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, 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, 86, 87, 88

The good articles listed below have been flagged for the attention of reviewers for reassessment. If reassessment is appropriate, please open a community reassessment and remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page. For cases where no reassessment is needed, remove the template from the article talk page.

• 2025-06-10 18:28:45: QuackShot
  

• 2025-06-16 13:19:33: Muammar Gaddafi
  

• 2025-08-07 20:05:27: Pies Descalzos
  

• 2025-09-01 18:45:06: SpongeBob SquarePants season 4
  

• 2025-09-12 04:43:02: Shamrock Rovers F.C.
  
• 2025-09-21 02:22:16: 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 • Most recent review

Result pending

One of the last 39 remaining entries at WP:SWEEPS2023, this 2009 GA promotion contains enough uncited text that it is an issue with WP:GACR. Hog Farm _Talk 01:22, 21 September 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) 13:52, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Uncited statements in the "Ride experience" and "Theme" sections. I also think the lead can be expanded upon to include all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

As noted earlier this year on the talk page, for basic GA breadth, the article is missing discussion of the compilation sequels: Crooning on Venus, Guitars on Mars, etc. Also the book (Ocean of Sound) and its companion compilation album are covered together in sources, indicating that they're part of the same entity. I wager that the book would be best represented within this article's scope rather than as a separate article. czar 01:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

There wasn't much post-2013 information, so I did a quick Google search and found out that he wrote a book in 2019 [1], and other sources that could be used in the article [2]. This makes me believe that the article needs to be updated with more current events. Z1720 (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

My rationale is at Talk:Suicide#GA status. I posted there first because I was hoping someone would be interested in addressing the concerns. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

The article relies heavily on unreliable sources. A 550-word plot summary is likely far too detailed for a 22-minute TV episode (including intro sequence and credits). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Uncited statements and an "update needed" orange banner at the top of the "History" section. Z1720 (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Added missing refs, and updated history with mines' closure and recent geopolitical significance. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 17:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Several uncited statements, especially in the "Accolades" section. Z1720 (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Big MOS/WP:V failures as identified by @MIDI: at both the DYK nom and the talk page. Launchballer 10:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

No post-2020 information in the prose, even though he is still an active player. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:29, 10 September 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) 14:25, 10 September 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) 14:11, 10 September 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 almost the entire "Reticle types" section. Z1720 (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

This was listed as a GA in 2014. Unsurprisingly, a lot of changes have been made since then, and unfortunately a lot of the recent ones introduce problems that -- while I don't have proof -- are very characteristic of LLM use. While there is no policy against AI-generated text, the issues here are specifically the ones like editorializing, undue emphasis on symbolism, superficial analysis, etc., that imply inherent WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problems that violate Good Article criterion #2. I'm not reviewing every diff -- and can't, because a giant swath of edits from 2021-2024 has been revdelled -- but here are some with issues.

• The edits by @Pwoli show consistent issues. To name a few: This one inserts a large wad of unreferenced, editorializing AI slop under the "Society and culture" section. This states that animal models play a central role in epilepsy research, an assertion of importance over other kinds of research that doesn't seem to be borne out by the source or in general. This inserts a lot of unsourced material like the assertion, with no citation, that delays in diagnosis are highlighting the importance of careful clinical assessment and appropriate use of EEG and video documentation, which may well be true but is still original research.
• The 2024 edits by Saraakwong also show signs of AI use. Some of these were reverted in the edits above (which is for the best since I found a hallucination in one of them), but at least one, this, may be an overly close paraphrase of the source material, judgment call.
• In general I see several uncited statements ending paragraphs. I'm not tracking down the origin because, again, it's entirely possible that I can't.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnomingstuff (talk • contribs) 19:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments:

• Animal models are hugely important in drug research. I think that "central role" is a fair and neutral description in this case. The cited source (which, if you would like, may be fairly criticized on WP:MEDDATE grounds, being ~12.5 years old) uses words like "valuable" and "urgent" and "needed" to describe animal models. If your personal priority for epilepsy is more like prevention or figuring out how many people have it, then I could imagine animal models seeming less important to you, but within the biomedical research community, this really is of central importance. No new AEDs should realistically be expected until there are useful new animal models.
• What you deride as a large wad of unreferenced, editorializing AI slop under the "Society and culture" section appears to me to be an attempt to comply with the WP:UPFRONT guideline, by giving a general summary of the long section. For example, the second sentence is People with epilepsy may experience social stigma, legal restrictions, economic disadvantage, and barriers to education and employment., and the next three subsections in this section are: "Stigma", "Economic impact", "Driving and legal restrictions". The fourth sentence says Efforts by advocacy groups and international organizations aim to improve public understanding, reduce stigma, and promote access to care and the fourth subsection is "Advocacy and support organizations". I doubt that this is best explained by assuming LLM use.
• In terms of "editorializing", I don't see anything in that paragraph that isn't just the plain facts. The plain facts are that people with epilepsy sometimes do experience stigma. They do get fired from their jobs. They do get kicked out of school (maybe not in your country, but in many). They do get rejected socially. Editorializing sounds like "Society should be more supportive of people with epilepsy". Editorializing does not sound like "Social consequences, such as educational exclusion, unemployment, and social isolation, further compound the impact on quality of life". The sentence in the article is just stating the facts. There are social consequences, and those social consequences hurt people with epilepsy.

I do think this article needs work, but I don't think that "AI slop" is actually one of its faults. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside that the entire first paragraph of this is redundant, vague, and unsourced, and that the treatment gap is mentioned twice and only defined the second time, by editorializing I mean stuff like the treatment gap underscoring the need for strengthened health systems and public health interventions, which is written from an advocacy perspective. Stating that a specific societal change is a "need" is an opinion, not a fact. Other people may have different opinions about what "the need" is: loosened regulations on pharmaceutical companies, or decoupling health insurance from employment, or research into alternative medicine, or abolishing capitalism entirely, or patiently staying the course with no policy change, or even that the treatment gaps is not a problem so no change is necessary. The same goes for cost-effective treatment strategies -- if someone can't afford treatment then by definition it's not "cost-effective" for them. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnomingstuff Seeing as Whatamidoing has already debunked the editorializing claim, can you expand on undue emphasis on symbolism, superficial analysis, etc., that imply inherent WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problems that violate Good Article criterion #2. Specifically can you identify the the cases of OR and SYNTH that led you to open the reassessment. I'm not sure how to help here when you haven't pointed out the inherent OR/SYNTH. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 08:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just explained it. I don't know how else I am supposed to get across, for instance, the fact that stating something is a "need" is an opinion. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I can see what you mean by the wording being odd (as Whatamidoing pointed out not all the odd wording is editorialization). I think the other odd wording may come from the fact that medical articles do say things like “cost effective treatment strategies” and “the need for…” and many people not well versed in medical talk then use those phrases, not understanding that the audience of a research paper is different than the audience of a wikipedia article.

Please correct me if i’m wrong here as I’m just trying to understand the issue at hand, but is your issue the odd wording (i haven’t looked at it enough to call it editorialization)? because if that’s your main concern then that’s a pretty easy fix and i can get started on that.

However you also mentioned that there is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH which you still haven’t shown evidence of. To make an claim of OR or SYNTH i’m assuming you looked at the sources and found that they did not support the claims being made, it would be helpful if you could just point out which sources and areas of text were the ones that led you to the conclusions of OR/SYNTH. I’m not asking for every instance of OR/SYNTH that you found, just whatever one led you to making that claim. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 07:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnomingstuff could i please get an update on this? I don’t want to get too into cleaning up the sources without knowing which ones had inappropriate SYNTH or OR attached to them. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 21:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry, as English is not my main language, I have used LLM in order to translate the things. If this had been AI slop, I would have simply copied and pasted directly from a language model. Instead, I used it as a tool to assist with rewriting, and I reviewed and adjusted the text myself. At no point did I copy and paste output directly. While I cannot provide proof of this process, I am being transparent in stating that I used the tool solely to support rewriting. Given that Whatamidoing has already debunked the claims, could we please remove the notice? You will probably think I used AI for this too, but I am just autistic and verbose. Sorry again, I am very ashamed for this whole situation. Pwoli (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that you needed to be ashamed of anything, I was just citing the specific diffs that I was referring to. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pwoli didn’t ever claim that you said they needed to be ashamed either. @Pwoli seems like they were just trying to help build the encyclopedia and because of english not being their main language and maybe not realizing they needed to adjust their language for Wikipedia may have used some wording that is indicative of AI. However just because something sounds like it could be AI doesn’t mean it is (which i know you know)and since we have now gotten confirmation that they did not copy and paste from AI I am going to go ahead and remove the banner until there is some evidence of AI usage. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 07:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

I was originally looking at the article seeing as it had a (now-declined) RFC, but then I noticed that the GA had a citation needed tag since October 2020, as well as some end-of-paragraphs not having a citation. The GAN was passed in 2008, and would likely be quickfailed under criteria 3 at its current state. This is my first GAN btw/ JuniperChill (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Whilst I believe some uses of {{citation needed}} are still passable under the GA criteria, I agree that this article is missing citations on too many claims, particularly at the end of paragraphs that should be cited. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 02:57, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

(I've never done this before so apologies if I am doing it wrong.) I believe this article was generated by AI, an issue that goes back to the first version. While the article creator has denied using AI for at least some tasks, there are just too many indicators -- and not just involving language quirks, but larger issues of puffery and synthesis. While we don't have a policy prohibiting using AI in articles, I do not think this meets Good Article standards as it currently stands, and I don't think it met them at the time either.

The bulk of the text was created in 2023 and originates in diffs like this, and much of that text still remains; citations were added later. The prose displays many tells of LLM use, particularly the ones -- e.g., undue emphasis on symbolism, editorializing, superficial analysis -- that inherently imply WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problems. There are too many examples to list here, but as an example, the article claims that a political party's choice of candidates was reflecting the ongoing discussions about religious and regional balance in politics. The source it's cited to does not mention anything about "ongoing discussion," being a largely analysis-free news update; literally, its only mention of religion is one word about the party platform. This kind of thing is just all over the place; elsewhere, the article asserts The nation's diversity is its strength, but the persistent use of such tickets can strain the delicate fabric of unity as a fact despite being an opinion attributed to no one, and the article it is cited to does not mention anything about diversity or unity, primarily mentioning media coverage and election logistics. A statement that the choice of one candidate was seen as a strategy to appeal to the northern regions is cited to a short news brief that, once again, mentions nothing even slightly related. All of this is very characteristic of trying to source synthesis after the fact.

As far as the good article criteria, WP:QF #3 doesn't count since I was the one who added the maintenance tag. But the issues above suggests the article doesn't meet criteria #2 or #4, nor did it at the time. Arguably it does not meet #1 because stuff like the nation's diverse socio-political fabric, revolves around the delicate balance, underscored the persistent debate, etc. is cliched puffery and also not concise at all (another issue brought up in the original nomination). Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:02, 9 September 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 statements tagged with "citation needed" since 2021 and entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Several uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 23:43, 8 September 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 several entries in the "Popular culture" section. The lead is also quite short and does not summarise all major aspects of this article. Z1720 (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done I added missing citations and copy-edited the page. In regards to the lead section I couldn't come up with any missing points. It mentions Hamnet's death and its potential influence on Shakespeare's work. His "life" section has +2 more paragraphs but I don't think there are too important for the lead. We can mention the 2025 film about Hamnet, which is rather popular? —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 08:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Some uncited paragraphs, including the entire "In popular culture" section. Z1720 (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

The lead is too short and does not cover all major aspects of the article. Meanwhile, there's an "Overview" section that could be merged with the lead and resolve this concern, but this information would need to be checked against the article body to ensure all information is cited in the article and trimmed for length concerns. The "Works" section is uncited, and the article is over 12,000 words in length, so it probably needs to be trimmed for information that is too detailed or can be summarised more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that there is a fair amount of reliance on primary sources (diary entries, contemporary army handbooks etc). In some cases these primary sources are the only source for a statement; at other times they are lumped in with other more reliable sources which points to WP:OVERCITE and WP:INTEGRITY issues. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:00, 8 September 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 throughout the article. There is an orange "expansion needed" banner from 2022 at the top of the "Myth interpretations" section. There are a lot of small, one sentence paragraphs, negatively affecting the readability of the article. These should be merged together or removed if the statement is not needed. Z1720 (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the citations point, the article already has over 400 of them plus around 50 entries in the bibliography. If anything, they need weeding out, perhaps seeing if the best sources have material that could be used instead of some of the weaker ones. I don't think that adding more references just to increase the density of citations/refs is a good idea. --Northernhenge (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Northernhenge: I do not think the GA criteria is concerned with the quality of the sources (as long as they are reliable) or if an article has too many. However, editors are encouraged to remove lower-quality sources if a higher-quality source can be used instead. However, all text in a good article should be sourced (with notable exceptions like the lead) which means the article will need additional inline citations and possibly additional sources. Z1720 (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a worthy thought but it concerns neither GA nor GAR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it's a rambling sea-beast of an article, but I've closed up a lot of short paragraphs, added refs, and removed a few bits of uncited or off-topic material. It should pass muster. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thoughts Z1720? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Chiswick Chap and AirshipJungleman29: I added a few citation needed tags to some minor statements. The "Etymologies", section has a lot of short paragraphs and I think that section can be formatted more effectively. Once those are resolved I think this is ready for a keep. Z1720 (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Closed up the 'Etymologies' paragraphs and added refs to the minor statements. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

Given it needs updating since 2016, I don't think this should stay a good article. Roast (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That marking is clearly incorrect as that chapter says: "In 2019, the Icelandic parliament passed the Gender Autonomy Act". So it was last updated in 2019.

Iceland has an archive over old newspapers at timarit.is, and searching there with the local name of the comitttee, mannanafnanefnd, shows (https://timarit.is/?q=mannanafnanefnd&size=10&isAdvanced=false ) that icelandic newspapers covered it 49 times in 2020-2029 compared to 258 in 2010-2019. Most of those are just new names being added to the allowed names list, which is not noteworthy.

I have a counter proposal. There was an attempt in 2020 to remove the comitee, which failed. I propose to add that, remove the outdated notice and close this reassesment as keep the good article status. Snævar (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You changed my mind—I agree with the counterproposal. Roast (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a quick look through the article, I agree with Snævar's assessment above about adding the attempted removal of the committee. I would also like to rearrange the formatting of the article a little bit to make it easier to find information and to remove the "Controversies" heading, which might not be NPOV. Lastly, if there isn't a wiki-article on the list of approved names (I could not find one) I suggest that this article give information and statistics on what names have been approved (% of male-female-non-gendered names, how many new names are accepted or removed by the commmitee each year, etc.) Here's my suggestion for format: Lead, Composition and mission (if this section becomes too large, it can be split. This should only refer to the current composision and mission), History, List composition (where stats would be added). I also think the current lead is too short and needs to be expanded to cover all aspects of the article, regardless of what is included as headings. Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine to have a vision, but there needs to be available sources for these improvements. There really is not a regularly updated statistic of approved names. Decisions made by the comitee are on https://www.stjornarradid.is/gogn/urskurdir-og-alit-/$LisasticSearch/Search/?SearchQuery=&Ministries=&Committee=Mannanafnanefnd&Year= and I think making a statistic out of that would run afoul of Wikipedia:No original research. There is a list of given names to newborns in an particular year since 2021 (https://www.skra.is/gogn/thjodskrargattin/vinsaelustu-nofnin/vinsaelustu-nofnin-2023/ is the link for 2023, the page is in Icelandic).

It is unclear what you are planning with the History section.

Icelandic Wikipedia has an outdated list of Icelandic names:

• Top used names
• Names used by 3-9 people
• Names used by 2 people
• Only one user (a-j)
• Only one user (k-ö)

Snævar (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

WP:CLOP identified at the DYK nom; courtesy ping to @RoySmith and AirshipJungleman29:. Launchballer 22:20, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had already fixed it. Is there anyone else who can help then? Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 22:33, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer and @RoySmith? Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 01:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Is this Good article assessment still on? We don't have any consensus to change anything so I think we can close it now. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 00:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer? Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 00:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, there remains close paraphrasing in this. I notice @EEng: removed two of the gnarlier instances but some still remains. For example:

• "The most sold marmalade is bitter orange with the largest share of 55% of sales, 40% by sweet orange marmalade, and 5% in total for all other marmalades. The quickest-growing type is sweet orange marmalade, because of an increasing consumer preference for milder flavours." is still too close to "Among the different types of orange marmalade, Bitter Orange Marmalade held the largest share at 55%, followed by Sweet Orange Marmalade at 40%. The "Others" sub-segment, which includes mixed fruit marmalade, accounted for 5%. The fastest-growing sub-segment was Sweet Orange Marmalade, driven by increasing consumer preference for milder flavors."
• "Asia Pacific is the fastest-growing region, from growing customer sales in countries like China and India." is too close to "Asia Pacific emerged as the fastest-growing region, driven by rising consumer demand in countries like China and India."
• "The narrator mocks the mother and child “that she could taste no greater delight than in making a fillagree basket for a spoilt child”" is too close to "The narrator mocks mother and child as well as the fawning Lucy Steele, whose behavior implies “that she could taste no greater delight than in making a fillagree basket for a spoilt child”".
• "The marmalade market lies in its versatility, cultural associations, and quality, making it a staple in households and gourmet menus around the world." is too close to "Its appeal lies in its versatility, premium quality, and cultural associations, making it a staple in households and gourmet menus worldwide."
• I also think the phrases "Robertson's was founded in 1864 by Paisley, Renfrewshire, grocer James Robertson and his wife Marion." and "authorise the use of the term "marmalade" as an alternative for “jam”" could be reworded as well.

One solution to the first is "Most marmalade sold is bitter orange (55%), though the quickest growing type is sweet orange (40%) due to rising demand for milder flavors" (you could probably get away with leaving off "other flavours comprise 5%"); I'll leave you to think of how to deal with the others.--Launchballer 01:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving me the suggestions. I fixed a couple of them here. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 03:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 14:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Superficial modification I'm afraid, and only of some of them.--Launchballer 14:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

As a 2012 nomination, this one hasn't held up.

• Very choppy prose. Lots of one- and two- sentence paragraphs.
• 21st century needs a copy edit. Lots of "In year, this happened. In year, that happened." type prose.
• Despite almost all of his singles having articles, many are not linked in the text.
• The article is very sparse on critical reception, themes of his music, vocal type, and other basic information on the structure of his albums.
• Lots and lots of unsourced sections.
• "Stated on Finding Your Roots" -- exactly how is one to verify this?
• Awards table should be split into its own page.
• Several unusable sources such as YouTube and Amazon. I already pruned a personal blog.
• ETA: Reviewer was blocked as a sockpuppet, and nominator has been inactive since 2014.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:21, 3 September 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 "History" section stops in the 1800s. Is there any additional information to add from the article from the 1900s or 2000s? Any information that should be added about post-WWII migration? The "Demographics" section doesn't have post-2008 information, so this section probably needs to be updated. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 1 September 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. At over 14,000 words long, the article needs to be trimmed of too much detail. Z1720 (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good Article With how good his career has been, and all the notable events and moments in his career, I honestly don't see how it could be trimmed. Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This article has just over 15,000 words, which is in the 'Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed.' category on WP:TOOBIG, though I don't really see where this article can be trimmed as mentioned above. I also feel this article is sufficiently broken up into sections that are one or two paragraphs long that the length isn't as much of an issue as it would be on articles that are just huge walls of unbroken text.

Could you provide examples of the uncited claims made in the article? SnowyRiver28 (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Servite et contribuere and SnowyRiver28: I have added "citation needed" templates in the article after the phrases and paragraphs that are missing citations. These need to be resolved before I can recommend a keep designation. As for the length: the article does not need a paragraph (or multiple paragraphs) for each tour and tournament in which he participated in per year. Instead, the biography should summarise the most notable events in his career and other information should be moved to other articles or removed as too detailed. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, I can see where citations are missing now, no idea how I didn't notice that before! Thanks for adding the tags :)

Whilst GA criteria doesn't require all citations to be absolutely perfect (it allows for some citation needed tags), I think the sheer number of them present here (roughly 40) means something is amiss. I might have a go at adding some citations to the article and I'll reply here if I make any significant progress.

As for the trimming, I do see your point about not needing such detail for tours and games, particularly when they have their own main articles. I would agree that it can be trimmed to only include detail that is important and specific to the subject, and that content that describes the game or series on a more general scale can be removed and left for its main article. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SnowyRiver28 It is 1:27AM where I am so I might not reply to your next reply till later, but basically what I am arguing is that there are some articles where over 15,000 words might be acceptable. Smith is known for his unorthodox batting style, comparisons to Don Bradman, and much more (But I am somewhat tired and just a bit hungry so might not be at be my best RN) like initially being an All Rounder, but he still did some bowling, although he hasn't bowled in Test Cricket since 2023. I might be able to find some to trim. Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:42, 15 September 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. There's also an "updated needed" orange banner at the top of the "Modern overview" section, where the 2020 census demographic information should be added. The article is also almost 10,000 words long, and I think some information can be trimmed like older census information or promotional/touristy prose. Z1720 (talk) 01:09, 1 September 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 lots of short, one-sentence paragraphs, especially in the later "History" sections that should be merged together. Some of these are uncited so that will need to be resolved while the mergers take place. There is also no post-2013 information: on the talk page, it was mentioned that this sometimes happens when there's no historical information to mention, but a Google search yielded some results about its infustructure and the Pulaski Skyway article (which carries the route) has some post-2013 information in it, so I think this article can be updated. Z1720 (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist The sourcing is just so poor that the entire article would need rewriting if this were fixed. Around 22 out of the 36 sources used are primary (maps, government statements, laws etc). This for instance is the most cited source. Another two sources are literally pictures of road signs! The article is essentially original research drawing on primary sources. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

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]
• Delist The sources in it currently are unreliable/trivial, it needs a full rewrite using the sources I have put on the talk page. Right now it certainly fails GA criteria. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:57, 31 August 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 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]

I have a copy of Greene's work on the battle published by Savas Beatie on the way. I will take a look here once that arrives. Hog Farm _Talk 22:20, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It will be about another week before I can do any work on this. I need to do the work on the P.G.T. Beauregard reassessment first, among a few other Wikipedia and real life tasks. I do consider this of top importance to U.S. (and perhaps even British) military history. Donner60 (talk) 20:03, 16 September 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) 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]

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]

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]

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: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], 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]

Briefly, I don't find these to be major gaps, since they're already covered in part. The "Making It Up as We Go Along" author is affiliated with the school and the other sources are local news filling in minor details. Reviews of schools at their opening is not traditionally something that would appear in reliable sources. I can reorganize it if it's causing a readability issue. czar 00:24, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Thanks for your analysis of the sources. Normally I would agree with your comments about the reviews at its opening, but AFS was/is a very unique and controversial school structure. I think critical commentary of the school at its opening is notable and relevant. Z1720 (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

No longer any uncited text. Ce'd a lot of it. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

an event in 2021 where Hilaria was interupted by/interupted her husband at a red carpet event. Seems like that event would fall under WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTDIARY. Some1 (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Some1: When I did a search for sources, this event was mentioned by several sources: some included critical commentary as a possible example (or how it should not be an example) of Mansplaining/manturupting (sources: [8], [9], [10].) I think the extensive coverage of the event means this should be mentioned in the article.

Also worth noting that Baldwin is a contestant on the upcoming season of Dancing with the Stars so information about that will also need to be added to the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Sun (your first link) is a tabloid newspaper, and the other two sources don't constitute "extensive coverage". I agree with you, though, that her being a contestant on the upcoming season of DWTS should be mentioned in the article and am actually surprised that it hasn't been added yet (I had actually came to this article because of the DWTS cast reveal!). I'll get the DWTS stuff added to the article. Some1 (talk) 17:27, 14 September 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 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]

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]

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]

• Feel free to ping me when ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 20:44, 28 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 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]

I was going to check out what Z brought forth, once again at the behest of the now-retired nominator, but after zmbro's points I don't know if I have it in me to fix the whole thing. mftp dan ^oops 12:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, I have some time on Saturday afternoon (EDT) to address whatever concerns there are with this. Doesn't look frightfully difficult. But you can expect me then. mftp dan ^oops 17:04, 11 September 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. 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]

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]

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]

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]

• Article at History of Berkhamsted has been created. The history here can now be edited down to a readable size for a town article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I've reduced the history section by 46% but it can still probably sustain significantly more pruning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Section 'Sites of interest' renamed 'Historic buildings' and bulleted list converted to prose (MoS). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Most sections cleared of superflous detail (especially from items that have their own articles) and restructured for better page clarity. Unsourcable items removed. Still to do: Section 'Demography', 'Economy and commerce', check for images still needing alt text. Entire article (text) is now 46% of the original GA without losing any essential content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Z1720, I now have the datata for updating the demnographics. I'll insert them as soon as I have time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added citations to most of the previously uncited statements. Dormskirk (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I have added body text reference to her death year and an additional reliable source on that. A brief search of available online sources doesn't turn up anything from a non-commercvial gallery source to add to what's in the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:30, 10 September 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 entire paragraphs in the "Reformations: 1994–present" section. Z1720 (talk) 14:15, 27 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. 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]

I think that the article definitely needs a lot of refinement and editing. I'd be happy to work on it, but as it's so large it wouldn't be overnight—whether that affects or does not affect the reassessment, I'm not sure. I'm assuming that if good article status was removed it could then be added back once the article is at a higher standard? PunkAndromeda (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PunkAndromeda: Thanks for offering to work on this. A GAR will remain open while edits are ongoing. Feel free to ping me if there are any questions or ths article is ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 01:28, 1 September 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 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]

As always, thanks for the detailed nomination laying out a roadmap for needed improvements, Z1720. Fairly confident that I am finished with Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Legal history of cannabis in the United States/1, so I can commit to taking this on, albeit slowly. I plan to use Barron and Dienes' First Amendment Law in a Nutshell for guidance on the major cases, given that there are hundreds of SCOTUS opinions in this area. I also hope to reduce direct citations to cases themselves if not outright eliminate them in favor of more clearly secondary sources like law review articles. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 23:16, 18 September 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) 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. There is also a "single source" orange banner at the top of the "Ancient India" section. Z1720 (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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]
    

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]

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]

I've added citations for all of the tags. FlairTale (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am always wary of adding citations to uncited material—as opposed rewriting and adding citations—as experience shows that it is often something of a cosmetic fix. A brief spot-check reveals that this is also the case in this instance. Citing Wikisource:Comic book code of 1954 for the statement To address public concerns, in 1954 the Comics Code Authority was created to regulate and curb sex, drugs and violence in comics, marking the start of a new era. is not adequate. Likewise, the source added to the passage Ajax/Farrell Publishing's 1954–55 revival of the Phantom Lady; Strong Man, published by Magazine Enterprises in 1955; Charlton Comics' Nature Boy, introduced in March 1956, and its revival of the Blue Beetle the previous year; and Atlas Comics' short-lived revivals of Captain America, the Human Torch, and the Sub-Mariner, beginning in Young Men Comics #24 (December 1953). In the United Kingdom, the Marvelman series was published from 1954 to 1963, substituting for the British reprints of the Captain Marvel stories after Fawcett stopped publishing the character's adventures. only covers the Marvelman stuff. Those are just the first two newly-added citations I checked. TompaDompa (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few checks later, it is obvious that there are still massive sourcing issues here. TompaDompa (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I might also add that the "Collectibility" section contains a list of various magazine issues (presumably collectibles) without any clear inclusion criteria for that particular selection of issues. TompaDompa (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• @Alpha Beta Delta Lambda: are you still interested in working on this? Z1720 (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Z1720 Sorry, no. You can close this GAR as demoted now. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 21:13, 20 September 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 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]

I boldly purged several unsourced paragraphs that had been added by Ddddemonstrate and their socks between 2022 and 2024. However, this does not necessarily mean the GA status should be kept, as many other sentences remain unsourced, and the recent edit warring may be indicative of missing or disputed information in the article. Yue🌙 04:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i have cited all the citation needed tags as well as removed words that fall out of context. I think this is good to go! Do you still find any other issue? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:11, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, just as I was doing the same. Looks good now Kowal2701 (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yue, @Kowal2701 and @SafariScribe thanks so much for your work on this article. I went through and fixed dead links and added some maintenance tags to any issues I found while doing that. The following tags are currently on the article:

• 1 [permanent dead link]
• 2 [citation needed]
• 3 [better source needed]

I will now do a spot check to see if the sourcing issues remain. Spot check numbers are based on this version.

[30]: N completely unrelated at least on the page cited and those near it

[32]: N I see no discussion on etymology

[57]: N doesn't support "Igbo-Ukwu has one of the oldest glass productions in West Africa". Also, "over 600 prestige objects including complex cast copper-alloy sculptures and more than 165,000 glass and carnelian beads" is almost a word for word copy of the source which is copyvio

[141]: I don't know, the source is ten pages long and I don't want to read through the whole thing. A page number would be useful.

[149]: N doesn't support "Everyday houses were made of mud with thatched roofs and bare earth floors with carved design doors. Some houses had elaborate designs both in the interior and exterior"

These were the only five checks I did, so it's clear the source-text integrity issues run deep into this article. I think a full check of every citation will be needed to be confident this article is up to GA standards. IAWW (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If 80% of the refs are misrepresented, then this doesn’t seem salvageable barring a complete rewrite Kowal2701 (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that I didn't spot check many journals due to access issues. Those citations may have better TSI, though I don't think it matters that much. IAWW (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@It is a wonderful world, @Kowal2701, and @Yue, I will do the source review. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:24, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what the point of a source review is as part of this GAR if the article doesn't pass the spot check IAWW (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I say source review, I mean finding sources that doesn't work or meet our source criteria and adding a better reliable one. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:06, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources for "Demographics" are absolutely good to go
  

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]

@Dentsinhere43: Have you concerns been resolved? Z1720 (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After a re-read and a spotcheck, I think it's fine now. - Dents (talk2me 🖂) he/him btw!!! 08:29, 15 September 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 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]

• @Donner60: Thanks for your comments. This will remain open as long as editors are interested in fixing it up. There's no rush to delist. Z1720 (talk) 19:35, 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]

@Donner60 and Hog Farm: Are you still interested in fixing up this article? It seems like edits have stalled. Z1720 (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is still fixable. The main uncited content left is in the section about post-war political views; the sentence about him risking execution is dubious and I have removed it, along with a trivial unsourced statement about a movie from the legacy section. The other uncited text in that section is largely generic stuff about Reconstruction in Louisiana that shouldn't be overly hard to cite . I've made a gloss of what SCV camps are and have removed the further explanation tag. One source which is used three times is self-published and I have tagged it as so - of the uses two are also matched with citations to Williams and the other is the English translation of the poem. Donner or Z1720 - are there any objections to removing the long block quote poem? I'm not sure if quoting at that length is really warranted. Hog Farm _Talk 21:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I'd remove it. It's not immediately evident why it is there, so it is better to remove as this is not wikiquote. Z1720 (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 and Hog Farm: I am still interested in fixing this article. I had to do considerable work in the past few weeks on a rather lengthy presentation about the end of World War II. It was for the 80th anniversary of Japan's formal surrender and I had some interesting items to show as well. I also had to be prepared for questions. I have had a few coordinator tasks and some real life to attend to as well. This week I should have time to see if I can add the needed citations. In fact, I had it up on my screen to refresh my memory on what is needed when I saw your message. I think that there is not much more needed other than citations and a little editing or deleting in later sections. I agree that it is best to remove the block quote. I do want to finish this as quickly as possible so I can work on the Siege of Yorktown article, which I believe is of top importance. It came up later than this one so I had placed in second in line for my attention. Donner60 (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As to the unreliable sources - if it can be confirmed that the pages in Williams also cited for those paragraphs support all that text, then the citations can just be removed. I don't own a copy of the Williams biography but I think I ought to be able to pick up a copy from a library later this week. Hog Farm _Talk 23:52, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have the Williams biography and should be able to discover whether it includes the uncited material. That's not to say that any additional look would not be helpful - if not much time or trouble needs to be taken to do it. Donner60 (talk) 05:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I got a 1955 copy of the Williams biography from the regional university library; the pagination is consistently different by 13 pages so the original author must have been using another edition. The content added from the non-RS source appears to have been added by Aearthrise, who was blocked from the articlespace in 2024 for disruption related to ethnic groups. I have removed what could not be found in Williams. This has resulted in removal of the blockquote and there is less content on this - the previously-existing text had some selective focus, as it did not mention the utter failure of the movement. Hog Farm _Talk 01:30, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 and Donner60: - I think the whole Views of Race section needs to be closely looked over. I will go ahead and ping Aearthrise to this discussion (previous mention was link but no ping) as I am quite concerned about this content. this edit by that user does not appear to have been accurate, as Infrogmation has pointed out, as noted at Talk:P. G. T. Beauregard#Streetcars, cable cars, and trams. The dubious content about execution was added here by the same user. There are other such things. For instance In the years following the beginning of Reconstruction, Beauregard's opinions changed. Unlike other ex-Confederates, his economic situation improved, and his native home of Louisiana seemed soon to be redeemed from the Reconstruction Period. Beauregard played a prominent vocal role in Louisiana during Reconstruction, and he began writing many letters, gave interviews, and made speeches about almost every issue of that time is cited to Williams p. 266. Comparing the copy I have, stuff lines up to what is on p. 266 except for there's no clear statement about his views changing. There is reference to a public letter in which Beauregard proposed accepting some of the outcomes of the war such as black suffrage, but then p. 267 calls this "completely pragmatic". So I think we'd want a clearer source to make this statement than what is available there. I really think that this section, which was added post-GA promotion, was added largely to promote certain POVs. I think it is worthwhile to note that the user who added that material has since been blocked from the articlespace for pushing POVs and being disruptive regarding ethnic groups, particularly Creole groups, of which Beauregard was a member. Hog Farm _Talk 03:20, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking up the Williams book and noting the extent to which it supported the text. I am glad you highlighted the dubious information and found out more about its placement in the article. I think my approach probably would have just been to see whether or not the wording of the later sections could have been verified from Williams without realizing the background. Donner60 (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts on this are to take the Views on Race section, summarize down what can be supported in Williams or other RS, and then place a reasonably trimmed version of that content into the existing Post-bellum career section while dividing that other section into subsections. For instance, the Louisiana Unification section is already covered in a lesser degree of detail in the Post-bellum career section; verifiable material can be used to beef up the post-bellum coverage some. I'm not convinced that the current amount of detail regarding the Waukesha meeting, the Lincoln quote, or some of the other stuff. But I'm hesistant to conduct such a major rearranging and trimming without a consensus here to point to. Hog Farm _Talk 15:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending