life section says the subject was born at St. Francis Hospital, but this may not be true. It also doesn't mention anything about the Unitarian church they attended in Seattle. Lots of missing details like that. Further, the early life section skips over most of her formative years, which is detailed by Scott 2011. It then segues right into family life and marriages even though Scott 2011 makes it clear that this is not what Ann wanted or wanted to be define by, but I admit it is difficult to structure this otherwise. All I'm saying is that this GAR will need some extra time. My biggest concern is making sure there are no errors. Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Viriditas: Thanks for the update and the clarification. If editors are willing to work on the article, this GAR will remain open. I went through the "Family life" section and removed off-topic or TMI information. Feel free to revert anything you felt should not have been removed. I fully support expanding the article, and feel free to ping me with questions or if this is ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I just dived in. I had no idea this article had degraded to such an extent. Dunham's thesis is cited in four different types of citations and dozens of times from those four. It's like whoever was editing just didn't care and did whatever. This is going to take weeks to fix. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Ararat

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Unreliable sources like YouTube, IMDB, vimeo and Panarmenian.net are used. Z1720 (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious as to why Panarmenian.net is unreliable. It's a quite well-established Armenian news agency. ----Երևանցի talk 08:39, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yerevantsi: This determination is based on consensus at WP:RSN, including the latest one at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 445#panarmenian.net. Z1720 (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to focus largely on the article (which does appear problematic), not its reliability per se. A simple Google Books search indicates that it is widely cited in scholarly works. ----Երևանցի talk 11:10, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Panarmenian aside, I've already removed some of the uncited sentences and paragraphs and will work on the rest in coming days. ----Երևանցի talk 11:10, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flat Holm

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which paragraphs did you have in mind? The introduction summary doesn't need citations (unless to support something like a quote) and the two uncited paragraphs towards the end of the article were uncited in 2008 when the last GA decision took place. Sionk (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720; @Sionk - some reorganising done, refs checked (some needed moving or updating) and some added. A little more to do, but getting there, I think. Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added cn tags to the article, although it looks like most of the uncited statements have been resolved. @Sionk: The GA criteria has been updated since this article was promoted; one such change is that all statements (except usual exceptions like the lead, plot summaries, and WP:CALC) need to be cited. Z1720 (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think everything is cited now, and some more fixing, copy editing and tweaking done. Happy to do more if any suggestions for further improvement are forthcoming. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took another look at the article, and see that the "History" section stops at 1941. Surely there must be some events of note to mention in the article from the last 80 years. At the very least the island's contribution to major historical events, like WWII, Welsh devolution and their voting history, economic impact post-WWII, Brexit, and COVID-19 can be mentioned. "Governance" section suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION. Z1720 (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New World Order conspiracy theory

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Lots of uncited text. Some sources that are full length books are cited upwards of 20 times with no pages specified. Many other maintenance tags as well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kawasaki Heavy Industries C151

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

This article has numerous issues with uncited statements. Instances of overlinking are also present (the word green is wikilinked!) No improvements or commitments to improve the article have been forthcoming since I left a talk page message on July 27. Significant work would be needed to rescue this article from a delist. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings Just to let you know, I've removed the "media appearances" and the train numbers given that the sources didn't even support it. I've also removed some of the overlinking. Anyways, I think it needs to be delisted. An insurmountable of work needs to be done before it can aptly be GA. Icepinner 16:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help Icepinner, and for Trainsandotherthings for bringing the issues with this article up. Will work on it and see if I can get it back up to GA status, so kindly give me some time. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 04:07, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I may also work on it, though perhaps not to the same extent as actuall. This would also depend on how much time I have. Icepinner 05:52, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article looks substantially cleaned up, though I am not particularly satisfied in how some notable and sourced details were removed in a rush to rescue this. Obviously the article has been a victim of trivia stuffing by enthusiasts over the years. While I still have access to certain databases to locate sources, are there any particular lines that needs addressing? - Mailer Diablo 17:12, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the edits were quite rushed, and have expanded on other aspects of the article to remedy this. I have also attempted to add back some other statements, although most of it is WP:FANCRUFT/WP:OR by rail enthusiasts and I couldn't find sources for them. Does it look better now? – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 03:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've cleaned it up quite a bit. Which ones are still not sourced? - Mailer Diablo 01:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trainsandotherthings: Could you kindly take a second look at the article to see if there are still any issues? – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 01:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has definitely been significantly improved since it was nominated. Sourcing and overlinking issues have been addressed and the excess railfan trivia has also been pared back and properly sourced. I'm still catching issues, however. For instance, "As of 18 August 2025, 46 of them have been scrapped or preserved, 9 trains are laid up awaiting scrapping, and only 11 trains remain in service." is sourced to a news article from June 2025 which couldn't possibly support a claim from two days ago. This is clearly an example of enthusiasts engaging in original research because they are unwilling to wait for reliable sources to confirm this information. Similarly, "106 R151 trains would subsequently replace all 66 C151 trains along with the 19 C651 and 21 C751B trains from 2023 onwards, while the C151 trains would be decommissioned." is supported by a source from 2018 which again couldn't possibly support a claim from 2023 (and misuses the word "would").
    I admittedly didn't check much for text-source integrity due to the more blatant problems initially present. Considering I found these in less than 5 minutes of checking, I'm concerned about the state of the entire article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing these out, I have removed all the unreferenced mentions of specific names of C151s. Other editors have also helped in removing all the specific number of trains that violated WP:OR. I hope this resolves the issues that you have pointed out. Would it be better to give this article some page protection in the long run to solve these unreferenced additions by rail enthusiasts? – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 12:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with actuall on the protection proposal. This has been an issue for a long time. I know that they intend their contributions to be helpful but without prior reading of Wikipedia's policies, this leads to situations like this. Something similar could very well easily happen to North East MRT line or another FA. Icepinner 00:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Faisalabad

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

GA from 2016. Multiple uncited sections and general article structuring issues. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man in film

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

I was going through the remaining entries at WP:SWEEPS2023, had some concerns regarding the quality of this article, and found that Z1720 had already posted a notice about two weeks ago. There is substantial uncited content in this article - while some of this is plot information that can be assumed to be sourced to the movies, much is not. Additionally, there are rather poor sources which are being used, such as IMDB and various blogs/pseudonymous sources such as Comic Book Movie or Video Junkie. Hog Farm Talk 01:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm:, taking a shot. Right now I'm collating book sources to verify the early history. Bear with me as I'm busy in my life off Wikipedia, but I'm confident I can improve the article enough to satisfy the GA criteria. DAP 💅 20:06, 11 August 2025

Kolkata Metro

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Lots of uncited statements, including the entire "QR Code Ticket" section. Z1720 (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm a delist from a look through the article. There are numerous spelling and grammar errors and straight up not very good writing (the fare section is a mess to read and needs to be reorganized, the "issues" section really doesn't seem to be justified at all, and there's a completely empty rolling stock section). This is in addition to the numerous paragraphs and entire sections lacking citations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Z1720, thanks for the ping. The GA promotion was from a while ago (nearly 5 years to the day, as I write this). Since then, this article has undergone drastic changes - unfortunately, not all for the better. In addition to the issues mentioned above by TAOT, there are other issues I see:
  • Currently, the Network section lists the Yellow Line as one of the four operational lines, even though it's technically not yet operational. The four currently-operating lines are already listed.
  • Some text in the article (like the number of stations, and some of the names of the lines) is bolded in violation of MOS:BOLD.
  • This article unnecessarily capitalizes certain things like a Tunnel boring machine hit an Aquifer at Bowbazar. This wasn't the case when I originally reviewed the article, by the way; the inconsistent formatting and capitalization is more of a recent development.
  • The "Proposed expansions" section is from 2012. Since then, some of these expansions have been constructed, but it isn't clear which ones; this section is currently presented in present tense.
Unfortunately, I also have to !vote delist. However, I do hope @ArnabSaha will come back to remedy these issues, or that someone else will fix them in his place (as ArnabSaha hasn't edited for nearly 7 months now). – Epicgenius (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If folks aren't around, I could theoretically take a look over the weekend even though this isn't necessarily my area of expertise. Sohom (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius, I can also work on it – though I am not sure what turn-around does a reassessment expect. For instance, if it's to be fixed in next 7 days, then it's unlikely that I'll be able to address everything in that span. Let me know! — WeWake (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WeWake and @Sohom Datta, that would be appreciated. I didn't initiate the GAR, but from past experience, a GAR can be kept open for as long as someone is actively working on it, even it takes a few months. Epicgenius (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ski flying

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

There is lots of uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. At over 12,000 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. I suggest that information be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed. Z1720 (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Curator" of the article here. Won't argue any of that in the slightest. It's been a decade and a lots of material has been added since. I did originally mean to spin off the History section into its own article but never got around to it. Would that be a good first step? As for detail, any particular sections that should be trimmed? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mac Dreamstate: Spinning out the "History" section might be good if the article on its own would be notable (I suspect that it is). I usually prefer subject-interested editors to review the article's prose first because they often have a better sense of what is the most important information. However, I think spinning out/reducing the amount of text in the History section will probably solve most of the too-detailed concerns. Z1720 (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I'll get to work on that. Also, could you point to the paragraphs of uncited text—those should be easy to fix. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mac Dreamstate: I have added citation needed templates to the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mac Dreamstate: Maybe it should be considered to move some of the content from the "Rules and technique" and "Scoring and judging" sections to the Ski jumping article? Since most of it applies to both ski jumping and ski flying, and the coverage on these topics in the other article is less detailed. Rewording the Ski flying article in such a way that the common regulations are only roughly outlined and the focus is given to the key differences. Maybe it would prove to be more friendlier than laying out every detail of the combined regulations in a unified fashion? Dżamper (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That could work as well. At the time of writing, I was more enthusiastic about fleshing out the ski flying article to notice that the ski jumping article was sparse in comparison, and written—in part—by non-English speakers. What I'll focus on first is addressing all the cite tags, then creating the History article, and finally seeing what I can do about transplanting some of the Rules and techniques content to the ski jumping article. I will say, however, that a lot of the techniques described are specific to ski flying, so it's not a simple copy-and-paste job. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another suggestion, having dealt with a decent amount of cite tags: rather than create a separate history article, would it be sufficient for bringing the page size down if the content from the abovementioned Rules and techniques section (as well as Scoring and judging) were instead incorporated into the ski jumping article? I'd much rather summarise the latter than write up new truncated prose for the current History section. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Narcissus (plant)

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. At over 11,000 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. Some of this prose should be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed. Many sources listed in the Bibliography are not uses as inline citations: Should these be moved to Further reading or removed? Z1720 (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I wandered over from WikiProject Plants to look at this, and it looks like the 3 issues identified were present when the article originally passed GA. I think I'd rank them in the following order of priority:
  • Uncited paragraphs. Our institutional culture has generally gotten increasing lax about what constitutes a "reasonable challenge" to material and more fascinated by blue clicky numbers, but I editorialize. Fixing these should not be too hard and is useful.
  • Spinning out the "Further reading" section. The original review noted "I'm not sure the system of subheadings in the bibliography is appropriate, but I wouldn't change it yet." Looking over Wikipedia:Further reading, it might be desirable to spin off a separate bibliographic list based on the existing references section (including subheadings), as I think just moving all the uncited materials there would create a somewhat arbitrary and overly-large "Further reading".
  • Article size. This is the real sticking point—spinning off articles and condensing to summary style requires a lot of labor and energy (especially given our communal drift towards "Anything that's not exactly, explicitly stated in a source is vile reprehensible OR!") I think there is some room to argue that Narcissus is a broad and important topic and is inevitably going to be a big article when (G/g)ood; looking at the sections, most of them already have spin-off articles. "Cultivation" and "Uses" are probably the two best targets for further summarization here, but I'm not sure how much improvement we can expect. Choess (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Choess: Regarding article size: If articles like Earth, Philosophy and Beyonce can get to the ~9,000 or less word count, I think this article can also reach for that goal. Most Wikipedia editors are looking for general knowledge and an introduction to the topic: more specific details can go into the spunout articles. A copy edit might also help with summarising the information more effectively and reducing the size of very large sections with more headings or by trimming words: the "Flowers" (under Description), "Bacteria" (under pests), "History" (under "Cultivation"), "Commercial uses" (under "Uses") and "Western culture" (under "Art") are all very large sections that might be good places to start.
There is also some MOS:OVERSECTION in the article with short, one or two sentence sections. Merging these sections together might help reduce the word count. Some OVERSECTIONs include some "Art" level 3 headings, the level 4 headings in "Commercial uses", and some headings under "Reproductive" (fruit, seeds, etc.) I usually recommend a target of 2-4 paragraphs per heading, though this is not a specific rule and there are always cases where shorter or longer sections are necessary. However, anything too long makes it hard for mobile users to navigate the text, and paragraphs that are too short make the article look like a list. Z1720 (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with this critique–I've been fixing individual tagged errors on some other broad-scope plant GAs recently, and they also have that sprawly, OVERSECTIONed feel. I would definitely feel that it was a blocker if the article was brought to FA, but I am not sure whether it warrants delisting as GA. I don't personally have a clear feeling for how stringently the community wants to interpret "unnecessary detail" in 3b. Broadly speaking, condensing and summarizing appropriately is definitely something that takes effort and helps separate good writing from mediocre, and it's not unreasonable to ask people to do that to achieve a hallmark of quality. On the other hand (to be a little less peevish than above), I do think our cultural drift towards increasingly high adhesion to "exactly what the secondary source said" (driven by worst-case scenarios like CTOP) makes this unusually hard to accomplish compared to our other markers of quality, and we ought to consider that when we set our thresholds. YMMV.
Another thing that caught my eye was the big illustrated table in Taxonomy. It's not clear why that particular system was selected, and while it won't change prose size, spinning that off would reduce the visual clutter and scrolling. I'm sure there are opportunities like that for spin-off, but I am not sure how much I will be able to accomplish. Hopefully we can get the primary author and their collection of sources involved. Choess (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is 10 years since the GA promotion, and at that time this was basically a rewrite by myself, so I might be a little biased. Obviously a number of people have "improved" it since, which is inevitable but sometimes destabilises the original concept, but the way Wikipedia is run continues to evolve necessitating some tweaking. At the time of review, one reviewer stated it was well beyond GA! I think there needs to be a very high bar for delisting GAs on important topics. I really can't see anything fatal in the article that would justify its delisting, but of course it can be continually revised to meet changing stylistic guidelines. I have never been too concerned about size in GA provided that there is a good lead and the contents are well organised so readers can read what they want to. Nor do I think it makes sense to insist every source used is explicitly cited in the text, provided the text is actually supported by reliable sources. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 23:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Goodyear: My biggest concern is the uncited text: I would not be able to recommend that this article keeps its GA status until that was resolved. The formatting concerns fall within MOS:LAYOUT, which is required for WP:GA? 1b. The "Further reading" concerns are of less importance, and I'm happy to help if requested. Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, thanks so much for stopping by. I've added some "citation needed" tags, not in the spirit of challenge but just to help keep track of where the uncited text occurs. There are a few cases where we might be best off just dropping the sentence. Choess (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as spin-offs go, we had already added multiple spin-offs. In my experience, "uncited" paragraphs largely occur when somebody splits a cited paragraph leaving sections "uncited" rather than implying text is unsupported. That is a cosmetic issue that is easily addressed. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 00:10, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A bit surprised to find that we didn't cite the number of species from POWO (76 species and 93 named hybrids); I've added it now - MPF (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At GA we went with the World Checklist and spun off species to a separate list. You will note that the current POWO list contains a large number of hybrids, so one could make an argument for two numbers - with and without hybrids. This was originally discussed in the section dealing with historical difficulties in determining the number of species. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 01:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that small subsections should be merged. I also agree that the Taxonomy section should be drastically cut given the separate article – the present situation with taxonomy discussed in two places makes maintenance unnecessarily difficult. This is a genus with massive historical, horticultural and cultural significance, which the article reflects. It's always possible to split off some sections into separate articles, but the determining factor should be value to readers, not some arbitrary length limit. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that the Taxonomy section should be drastically cut. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we have a well-written subsidiary article, the coverage of Taxonomy here should be no longer than (and might be identical to) the lead section of the subsidiary article, with sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rose of Sharon: firstly, this mention doesn't appear to be appropriately placed under Art; secondly according to Rose of Sharon it is one of several candidates for the referent of the Hebrew word rendered as Rose of Sharon in the KJV, while the text here implies that the identification is uncontroversial. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution: "Section Pseudonarcissus, although widely naturalised, is endemic to the Baetic Ranges of the southeastern Iberian Peninsula." - I believe that the citation here has been misinterpreted, and instead refers to the subset of species from section Pseudonarcissus that are endemic to that regions. (These species are often recognised as forming section Nevadenses, as the traditional wider concept of section Pseudonarcissus is paraphyletic with respect to section Narcissus.) Lavateraguy (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote: The spelling in use for new section (or subsection) is Nevadensis rather than Nevadenses - I've made an inquiry to IPNI whether this is in accordance with ICNafp. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IPNI has now corrected sect. Nevadensis to sect. Nevadenses. I have also concluded that references to subsect. Nevadensis are errors for the section. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

In December 2024, an IP introduced an uncited "Society" section to the article. This contributed to the article's bloated 12,000+ word count. There is also other uncited text, especially in the "Administrative divisions" section. Z1720 (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Society section and am planning to rewrite rewrote the Administrative divisions section based on the zhwiki article section (which seems to be pretty well referenced). Could you perhaps highlight if there are any other places that need citations? S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 09:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right...I cleaned up some of the uncited sentences at the end of last month but admittedly I entirely forgot about this later on. @Z1720: could you perhaps look over the article and see if there are any other places that need missing citations? S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 11:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@S5A-0043: I have added a couple citation needed tags. Z1720 (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All three {{cn}} tags have been resolved. S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 11:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@S5A-0043: Citation concerns resolved. The article is still over 11,000 words. I recommend that some sections be trimmed of too much detail. Some recommendations to see what can be trimmed and/or moved to other articles include the following sections: "People's Republic era", "Cityscape", "Religion", "Education and research", "Public" (under "Transportation"), "Cuisine" (I think most of the food descriptions listed can be moved to daughter articles), "Sports", and "Parks and resorts" (which has too many one-sentence paragraphs). Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the recommendations. I’ll probably take a look over the weekend. S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 03:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. At over 14,000 words, the article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. Some prose should be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed as too detailed. Many sources listed in "Bibliography" are not used as inline citations and should be moved to "Further reading". Z1720 (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, this article has already been reduced in size, to allign with the Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower article. Grant's presidency was detailed, as it included 8 years of turbulent Reconstruction, Native American, Domestic, and Foreign Policy. Second, Grant's presidency article, should not be a reduced format historical article format, when the Eisenhower article receives ample article size. This is Wikipedia. Articles should be detailed, supplied by reliable sources. Important issues such a civil rights, prosecution of the Klu Klux Klan, should have detail. Both Grant and Eisenhower, deserve equal importance and equal size. As far as sources, not used in the article, I have no issue with them being removed. Third, I think this article has already been improved, and deserves GA standing. I am not sure why Grant is getting this attention all of a sudden. The article appears to be written in a neutral format. Why now? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmguy777: Wikipedia is a general knowledge encyclopedia, and not all details will be included in an article. If the level of detail is important, the information can be spun out into a child-article. WP:DETAIL outlines examples of how much detail an article should have, and states that "Some readers need a lot of details on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate subarticles)." The last part, linking to separate articles, might be what is best for some aspects of this article. WP:TOOBIG outlines that articles should probably be less than 9,000 words: at 14,000, this article far exceeds that. In a GAR, the current article version is evaluated on its adherence to the GA criteria and does not consider how much work has been done to an article, or how much it has been improved. The Eisenhower article is not a GA, so it is hard to compare the qualities (and size) of those two articles for this GAR. Z1720 (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, articles can be spun out. You have not mentioned anything specifically you want changed. What is it exactly you want changed? Again, I have substantially reduced this article before. Is there an exact rule of how long articles should be such as 9,000 words or less. What does "should probably be less" mean ? Anymore reduction in this article would reduce the reliability and needed context of the article, imo. Grant has a lot of biographers and biographies. Renewed interest has been taken in Grant's life, generalship, and presidency. Charles W. Calhouns (2017) book on Grant's presidency has 593 pages. What specific areas of the article do you find too long? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many notable people and topics have books that are hundreds or thousands of pages long. WP:TOOBIG has useful rules of thumb for article size. I usually do not recommend specifics at the beginning because I want to give a chance for subject-matter experts to make recommendations first. Since I have been asked, here are some suggestions:

  • In general, I recommend that a subject-matter expert do a copy edit of the entire article and remove redundant text, off-topic information about others, and sumarise text more effectively when possible.
  • First Presidency:
    • "Financial policy" Suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION. I suggest these paragraphs be merged and extra/too detailed information be placed in the appropriate article.
    • "Failed annexation of Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic)" could be too detailed and possibly trimmed.
    • "Native American policy" also suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION and, if the paragraphs are merged together, information can be spun out to the appropriate articles.
    • "Domestic policy" also suffers from OVERSECTION and not as much detail is needed for all of these individual aspects (especially the "Holidays law")
  • Second Presidency:
    • "Vicksburg riots" and "South Carolina 1876" spend at least a paragraph explaining the conflict before mentioning Grant. While a brief introduction is appropriate, too much space is given to this off-topic information and this article should focus on Grant's actions and policies.
    • "Foreign policy" suffers from OVERSECTION with the last three paragraphs: these should be merged and summarised.
    • "Reforms and scandals" Lots of oversection, it is better to merge the information and give a wikilink than have a whole paragraph explaining each topic.
    • "States admitted to the Union", "Vetoes" and "Government agencies instituted" can be moved to the part of the article most appropriate to his presidency. "Memorials and monuments" can be moved to Grant's main article.

This is not an exhaustive list, and there can of course be disagreement. None of this negates the uncited paragraphs in the article, which also need to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those spin off articles have not been created. The Presidency of Barack Obama article 13,915 words. I found that on XTools. Is this correct? You can verify that. The Holidays Laws is important. They are national holidays created by Grant and congress. This article can be improved. You are free to make edits to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cmguy777: Yes, Presidency of Barack Obama is 13,000 long. No, it is also not a GA. This process is to evaluate an article against the GA criteria. If the article topic is notable, any editor can make a new article and place information there. I will not be making edits to this article as I am busy with many on-and-off wiki tasks. I am happy to support those who do want to make those edits and will re-review if pinged. Z1720 (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This article passed GA in the past. Yes. There is room for improvement, and thanks for the specifics. I just don't think it necessary to take away the GA status, when in the past it was given GA status, by whatever standard(s) was(were used) at the time. Improvements can be made to the article without removing the GA, imo. I have made past reductions to the article, found in the talk page, to improve the article. Grant's Native American policy, reforms and scandals, have been made into spinoff articles. Probably, the next spin off article should be Grant's Foreign policy. Grant's presidency was different. He was elected and served two consecutive terms in office, that would not be repeated until the election of Woodrow Wilson. Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cmguy777: An article will not be delisted if improvements are ongoing and concerns addressed. My concerns are listed above. The GAR will assess the article against the current criteria, not the criteria that was in place when it was passed. Z1720 (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This article has been significantly been reduced in size, before. Your concerns are noted. What about editor concensus? These objections seem to be only your objections focused specifically on Grant, not other Presidents. You also seem to be requiring other spin off articles to be made on Grant's domestic and financial policies. The Santo Domingo annexation was very important to Grant. It was also a drama between Grant and Charles Sumner, who would control the Republican Party. Some leeway should be allowed in that section on article length, since this article focuses on Grant's Presidency. When you say "delisted", are you saying removal of the article from Wikipedia? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmguy777: I am sorry that I did not respond sooner. AJ29 is correct: pinging me is a better way to ensure that I respond. I have done a deep read of the first paragraph of "Foreign policy" and the "Attempted annexation of Santo Domingo" sections. They have improved from where they were before, and the comments below are what I think need to happen next to bring them to GA quality.

  • "Grant was a man of peace" I don't know what this means because I don't know much about him. I think this should be removed, and instead the paragraph can describe what this means later on.
  • "Besides Grant himself, the main players in foreign affairs..." This is an instance where the article starts going off-topic. Later in the paragraph, it starts describing Fish's work. I think this parargaph should focus on what Grant did and what he did with foreign policy. If Grant was hands-off and let Fish run everything, then that should be explained. If Grant focused on specific issues, that should be explained in this paragraph. Describing the major players of Grant's administration is important, but their contributions should to be connected to Grant's presidency more explicitly.
  • "He tried to annex the Caribbean country of the Dominican Republic as a safety valve for them." Safety valve feels like an idiom to me, and I don't know what that means in this context. Is Grant buying DR to bring Black people to the ___location? Was he trying to have DR become part of the USA? This should be explained.
  • "Republican Senator Charles Sumner opposed Grant, believing he sided with men of financial interest." Why is this important to state in this article? I think it can be deleted.
  • In the second paragraph, there is information about the annexation of DR. This makes the first paragraph redundant, and I think it can be removed.
  • I made lots of cuts as I was reading. Feel free to take a look and reverse any changes. However, with the length of the article I think some of these changes were helpful to reduce the word count, and I would continue having cuts like this in other parts of the article.

I hope the above helps editors with ideas on how to improve other sections of the article. There are still uncited statements in other spots and I highly recommend a thorough copy-edit and trimming of off-topic information before a re-review is requested, and I think this article needs some more work before I could recommend that it keeps its GA status. Feel free to ping me with questions or comments. Z1720 (talk) 05:45, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I am for reducing article narration, but not at the expense of loosing valued content. Also, I am for going by what the sources say. As far as Santo Domingo goes, Grant was the main leader behind annexation. I readded information that Grant appointed Frederick Douglas. Apparently, Grant wanted both to make Santo Domingo a state and to serve as a refuge for blacks. Douglas supported the annexation. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmguy777: The content doesn't need to be lost: it can be moved to other articles whose scope is narrower. Too much prose stops readers from finding the most important information and discourages them from reading any part of the article. Prose cannot include everything that the sources say as articles are written in summary style. The information described above cannot be explained here: it needs to be explained in the article.
Regarding Frederick Douglass: the article does not describe who he is or why he is important until "Election of 1872". If Douglass is to be included in the "Attempted annexation of Santo Domingo" section, the importance of his appointment needs to be explained there. Otherwise, it is just WP:TRIVIA: a miscellaneous fact that the reader does not need to know to understand the importance of this event in Grant's presidency. My preference is to remove this sentence, and trivia prose similar to this in other places in the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The importance? Frederick Douglas was a leading spokes person for black rights. Historian Jean Edward Smith, Grant, on page 505, mentioned Grant appointing Douglas secretary of the Santo Domingo commission. Do you have that book?. I do. I don't feel appreciated in this article. I should not have to defend every edit made on this article. I am only going by what Smith said. Removing important content will affect the neautrality of the article. I also feel there may be underlying hostility toward Grant, or people don't believe his presidency was that important. I just go by what the sources say. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmguy777: If Douglass is to be included in this section of the Wikipedia article, the Wikipedia article needs to explain who this person is and why he is important to mention here. In other words, if the information is important, the Wikipedia article needs to explain its importance. A reader should not have to go to the source to get that information. Z1720 (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link that explains Douglas and Santo Domingo. His appointment by Grant represented black progress, that was part of the "new" for blacks. [6] Cmguy777 (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmguy777: The source looks good to add. The information needs to be explained and added to the Wikipedia article, not this page. Z1720 (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would best to add in a add in a note that Douglas was a prominent African Amercian, who was primarily known for work as an abolitionist. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. The current format of giving every little detail its own level-4 section is definitely excessive. For one example, there are 224 words dedicated to the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Half of that paragraph has nothing to do with Grant. The parts that do pertain to Grant include a quotation that could be replaced with a concise statement, as well as a line straight up telling the reader the paragraph is not that relevant: "Grant had no role in writing the Civil Rights Act of 1875 but he did sign it a few days before the Republicans lost control of Congress." Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:46, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Civil Rights Act of 1875 was ground breaking. The first in U.S. History. And yes, Grant signed it into law. Grant was the president and deserves credit for signing the legislation into law. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Red-tailed hawk

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

There are lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. At over 18,000 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. Many sections are numerous paragraphs long without a heading, making the text difficult to read on mobile devices. This article should be trimmed, with information spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed if too detailed. Z1720 (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the 14 subspecies has a separate Wiki article. This is very unusual - and in my opinion a bad idea. Subspecies are just regional variations, usually in size and plumage. Subspecies are very similar to the nominate form, often so similar that they cannot be distinguished in the field. The differences can be easily described in the article for the nominate. The behaviour sections (Food and feeding, Breeding etc) will normally be identical. Should the information be repeated? Another problem is that most subspecies don't have accepted English names. - Aa77zz (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I worry that merging them all would overwhelm the main article, and even more so if other relevant details (taxonomic history, etymologies, conservation status and trends, number of breeding paris, photographs, etc.) are to be added for each of them, too. Already now we give a lot of room to the subspecies; making that section even longer might verge on WP:undue. If the subspecies list gets too long, we could maybe create a spin-off article Taxonomy of the red-tailed hawk, where we could have a proper section for each subspecies. This would also allow us to cover potential subspecies and those that are currently not accepted, as well as other taxonomic detail that does not fit the main article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subspecies articles are not part of this GAR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is minor compared to the other issues, but could someone more familiar with birds take a look at the external links section? At 10 links, it appears to have too many entries if I'm reading WP:EL correctly. I'm questioning why a Flickr group is included and why several of the other links cannot either be incorporated as citations or added as "further reading" instead. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed a good number of the bullet points in External Links just now. The All About Birds species account is already a reference in the text, the North American Falconers Association is not expressly relevant to red-tailed hawks, and the other four links I removed were guides on how to identify different morphs. Commons and Wikispecies can be accessed through the sidebar more easily than at the bottom of the page. -- Reconrabbit 18:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, the external links section looks a lot better now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been several weeks since there were significant edits to the article. It has also gone from being one of the longest GAs to being just over 3,000 words, which is pretty significant. There were many declarations made concerning a different version of the article, so can interested editors take a look at the current version and give comments on if the article is ready to be declared "keep", or if not what the next steps might be? Z1720 (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to stick with "delist", per my comment above [8] --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    GA does not ask for a perfect article, nor total coverage (both impossible anyway), but for a decent introduction to a large subject, which this is. I've added a bit on migration, restoring the old text to a subsidiary article; and mentions of parasites and its status (commonest hawk in N. America). Longevity is briefly mentioned. Wikipedia is not an identification how-to guide: not totally averse to a brief note on species it can be confused with, but further comparison is basically out of scope. I'm staying with "keep". Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Jens Lallensack - I seem to have taken over most of this by default. I've addressed all the issues you mentioned. Hope it's now ok. If not, say what else is needed, but we must be very close to the most that can be asked of a GA by now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Some uncited text (including entire paragraphs) and lots of one-paragraph sections which should be merged per MOS:OVERSECTION. History stops at 2022 so there might be some recent information to add to the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly needs updating for the past four years, but it's not an impossible task. Best of luck. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some prior work on US drug policy articles like United States v. Doremus, so I will take this GAR on and get started within the next few days. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 19:52, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Finished with a comprehensive copyediting of the article, added/removed various references to improve sourcing quality, and combined sections as needed per Z1720's opening comments. Per Z1720, there is still some recent history to be added, but I begin law school tomorrow, so my progress on this will be a bit slower. I expect to finish within a month (ping me if I don't), but anyone else is free to finish the reassessment work in the meantime. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 16:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alcoholism

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Uncited statements, including the entire "Short term effects" section. The lead might also need to be trimmed a bit. Z1720 (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me some time to work on this article and the Asprin one as you’ve opened 3 medical GAR recently and these tend to be quite hard to track down citations for. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 07:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IntentionallyDense: GARs tend to stay open as long as editors are working on them. Please provide periodic updates so that editors know that you are still making progress. Z1720 (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IntentionallyDense, do you still intend to work on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i do really hope to, there’s about 5 (guessing, i’m not sure) medical GARs open right now and i’m currently dealing with my own medical issues so i’ve come to the conclusion that i won’t have time to improve all of them but i do want to at least work on this one. I will try to remember to pop by and update people in about a week but if i don’t please feel free to tag me as this will be my first priority as soon as i am well enough. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I'm slowly trying to pick away at the unsourced bits of the article and I did attempt to trim the lead but I don't think there is much more I can do there for now. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 05:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i've done some more trimming. Thank you! Tom B (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People have added sources, e.g. for that section, so it looks like it's been brought up to standard, Tom B (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added two citation needed tags to the article. Since this is a MED article, I am a little more strict about getting all citation concerns resolved before making any declarations. No page size or sourcing concerns. Z1720 (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Steinem

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

The election support section stops at 2016, and does not comment on 2020 or the upcoming election. There are many uncited sentences and paragraphs. There are many short, one sentence paragraphs, especially in the Activism section. Z1720 (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that some sections could use a re-write to better organize instead of a dated list of factoids. There are no "citation needed" maintenance tags so if there are claims that need citations it would be good to identify these. It will be a couple of weeks until I can spend some time with this article. Nnev66 (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nnev66: I have added citation needed tags per the above request. Z1720 (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for adding these. I will look for citations and have already added a few. I notice there are sometimes details that may not need to be included in the article (too granular) that don't have sourcing. I'm tempted to remove these, e.g. "Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press" and "Frontline Women's Fund" - do you have thoughts about this? On the latter there is a non-independent web site for half of the claim, but I don't think every organization Steinem has been involve with needs to be listed, especially if it doesn't have WP:RS coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AirshipJungleman29: There's some unreliable sources in the article (tv.com, Zimbio) that should be removed. I would also like to see "Personal life" and "In media" sections fixed up more before doing a copyedit and several sections need more level 3 heading to split up the text. "Selected awards and honors" is too detailed and non-notable awards should probably be removed. Overall, the amount of work needed to fix up the formatting seems more than a simple copyedit that I won't be able to complete, and I wouldn't give a "keep" declaration at this time. @Nnev66: are you interested in addressing some of the above? No worries if not. Z1720 (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can work on these. Removed the tv.com, Zimbio refs. Nnev66 (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Z1720 and Nnev66: where does this reassessment stand? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My citation concerns have been resolved. Formatting concerns remain with too many short, one-sentence paragraphs, especially in the "In media" section. Z1720 (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing the referencing issues was straightforward enough, but I've been a bit paralyzed about combining or removing various one-sentence factoids - it's on my list to clean-up, as well as look for anything more recently that could be worth adding. Nnev66 (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nnev66: For the short paragraphs: If you want, you can combine two or three short paragraphs together, then ping me here. I can take a look and give ideas on what else might need to be done (if needed). I'm always happy to help review, but unfortunately don't have the time to copyedit several GAs. Z1720 (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages • Category:Good article reassessment nominees • Good article cleanup listing

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment&oldid=1225482527"