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.

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.

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.

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.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85

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.

• 06:13:05, 05/08/2024: Muammar Gaddafi
  

• 02:48:13, 18/11/2024: Jeannie (TV series)
  

• 01:06:58, 26/01/2025: Ocean of Sound
  

• 12:08:32, 28/01/2025: James L. Brooks
  

• 19:52:12, 27/02/2025: Whale shark
  

• 05:59:02, 06/03/2025: Longyearbyen
  

• 21:49:25, 01/04/2025: QuackShot
  
• 16:33:26, 23/04/2025: Current date for reference

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

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

Result pending

There's uncited text in the article, including entire pargraphs. There's lots of information about his earlier career, but not much about more recent career events. There are "whose" and "why" tags from December 2024 Z1720 (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. The lead is very short and does not summarise several major aspects of the article. The "Demography" section cites the 2001 census, and probably needs to be updated. Z1720 (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• As per Z1720, plenty of uncited statements, plus history has been split off into a separate article, which should be brought back into main article (page is only 60000 bytes and history page only 30000 bytes).Davidstewartharvey (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

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. There's also an orange "more sources needed" banner at the top of notable people. Z1720 (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, some marked with "citation needed" since July 2024. Z1720 (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. I also think some of the quotes can be removed and the information summarised instead. Z1720 (talk) 18:18, 21 April 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. Not much post-2009 information, and no indication that the band has gone inactive. Z1720 (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow the previous GAN had some serious issues. For example, the section about '... Although thermodynamically prone to oxidation, carbon resists oxidation more effectively than elements such as iron and copper, which are weaker reducing agents at room temperature.' got put in the review as uncited, but it never got resolved and passed anyways. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 01:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 sections. While some editors cut uncited statements in February, work seems to have stalled and there is still lots of text to find citations for. Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Uncited text, including entire paragraphs. I think the lead, at six paragraphs, is too long and should be more concise. The article is too detailed in some places, like the 2010 section, and the one-sentence pargaraphs should be merged. Z1720 (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

There is a "confusing prose" banner at the top of the page from 2021, and I am unsure if it has been resolved. The lead is short and does not summarise all aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:13, 21 April 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. Lots of short, one-sentence paragraphs that can be formatted more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

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

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

Result pending

Same issues as Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mes courants électriques/1. Cattos^💭 23:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

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

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

Result pending

I am brand-new in this matter of good article reassesments. Nonetheless, I notice that the recent years of West career are being hugely neglected. Lack of completeness, citation needed templates, short unsourced paragraphs, some citations with cuestionable verifiability (including primary ones), damaged prose and outdated MoS addressing. It is kind of similar to Anuel AA. If you want to improve or comment, you are welcome, I am not in a hurry for this. Santi (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Old GA is having an issue per [1] with an active template at the top. Multiple dead links also 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist The article lacks prose content after 2021 and the lede currently does not summarise the article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

Poorly reviewed by a blocked user and should return to GAN's queue. During the DYK process, a copyright violation and failed verification was already found immediately by Dclemens1971. The prose doesn't look good either. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

can try to help address some of these issues. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did not go through it with a fine-toothed comb but I would agree this needs a close look and may warrant delisting. The GAR should have caught the copyvio. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

This article no longer meets the GA criteria. Its lead section of 2 sentences is laughably short, while several paragraphs in the body are uncited. Several sources appear to be unreliable, such as a self-published photography site [2] and whatever "Southern E-Group" was (the link is dead). The article seems more concerned with paint schemes than substantial encyclopedic information on the trains. The infobox is also excessive in length. I posted a warning on the article's talk page last month, and no improvements have occurred between then and now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Significant improvements in coverage need to be made to this article for it to keep its GA status. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

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

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

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

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

More points can be added here once a week of no commentary occurs on the main talk page.

@CooperCool23: I agree with most of your review. Here are some points that I have a different opinion about or questions for clarification:

• The existence of the subsections seem appropriate based on what I remember of the coverage. Though I do conceded that if they are condensed, a smaller amount of prose wouldn't warrant a subsection. I guess wait and see until after changes are made.
• Why is the Brady Game strategy guide unfit? It's an official guide made in collaboration with Konami, the developer, and is being used to source gameplay. Also, any other sources you feel are unfit?
• I fixed the Nintendo Power source with the missing information.

I'll see how much I can help out with and start making edits as time allows. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]

@Guyinblack25 in regards to your comment about sources, I didn't know that official strategy guides could be used when citing gameplay so that is my fault. That, and I think I was just skimming through the list of references in the article and thought that I saw ones that were out of place (I think I also mistook that the "official" in the Brady Games source wasn't there...some how (don't ask)). I have now also done and double checked all the sources together with Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources and the article and can now say for certain that none of the sources seem to be unfit or unreliable for the article. Hope that clears some things up. COOPER COOL 23 user page 20:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

👍 (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

Other points in the MoS that apply here are

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

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

Update - there are some places that could use some polish and there are probably a few more rabbit holes I could dive into for content, but I'm basically done with my improvements. If someone could review/copy edit the whole article, that would be helpful. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]

@CooperCool23: checking in to see if the improvements are sufficient to close the GAR. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 01:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]

@Guyinblack25: Most of what I majorly disliked about the article has been fixed and all the sources seem to be formatted properly. I'm willing to say that the GAR can be closed now. COOPER COOL 23 user page 02:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

The article has become bloated, with many minor events added to the article and too much detail of games and events. This causes the article to be WP:TOOBIG and efforts to spin out text or remove unnecessary prose have stalled. The article also has some uncited text. Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bloat and article size are not among the GA criteria. An article can be WP:TOOBIG and still be a good article, and quite a number of articles meet this description. Bloat and article size are entirely irrelevant to GAR.

That leaves uncited text. I would be happy to work on this. As a courtesy, can you give us an idea of where you have found this, so that we don't overlook something? Bruce leverett (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added citation needed templates, per requested above. In regards to article size, good article criteria 1a states that "the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct". I do not think the prose can be concise if the article is this large and bloated. I suggest as a starting point that "Notable games" be removed as, unless a source has declared these games to be notable, this section is original research as Wikipedia cannot make this declaration on its own. Z1720 (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Nothing I have read in Wikipedia policy would lead me to your conclusion that the article must be smaller to conform to criterion 1a.

  Regarding Notable games, there was a lengthy discussion about that in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 34#'Notable games' inclusion criteria. I would ask you to read that discussion. I am not satisfied with the present Notable Games section of Magnus Carlsen, but again, this is separate from the GA criteria, and should be sddressed as a separate subproject.

  Thanks for adding the CN templates, I and perhaps other chess regulars can tackle those. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bruce leverett: The guideline WP:AS state "While expert readers of such articles may accept complexity and length provided the article is well written, the general reader requires clarity and conciseness." Earth, one of Wikipdia's featured articles, is a great example of summarising a large topic and spinning out notable prose. I also invite other editors to comment on if the Carlsen article, with the prose currently in the article, adheres to GA? 1a. Z1720 (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the issue is more the WP:PROSELINE feel of the year by year sections. There we have a clear violation not so much of 1a, but of 3b, which tells us to use summary style and to avoid too much detail. For an example from a different type of competition, the Roger Federer article is much better at explaining what was important in a given year and relegates the excessive detail to appropriate subarticles. (I personally think it should be more concise, but it is a lot better than the Carlsen article). —Kusma (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

There is uncited prose in the article, including two direct quotes. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

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

• Delist I should also note that the first four references, although from IGN, are game guides and walkthroughs, which as far as I've seen are discouraged from articles. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

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

• Remove A-Class status. Articles heavily using Globalsecurity.org risk this site's copyright status. Much of the GS.org data is pirated unattributed DOD data. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

It’s tricky… The sources cited in that section are reliable as primary sources for verifying what Islamic critics of Freemasonry claim about the fraternity… they are not reliable as secondary sources for saying that these claims are in any way accurate. Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of secondary sources relaying what they say, they shouldn't be included at all, per WP:DUEWEIGHT. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

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

Generally speaking, this is better sourced than it was when it was originally promoted. There are a few non-controversial paragraphs near the start that have never had citations; if that’s the issue, we can work on it. Lastly, there are about a half dozen tags that have crept in over the last 3-4 years when someone has added something that’s either uncited, poorly cited, miscited, etc. I’ve been hesitant to strike those totally though because I don’t want to WP:OWN the article, but if those are the issue then I can certainly strike them, no big deal. Trevdna (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trevdna: If an editor couldn't find a reliable source to support a claim, I would removing the information. If you are still unsure, you can always remove the information and open a discussion on the talk page. Z1720 (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I’ll go through and either remove or find citations for statements that are currently uncited or that have tags on them. Give me a couple of days. Trevdna (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I actually got some time to go through and handle these right now. (Decided to just do it and keep it off my to-do list.) How does the article look to you as it currently stands?

Note that per my understanding of MOS:LEADCITE, few if any citations are required in the lead section, as it summarizes content that is properly cited elsewhere in the article. But let me know what your thoughts on it are. Some citations are present for items that, in the original editor's judgement, may have been controversial or challenged, or I guess where they thought that having a citation specific to that statement was just a good idea. Trevdna (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citations only need to be in the lead under specific circumstances (like quoting someone) but usually they are not needed and should be removed. The information in the lead should also be in the article body. I have added "citation needed" tags to various locations that need citations. Z1720 (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think that should do it. All the items you tagged have now been addressed. And all citations have been removed from the article lead, one way or another. Let me know what you think. Trevdna (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

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

I have removed them as they were added in 2017 when the article was already a GA. @Kaliforniyka: Since you added them, would you like to add it back but with sources? Otherwise, I think it is best just keeping it out. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a look at this. The lead could do with some tidying up, and I can see some unsourced statements on first pass. Will look more closely and check out previous review for further inspiration. Rodney Baggins .talk. 09:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article can easily be saved as GA with a bit of work, which I'm slowly getting on with. I've been making some improvements to the prose and sourcing, with more planned. I do think this is quite an important article in the grand scheme of things and as I'm a member of WikiProject Olympics, I'm happy to take it on. In terms of meeting the GA criteria, I think the following needs doing:

• Tidy up lead section, source any miscellaneous statements not expanded in main article, e.g. Beckham at closing ceremony
• Medal count / doping issue in lead needs to be expanded/explained more clearly in body.
• In Medallists section, the medals not covered by ref.7 need to be separately sourced, i.e. the 4 bronze medals awarded at a later date in athletics.
• Check all sport sections are sufficiently sourced, add new sources where necessary.
• Swap in a few alternative sources to reduce over reliance on BBC (as mentioned in initial GA review).

I've rescued the "Official Results from the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games" source (in References, General) and cited both parts ("– Archery to Handball" and "– Hockey to Wrestling"). As these constitute a general reference that can be used to verify the numbers and names of Team GB participants in each discipline, as well as all the results, I thought rather than cluttering up the article with ref/rp tags, I could instead add a useful note to help the reader locate the relevant info, e.g. below the first: "Contains results for the following disciplines: Archery (page 1); Athletics (page 55); Badminton (page 415)..." and below the second: "Contains results for the following disciplines: Hockey (page 1); Judo (page 352); Modern Pentathlon (page 414)..." Rodney Baggins .talk. 14:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

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

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. There is an orange "expansion needed" banner from December 2024 Z1720 (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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

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

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

Result pending

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

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

Result pending

Uncited text, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 30 March 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. Z1720 (talk) 02:17, 29 March 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. Z1720 (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

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

Can you please give examples of how it violates NPOV as from a quick glance I have not noticed it? Also, can you please give examples of sentences needing cites to help people wanting to improve the article? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Freedoxm: saying "could have violated" makes you seem unsure of there actually being NPOV violations, and every single paragraph is sourced (not every sentence needs to be sourced), so i'm leaning towards a keep until there are actually problems pointed out. 750h+ 08:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There's at least one dead citation which wasn't archived, despite other sources in the article having archived links. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

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

• Comment: Onegreatjoke I must strongly disagree with the statement "concerns about the article's quality posted 3 months ago" used here. What is in the talk page comment is mention of some paragraphs without sources, and the lead being an incomplete description. Similar to an AfD discussion, that is not the strongest argument. A topic such as Weak interaction is almost impossible to summarize in a simple lead, it is too large and complex. Also, looking quickly, many of the unsourced paragraphs are connective or introductory. Maybe someone will add some sources, I am not qualified to even though I have a physics background. I suspect that many potential editors will be put of by the abrupt nature of this nomination and a lack of detailed physics-based analysis of the issues. While it is easy to count sources/paragraph, I don't think that is high level analysis, sorry. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There are still some statements that seem to be uncited regardless of whether they're connective or introductory. Plus, the GA guidelines state "reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)", so these will need to be cited regardless. I'm not sure if the lead is an issue but i feel that the citation of the article still requires work. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

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

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

Result pending

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

I've restored the lead, which it appears someone deleted for some reason. Will try and have a look at the career section soon. Gran² 20:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still need to find a few more sources for the filmography, but I think overall the article is in much better shape now. Gran² 18:49, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 "Administrative divisions" table should be updated with the latest population figures. Z1720 (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I was only thinking that yesterday! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

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

@Z1720 I think I have resolved your concerns. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 21:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

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

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

Some issues I noticed:

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

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN from 2008

Result pending

After giving this some thought, I'm not convinced the article still meets GA standards. Starting a reassessment that probably should've been initiated earlier. Along with talk page complaints about it reading like a fan page (as of this diff), here are some issues I found from a glance:

• "Early life" goes into excessive details about heritage. We could just stick to a general summary where her ancestors came from, and maybe mention some relatives outside of her sister and their parents who have articles.
• The 2019 version of The Lion King doesn't need to be linked more than once within "Career" section (the 2018–2021 section is ideal when that's the first mention). It's also unnecessary to link things like Destiny Fulfilled and "Instagram" under "Fashion lines" after previous sections already do so.
• I doubt there's any need for a whole quote box on Black Is King for "Videography and stage"
• There's various redundancies when talking about Ms. Knowles' marriage with Jay-Z (who seems to be her only publicly known non-platonic relationship). When largely intertwined with both of their careers, it would probably be best to integrate details into the "Career" section and perhaps have a "Life and career" section (which I believe this article once did many years ago before getting restructured). Since she's also worked professionally with both daughters they have together (not sure about their son), such a rearrangement could also help avoid repetition of such endeavors.
• Under "Activism", the tone of "our" from "persistent in our societies" is inappropriate
• The whole "Interests" subsection seems trivial
• "Music video" is a very commonly known term that doesn't need linking per WP:OVERLINK
• Within "Legacy", it sounds like fan puffery to say "artistic innovations"
• Lots of incorrect formatting (e.g. The Wall Street Journal is missing italics from the "Fashion lines" subsection while About.com, Box Office Mojo, Chime For Change, CNN, NPR, and Recording Industry Association of America shouldn't use them at all for citations, Elle is wrongfully written in all upper case)
• I would try to find stronger sourcing than BuzzFeed, "Fashionlooks.com" Metro, and "quotefancy", also there's some dead links that need fixing/replacing

The above isn't an exhaustive list of the problems this article has, and others are free to list other qualms they have. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

icon, i think i'll have to take this on. 750h+ 13:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS i think i've addressed most your problems (not sure about the fourth problem), but if anyone has any issues feel free to list them but i'm leaning keep. 750h+ 01:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Things definitely look better than before overall, so kudos on that. In case it wasn't clear before, I meant that "Marriage and children" could easily be interspersed throughout "Career" given how much Beyoncé and Jay-Z have worked together both after and before getting married to each other. Doing this would make it less likely for any mentions of the pair's collaborations to be repeated throughout the body. To a lesser extent, their 3 kids have each also worked with both (and I have since found out that son Sir also appeared in the Black Is King movie along with both parents and his sisters). The rest of "personal life" could be rearranged without being subsections of that. Nevertheless, I do recommend waiting for others to leave comments before we close the reassessment, and on another note it's needlessly repetitive to use "Knowles" more than once in the opening sentence. Maybe later I'll dig deeper into the page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I also just realised i haven't fixed the dead links, so I'll get to that. 750h+ 12:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I added some cn tags to uncited statements in the article. Per WP:FORBESCON, some of the Forbes references should be replaced if the author is identified as a "contributor". The article, at over 14,000 words, is quite long and I think there are some sections that can be spun out or written more concisely as it is too much detail for this article. "Production" (under "Artistry") is just two block quotes, and should use summary style instead. I'm not sure "Interests" is encyclopedic and I think it can be removed from the article (random hobbies are probably too much detail for this article). I'm also skeptical that "Wealth" is encyclopedic, and I think there can be a discussion on its inclusion in the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I do believe details on net worth are good to have, even if not necessarily under a "Wealth" heading. Feel free to suggest other places it could be mentioned. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @SNUGGUMS: Is the wealth related to a significant milestone for Knowles? If so, it might be best to most the most notable aspects to the "Legacy" section. Another suggestion is to put the notable wealth milestones in the "Career" section when a wealth milestone happened. I do not think five paragraphs discussing her wealth is necessary in a Wikipedia article. Z1720 (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It minimally led to her and Jay-Z topping a Forbes "World's Highest-Paid Celebrity Couples" list, making a Guinness World Record for "highest-earning power couple", and first billion-dollar couple in the music industry. Solo achievements include being the "world's best-paid music personality" in 2008 and topping the 2014 Forbes "Celebrity 100 list". These were no small feats. I do however see what you mean on five paragraphs being overkill and trimming that down wouldn't hurt. Outside of what I named here, we could just stick with high rankings on earnings/net worth lists. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

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

• Keep The uncited statements can be deleted with no real effect to the article, the complaint is not about the substance of the article as a whole. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zxcvbnm, I think that not describing the game's "gameplay" in any real fashion would be a significant effect on the article, no? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, so someone removed text that was formerly cited and replaced it with uncited garbage. Then just revert it to the 2009 version of the text with the actual citation. I don't get people who say "woe is me, my hands are tied" when Wikipedia literally saves all histories of a page since its inception. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Zxcvbnm: It's sometimes not as simple as reverting the text: if an editor has added cited text to the article, reverting to an older edit might erase that additional information, so all of the text has to be checked to see if it should be in the article. There's still some uncited text: any interest in fixing this concern in the article? Z1720 (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

The article has uncited statements. It is also quite long, at over 10,000 words: I think some information can be spun out or removed because it is too much detail. The article has many block quotes, which are not needed for the reader to understand the context and contributes to its long length. Z1720 (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important subject. I'll at least take a look. Hog Farm _talk 04:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly this article appears quite notable, rated as high importance for US history, in that context I don't think I find its length objectionable or unmanageable.

Some quotes could be removed and summarised;

"We ... find that a part of your Majesty' s subjects, in the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, have proceeded so far to resist the authority of the supreme Legislature..."

"Whenever the army under command of General Gage, or any part thereof to the number of five hundred..."

--

Whereas I would oppose the removal of the quotes from participants in the battle that seems more relevant to the article at hand, without some other reason to suggest they represent a POV that should not be included, I think they are fine.

--

I am unable to find any statements in the article that are not cited at least at the paragraph level some uncited paragraphs exist but these appear entirely unobjectionable at least to me and the GA criteria are

> 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); LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is some touching-up that could be done here. I'm busy with work but I'll try to make a library run either this weekend or next weekend. Some of the tags confuse me - I don't know what needs further explanation about "Nearly a hundred barrels of flour and salted food were thrown into the millpond". I have doubts about the free license status of the Franklin Mint medal and have nominated it for deletion on Commons. Hog Farm _talk 16:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @LeChatiliers Pupper and Hog Farm: There are still some paragraphs that do not have citations. Is there still interest in addressing this concern? Z1720 (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still haven't had a chance to get to the library to try to get books for this. I don't know when I would have time to throw at this article for now even if I were to be able to pick up decent literature for this. Hog Farm _talk 21:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @LeChatiliers Pupper, Hog Farm, and Z1720: I have taken a quick look at the article. I have books in my personal library that I am reasonably sure can be used to upgrade the article, especially the citations. I do not know, of course, how much time will be needed to do the work. I think it could be a week or two before I will be able to spend a large amount of time on it. Donner60 (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      okay for clarity I didnt think there were citation concerns but if you clear anything that Hog or yourself find that needs cited that can only be good LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      

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

Result pending

Article has prose issues, particularly the active templates. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements are ongoing at Talk:Harold B. Lee Library#Addressing "sources too closely associated with the subject". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call those improvements just yet... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

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

• Keep: The article already makes abundant use of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, and I am impressed that such a general article comes in at only 10,425 words, which is perfectly in accord with WP:TOOBIG. I have reviewed the article and tagged every instance of a missing citation. Since none of the statements are controversial, I expect editors will fill them in now that they have been flagged. Demotion seems unwarranted and nonproductive. Patrick (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Patrick Welsh: I have added additional citation needed tags. The GA criteria states "All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph". The numerous citation needed tags (including for entire paragraphs and quotes) and the "additional citations needed" orange banners will need to be resolved before I can recommend that this article keeps its GA status. Z1720 (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure why you would add those redundant tags, which make the article look messier that it is.

  As long as the unsupported content is uncontroversial, which it is, I will remain opposed.

  Placing an artificial deadline on editors to make these improvements seems counter-productive. Patrick (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:TOOBIG isn't a hard rule; note that it says "> 9,000 words – Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." (emphasis mine) I think a general article about feminism should be on the larger side, and 10,000ish words isn't an exhausting length. The citation issues aren't major and can be remedied easily, eventually. Yue🌙 08:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Earth, one of the biggest scopes on Wikipedia, is under 9,000 words, so spinning off prose can be done. In my opinion, an article should be concise and spin out material into daughter articles instead of long, hard to load on slow internet connections, and have too much detail that distracts from the most important information. None of this negates the citation concerns which still exist in the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

80% of the feminist theory content of the page could be removed, and the page would lose nothing in terms of detailing what exactly feminism is. After a talk page discussion, I once removed an entire subsection on "architectural feminism" that was based on a single article from a feminist journal. If you Googled the subject, all that it returned was the Wikipedia page and the article itself. This is what I'm talking about: this article has chronic issues with detailed descriptions of incredibly minor topics, in this case one so minor it couldn't even warrant its own article. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: The article has had serious length and POV problems for years now. The article received GA status in 2011, just before the advent of "4th wave" feminism, when feminism itself was significantly narrower in scope. The anachronistic issues that once plagued this article have mostly been addressed, but length issues are still present.

Feminism today has become something personal for many people, which I think is the source of the POV and length issues. I honestly believe the only reason this article has maintained GA status for so long despite its glaring issues is that feminist editors see delisting it as an attack on feminism itself. Because of that, I doubt it will ever be delisted, even though it hasn't deserved GA status for nearly ten years. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are the POV issues? Patrick (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it stands for Point Of View issues. Basically using too many pronouns like "I," or "you," or including opinions. 66.110.254.14 (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right. Thanks! The policy is WP:NPOV.

My inquiry was intended to be about specific violations in this article, which should be addressed if they are based on high-quality sources, but disregarded if they are one editor's problem with the topic. Patrick (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, we generally use "keep" or "delist" at GAR. It can be confusing to say "support" or "oppose" because it isn't clear if that means you're supporting or opposing the delisting or the keeping of the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Concerns remain regarding sourcing and too much detail, and work seems to have stalled. Z1720 (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Hold I'll have a look in over the next week or two. I won't try to get it back to 6200 words, but I can trim some material, update stats and add citations where requested. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 21:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

There is a lot of uncited text. The article uses lots of block quotes, when Wikipedia recommends a summary style. The article is quite long: removing some of the block quotes might help with this, but there might also be places where the prose could be shorter. Z1720 (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in helping, although the timeline of GARs may be on the fast side relative to what I can contribute. I've put this and the article on my watchlist, and I'll see what I can do. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in helping also. Remsense ‥ 论 07:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: GARs now typically stay open for a month (or will be closed as "keep" early if concerns are resolved). If there's ongoing improvements it will remain open past that one month. Z1720 (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek and Remsense: are you still willing to work on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if they are still interested, but I will start addressing the uncited text and excessive block quotes now, so I would appreciate keeping this review open for a few more days. Thanks! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 20:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I have done the lead, Section 4, Section 5, and Adoption sections with some big cuts, mostly along Z1720's opening remarks that the prose is excessive, especially in block quotes to SCOTUS cases. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 04:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overhauled the Citizenship Clause, Privileges or Immunities Clause and Due Process Clause! Still have the Equal Protection Clause, state actor doctrine, Section 2, and Section 3 left to go. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 19:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done with Section 3 (Insurrection Clause), which I am particularly happy about since it was the impetus for the entire amendment. Furthermore, the old prose seemed to be a play-by-play of 2021-'24 disqualification cases rather than succinctly stating what Section 3 does and how it has been used. Still chugging along! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 04:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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) 04:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific - I see one overtly problematic paragraph (second paragraph of Sovietization), what other ones are of concern? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn: I have added citation needed tags where they are needed. Z1720 (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making some progress with the uncited sections, will keep working on it, I'll need four or five days. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm concerned with the broadness of this page. This is a polity of 70 years, but little is covered outside of History. I don't think a Geography section is needed given it would likely replicate current Armenia, but there should be coverage of the population and culture. Perhaps the article could have more on the raions and cities, and more on the economy and infrastructure. This was surely a time of huge change. Lastly, should there be an extended paragraph on the flag based only on the Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev? CMD (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the point is this is a page that will predominantly need to reflect a specific historical period and politics, population and culture will to a large extent be subsumed into that (for example, note the religious aspects discussed during the Thaw section). However, will try to address some of these issues. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Other aspects should not be subsumed under History on this article, that would only be the case for a dedicated History article (currently there is not one). As a comparison, consider East Germany. A much broader coverage of politics, administration, economics, demographics, and culture, as well as a Legacy section, possibly relevant here too. CMD (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW WP:SIZERULE; the DDR article is somewhat bloated. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think we may need to quick fail/delist this. I'm seeing some sections which appear to be close paraphrasing of "A concise history of the Armenian people: (from ancient times to the present)" by George A Bournoutian. The text previously referenced was the 5th edition, however I accessed the 2nd edition at the archive.org library, and this shows sections which have been simply reordered. I'll need to do a full check. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The DDR article is long because of its 4,000 word History section, this has little bearing on the rest of the sections. That's also more GACR3b, not GACR3a, which is the issue here. Thanks for the copyvio note, that's a rough find. I don't seem to have access at archive.org. Looking at early revisions, the 2006 version was initially cited[3]. CMD (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies, RL has delayed me on this, will be able to review the close paraphrasing within 48 hours. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Goldsztajn, did you ever get a chance to review the potential WP:CLOP? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @AirshipJungleman29 Apologies, March turned out to be busier than expected both here and in RL. Give me another day, please. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Any updates Goldsztajn? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @AirshipJungleman29 - apologies (again) for the delay. I've finally managed to go through the text more fully. As far as I can see, the first two paragraphs in the section "Khrushchev Thaw in Armenia" more or less paraphrase p.322 of George Bournoutian's A concise history of the Armenian people (2003). However, the I think the text in the body is sufficiently different. For example:

  • Bournoutian: "Stalin's death in 1953 opened a new era for Armenia and the rest of the Soviet Union. The first step towards this was to remove the pervasive control of the secret police."
  • Article: "Armenia underwent significant social and cultural changed in the aftermath of Stalin's death in 1953 ... During the subsequent Khrushchev Thaw Soviet leadership loosened the grip of the pervasive NKVD."
  • Bournoutian: "and rehabilitated dead communists executed during the Great Purge, such as Khanjian and Charents, as well as the releasing thousands political prisoners from the Siberian gulag. The works of Raffi and Raphael Patkanian were returned to print. In 1962, the massive statue of Stalin that towered over Yerevan was pulled down from its pedestal by troops and replaced in 1967 with that of Mother Armenia."
  • Article: "...enabled the rehabilitation of dead communists such as Khanjian and Charents, the release of thousands from the Siberian gulag, and the republication of Raffi and Patkanian. Stalin’s body was removed from Lenin’s tomb on Red Square; his large statue in Armenia was toppled and eventually replaced by one of Mother Armenia."
  • Bournoutian: "Khrushchev's changes in the economic sector were significant for Armenia as well. Large collective farms were divided into smaller ones. Armenia was permitted to plant other crops besides grain. Tobacco, vegetables, grapes and other fruits, more suitable to Armenia's soil and climate were planted."
  • Article: "Moreover, the Union-wide economic reforms affected Armenia, diversifying its grain production, farmers were permitted to cultivate small plots for their own personal use, and the newly-integrated production of livestock and various irrigation projects increased Armenia's agricultural output." (This is cited to Bournoutian).

  Goldsztajn (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I have added 2 citation needed tags in the "Military forces" section. Z1720 (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

There are uncited statements, including the entire "Filipinization of the university" section and several paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for reminding, will update in the coming days. I hope youll give me a sufficient time to overhaul the article. just a bit busy. KingTiger1611 (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some temporary references to that section; please read the edit summary. Queen Douglas DC-3 (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I added citation needed tags to the articles for the statements that need them. Z1720 (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Queen Douglas DC-3, KingTiger1611, and MultiJames95: do any of you intend to continue working on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm won't be able to provide any more time to it. Queen Douglas DC-3 (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, while you're here, University of Valle may need a GA reassessment too. Queen Douglas DC-3 (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I will continue to rehash the whole article. I hope the editors would be able to provide me ample time to extensively overhaul the article. Many thanks! KingTiger1611 (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KingTiger1611, how much time do you think you need? Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Id be given a few months... but ill try to reorganize the article as soon as possible. Thank you! KingTiger1611 (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

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

This article came about after being excised from the (large) parent article. Been ages since I looked at it - will do so at some point this week. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Casliber do you still intend to work on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A few bits and pieces (citing or removing the Cambodia section, also pondering about what to do with the Folktales section at bottom) and rejigging the lead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber, follow up poke, just checking you're still interested. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Will do over weekend. I have commented out unreferenced section as I suspect it will require more snooping than I am prepared to do currently - I'll make a note on the talk page for later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This hasn't seen any activity since December apart from one section being commented out, I'm inclined to close as delist unless someone intends to make improvements soon or there's a consensus to keep. Potentially this could be kept by excising the remaining unsourced material. @Casliber and AirshipJungleman29:, any thoughts? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had commented out the main chunk of material (I thought all of it...??? Oh, found and removed some more). The outstanding issue was rejigging the lead. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually not too sure what to do about the lead. Is a little small but as much of the article is quite listy in its content, it'd be making a mini-list in lead, which I don't think is that helpful Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I am unsure how to evaluate the broadness of this article. The article states that "the entity known today as the vampire originates almost exclusively from early 18th-century Central Europe", but the article body seems to extend the article to... anything that drinks blood? If the focus is the 18th-century mythology, then the continental division doesn't feel like it makes much sense. If the focus is anything drinking blood, or similar, then the balance between the sections seems very off (even then continental division seems unlikely to be related to vampires, but taking it as a rough category is probably fine). CMD (talk) 05:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chipmunkdavis, seems to me that one issue could be resolved by renaming the article "Vampiric folklore by region"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be highly suspect if the regions Vampiric folklore developed in turned out to be modern conceptions of continents. CMD (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    

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