Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria (GACR). GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. The GAR Coordinators — Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings — work to organize these efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the {{@GAR}} notification template, or make a comment on the talk page.

Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including not meeting the general notability guideline, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment can be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles can be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delist.

Before opening a reassessment

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.
2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
3. 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.
4. 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 week.
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 week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
   • If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.

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

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
  

• 18:53:34, 07/10/2024: Life with My Sister Madonna
  

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

• 07:13:18, 30/11/2024: Temper (film)
  

• 18:22:47, 09/12/2024: The Springfield Files
  

• 18:12:06, 11/12/2024: Survival of the Fittest (The Spectacular Spider-Man)
  
• 10:00:31, 12/12/2024: Current date for reference

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

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

Result pending

I think this article cites too many primary sources to be a GA. This inevitably leads to some synthesis. By my count, 96 of the cited references are to the group's own publications. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

I have been aware of this article for some time, but have been reluctant to bring it forward to GAR. It is the last surviving music-related A-Class article, is a band I enjoy listening to, and for a while I believed I could save it. Alas, it has caught the attention of the community, and I believe that the time has come to restore it or delist.

When I was new to Wikipedia 10 years ago, this article was in good shape, and the band broke up only months into my time as a Wikipedian. Time has not treated the band's article kindly; they faded into obscurity while inactive, then regrouped and never really regained the spotlight, and consequently, proper care on Wikipedia. The GA nominator has been retired some 15 years.

The main concerns initially brought forward were lack of sourcing (2c), unreliable sourcing (2b), and a lead that's too short (1b). I personally that the article's breadth of coverage is suspect in its current state (3a), but the previous issues I would agree are the primary issues.

I believe this can be saved with some work, but I am probably too busy to do it alone in a reasonable amount of time, and would welcome any who are interested in assisting me. Also @Z1720: here we go. Sorry, been a very very very busy week. mftp dan ^oops 23:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the prose in this article is, at times, less than satisfactory, but I am up to the task. mftp dan ^oops 22:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a significant improvement to the lead. It is not quite what I'd consider ideal, as I need to read the rest of the article, but I took some notes from the original GA version (yes, believe it or not that old piece of 2007 junk helped) and it's certainly not as bad before. mftp dan ^oops 00:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Not a fan of the overlong and confusing prose, and that line in lead about being a "band to watch" in 2004 really makes them look like a former hype band. I think it has the groundworks to become a good article (you could try speedrunning??) and has plenty of citations to work with, but as it is now, it's pretty bad. // Chchcheckit (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I was supposed to comment but accidently delisted it Facepalm sorry // Chchcheckit (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All good, I think (?) I reverted all the script edits that were made in light of the accident. Give me a week and let me see what I can do. I know it needs work, but I think I can handle it if I adjust my editing focus. If I can't get it by then, we can proceed to delist. mftp dan ^oops 15:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Chchcheckit: Do you remember when we worked together on Until the End (Kittie album) and there was a really old reference I couldn't make display anything, and then you did something to fix it? How did you do that? There's a very very old reference from the band's original label in here, and it's a longshot but I'd like to ask if you remember what you did. Worth a shot. mftp dan ^oops 01:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Which one Chchcheckit (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Remember when you changed Metal Exiles to make it appear different? I never really figured out how you did what you did, and on the offchance of a miracle I hoped I could do whatever that was here. mftp dan ^oops 02:27, 12 December 2024 (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 prose, including entire paragraphs. The "Gallery: 1910s Panorama" and "Gallery: other illustrations" should probably be removed for WP:NOTGALLERY and their images redistributed in the article or removed. Many short one- or two-sentence paragraphs should probably be merged for readability, particularly in the "Baseball" section. Z1720 (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have boldly removed the images and moved the seating capacity chart out of its own section. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

There's uncited information, particularly in the "Vaisakhi Parade controversy" section. The article also does not give any post-2010 information on this BLP. Z1720 (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

This article has some wonderful prose. Unfortunately, it also has some uncited sections, including entire paragraphs. Some of the uncited text has been marked with "citation needed" since August 2020 and August 2022. While some citations were added earlier this year, there is still some work to be done. Hopefully, this GAR will bring additional editors who will help fill in the missing references needed. I also think the "21st-century" section needs a review to remove the non-notable information and merge the short paragraphs together: a subject-matter expert would be helpful here to evaluate the information for its notability. Z1720 (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 21st century section is very well cited, as is the entire page. Not only does this rate its 'good article' status, it should be promoted to a feature. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there's still uncited text, and this should not be taken to FA status without it being fixed. 750h+ 15:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

I have only briefly reviewed the article but I found at least two cases of plagiarism, and several cases of unverified claims, so the article does not meet GA2c and GA2d. Borsoka (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism:

• The adjective Angevin is especially used in English history to refer to the kings who were also counts of Anjou...

• "...any of the Plantagenet kings of England, especially those who were also counts of Anjou..." [1] p. 59

• As far as it is known, there was no contemporary name for this assemblage of territories, which were referred to—if at all—by clumsy circumlocutions such as ….

• "...there was, so far as we know, no contemporary name for this assemblage of territories. When anyone wanted to refer to them there were only clumsy circumlocutions available” (Gillingham 2001, p. 2)

Unverified claims

• References 26, 61, 83, and 84 do not verify the relevant texts in the article. Borsoka (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the GAN discussion, I do not think a phrase as basic as "were also [job descriptor]" can be considered plagiarism. There's probably one other way to rephrase that at which point it becomes so basic as to not be a copyright issue. Otherwise, I have no comment on the points raised. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no access to the sourcing so I can't fix any ref issues but I attempted to rephrase the second one. Is that satisfactory on that front? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article needs a comprehensive review taking into account that Norfolkbigfish's relaxed approach towards copyvio is well documented. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to propose we Doug Coldwell him, feel free to take that to ANI, but that's beyond the scope of any one review given he has several. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am close to take them to ANI but instead I give them (again) a last chance. I do not want to get rid of them, but to persuade them to start to improve WP instead of disrupting it with plagiarism, unverified statements and typos. Borsoka (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

The article does not have any information post-2019, and the "Publication history" section ends in 2015. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Z1720, I just expanded the legal issues section which was incomplete. Aside from the new sources on that, there isn't much sourcing that isn't already in this article, and I can't find any reliable secondary sources past 2016.

I plan to get this article to GA standard by:

• Rewriting the lead
• Incorporating this source
• Round off the "Publication history" section by glossing over 2016-2024 using primary sourcing to the treats website

Let me know if you think that would do the trick! It is a wonderful world (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @It is a wonderful world: I think that would be a massive improvement to the article, and I'm excited to review it when these are completed. Another idea is that you can look for additional sources in various databases like Google Scholar, WP:LIBRARY, or your local library system. Someone might have published a source about Treats that focuses on their later years. Feel free to ping me when this is ready for a review. Z1720 (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Z1720, I believe I have carried out the changes. Feel free to review.

  I must say I struggled on this one, I felt the sourcing left little to work with, but I hope I did a good job. I couldn't find any more sourcing in any libraries or scholar. It is a wonderful world (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

The article has uncited statements, some labelled with "citation needed" since April 2023. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to resolve both issues. --Chronicler Frank (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Z1720, the statements have citations and the lead was expanded. --Chronicler Frank (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Concerns addressed and resolved. Z1720 (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

There are lots of uncited statements, including short one-sentence paragraphs. There are some unreliable sources used, such as IMDB and PR Newswire, which should be replaced. The 2020-present inforamtion is quite scarce. Is there any information to add here? Z1720 (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely not planning on fixing up the entire article (as it's very long and far beyond my current skill level as an editor), however I have taken the liberty to swap out the IMDB and PR Newswire citations in lieu of more-reliable sources per this GAR. Leafy46 (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Uncited text, including an entire section. Z1720 (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When I checked I found two sections, #Boranes and #Organoboron chemistry without sources. However, both have "Main" or "See also" which is a place where there are probably a few sources. I think a post to WT:Chemistry is appropriate, plus perhaps a little tagging to make it clearer what the concerns are. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ldm1954, an article with GA status is required to have all the sources in the article. Otherwise, you could have an entirely unsourced article with lots of "Main" or "see also" links and none of the article's content actually verified. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I posted to WT:Chemistry (the right Project, it seems they were not notified on the talk page), and it looks like @Plantsurfer, Preimage, and Smokefoot: are making edits. I will defer to them to respond to any concerns @Z1720 and @AirshipJungleman29 have. I have only done a few GA (both sides), they are not as bad as applying for tenure, but there are similarities. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954: Thanks for doing that. Feel free to ping me when this is ready for another review, or if there are any questions. Z1720 (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

This article has several uncited passages, including entire paragraphs, and several "update needed" orange banners throughout the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to work on this if I have time. I am the primary contributor, but am less active now. AaronY (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2024 (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. The "Khandoba's actual visit and temples:" section is a list without context. What is this, and why is it important? The lead is quite short, and doesn't address all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Z1720 for pointing it out. Over time, various users have added uncited text in the article. Will cleanup Have removed the uncited section "Khandoba's actual visit and temples:", which seemed as a random list of temples. However, most of the article is still cited.

Will rewrite the lead. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Z1720, have cleaned up the uncited text. About the lead, IMHO it covers major aspects. However, welcome to hear suggestions about which sections need to be covered in more detail. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Redtigerxyz: The lead looks a lot better with the expanded text. I added two "citation needed" tags: these need to be resolved. There's also a lot of sources listed in "Further reading": does the article address the main aspects of the subject, or can these sources be used to add information on a major aspect? Z1720 (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

The history section stops at 1956. While other sections of the article mention other events and products, I think the history section should be updated with more information or the prose in the article reformatted. Additional sources could also be looked for. There doesn't seem to be any post-2015 information anywhere in the article. The last paragraph in "History" is uncited, and the lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is much to say about the history of the pancake machine. Keep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2024 (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 text, including many entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might take on this, but it won't be quick. Much of the uncited stuff is pretty WP:SKYISBLUE, like this para:

All the medieval buildings that are now cathedrals of England were Roman Catholic in origin, as they predate the Reformation. All these buildings now serve the Church of England as a result of the change to the official religion of the country, which occurred in 1534 during the reign of Henry VIII.

Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In its current form, as well as the amount of unsourced commentary, the article lacks focus on its title, particularly the rambling historical background. Maybe it could instead be re-structured around common features in English cathedral buildings with contrasting examples of each feature. Clearly a lot of work has gone into the article which needs to be kept somehow but, over time, it seems to have drifted away from its initial aim. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's one way of doing it, perhaps not the best. But it doesn't really have a bearing here. Johnbod (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of what we'd need to do to keep it meeting the criteria. Currently, in my view, it has problems in 2b (inline sources) and 3b (staying focused). --Northernhenge (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "we", are you intending to do anything yourself? Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant “we” collectively – I’m happy to help as part of a group but it’s not a subject I know anything about really. I agree with your previous comment! --Northernhenge (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod and Northernhenge: can you provide an approximate timeframe for your work on this article? No rush. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won’t be directly involved. It’s not my subject and, as Johnbod said, my idea was “not the best. But it doesn't really have a bearing here”. I’m happy to leave it to the experts, but can help with length, phrasing, reference formatting etc where appropriate. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've made a start, but I'm not making promises. This is a very busy time of year for me (until c. 10th January), but I'll see what I can squeeze in. Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I think I'm finished. Re "Maybe it could instead be re-structured around common features in English cathedral buildings with contrasting examples of each feature" - that seems to me to pretty much how it is structured. A number of generalizing sections followed by concise individual entries. If anything there are too many longish lists of ones with feature A, followed by a list with feature B. Fortunately I have 2 strong book sources, one taking the generalizing approach, and the other with several pages on each example. The basic material was good, & I haven't needed to change much, in fact mostly just adding touches. I'm very confident this meets GA requirements. Johnbod (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice work Johnbod. The "Famous features of the cathedrals" section is a little unorthodox in its organisation, but it's essentially a list, so I don't think MOS:OVERSECTION applies. I think this is good enough to Keep. Thoughts Z1720? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure if the list should be in this article, but if others think its fine then I'm fine with it as well. I added some citation needed tags in places that I think need a source to verify the information. This would need to be resolved before I would recommend a keep. Z1720 (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you may need to be patient. I'm not sure we need the bit on Sherborne Abbey, which hasn't been a cathedral since 1075 & isn't otherwise mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm happy for this GAR to remain open and to wait a long time for concerns to be addressed. If the Sherborne Abbey information isn't needed, I'd support removing it. Z1720 (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

There are several uncited statements. There are lots of one-sentence paragraphs which were not in the article when this passed GAN. Is all of this information notable Can all of this information be merged together into multi-sentence paragraphs? IMDB is used as a source, which is considered unreliable. Can another source be found to replace these? Z1720 (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we not just roll it back to an older version or trim out the unsourced/poorly sourced stuff? It doesn't strike me as insurmountable personally, especially considering I doubt there's many recent/new developments to be retained in a song like this... Sergecross73 msg me 02:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The GA version from 2010 also used IMDB as a source, so that would need to be resolved. The uncited stuff could be trimmed out, but some of it might be necessary in the article for it to be complete: I'll let subject-matter experts decide that. Z1720 (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The unsourced one-line statements can mostly if not entirely be excised. The IMDB source seems to be limited to soundtracks, which can almost certainly be sourced elsewhere (e.g., the movie credits) and if not those are not essential to the article. Rlendog (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if its at full FA/MOS-level acceptance, but generally speaking, the music WikiProjects don't even require sources for track listing unless they're unreleased or particularly contentious for some reason. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to work on the article. I think rolling it back risks losing some useful info such as the 2015 release. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few small changes and tagged where some more are needed. Please feel free to add other tags. I'll try to maintain NPOV despite seeing Dylan give three amazing live performances of the song at the Royal Albert Hall this month! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BennyOnTheLoose, do you intend to continue work on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29 Yes, I hope it won't need too much effort now. Feel free to ping me after about another week. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's probably back to GA standard now, but please tag any further issues. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

The article uses lots of long block quotes: these create copyright concerns and make the text very long. I suggest that these are summarised, reduced, or removed. The article is over 11,000 words and contains too much detail: WP:TOOBIG recommends that articles of this size are spun out to other articles and the prose reduced. I think summarising the block quotes will help with this, as well as removing other material. The article also contains uncited prose. Z1720 (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the quotes in this article provide no substantive contribution to it, and seem to be included only for aesthetic reasons. You could argue that this article also uses too many images for the same reason. Removing some of these would be for the best. As for prose issues, I've been working on cleaning up the worst of it (the Personal life section). genderBiohazard (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GenderBiohazard: I see that you started working on the block quotes. Are you planning to continue working on this? Z1720 (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but any help is appreciated. genderBiohazard (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TOOBIG helps ensure articles stay within WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, but in this case (and for many other biographies) it's not clear what the sub-articles might be. The existing main articles do point to obvious places to be cut (eg. the Collective security and the League of Nations, 1936 subsection is a lot for one speech and has some prose issues, and the background in Wollo famine could be condensed), but in general I would not delist a slightly longer biography with no sub-articles just for size reasons. The various bits of unsourced text is more of an issue. CMD (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the article is rather long but not absurdly so, and the material is very evenly distributed among the biographical sections, and almost all properly cited too. I'm accustomed to hiving off lists and bibliographies and so on into subsidiary articles, but there's really nothing here that would make sense to split out. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it was between 9,000 to 10,000 words, I probably wouldn't be too bothered (and a copyedit would probably reduce that word count). However, at over 11,000 words I think some information should be removed. I think some places that subject-specific editors might want to summarise information more effectively throughout the article. Some specific areas I would target are the lead (to get it down to four paragraphs, and ensure that all the information in the lead is also in the article body), "1960s", "Rastafari messiah", and "Personal life". The "Gallery" at the end of the article should also probably be removed and images redistributed in the article, per WP:NOTGALLERY. Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly mustn't delist an article because an editor finds it uncomfortable. The shared criteria do not specify any exact length, and major subjects can have longer articles, that's just how it is. I've copy-edited the lead, Collective security, 1960s, Rastafari messiah, and Personal life. I've removed the terminal gallery; there seem to be plenty of images already in the text. The text is down to 10,700 words. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 I am inclined to agree. Thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed the speech section, removing the peacock language in the process, and also removed the league of nations claim which was not supported by the source. I can't find a source for the French Somaliland trip I can access, but I'm pretty sure it's in the NY Times archives. CMD (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added cn tags to places that need citations. Except for the first paragraph in "Name", the citations are for a sentence or phrase which should be quicker fixes. As for length: 1a says that "the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience." If an article is WP:TOOBIG, then I have doubts that it is concise, but since that itself is not enough to be against WIAGA, I added places where I felt the phrasing was not concise, like the lead "1960s", "Rastafari messiah", and "Personal life". I'm not too fond of the connotation that I recommend delisting because I find something uncomfortable, as I try to ensure my comments are based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not my own feelings. If others think the TOOBIG editing guideline needs to be modified, they are happy to propose changes in the appropriate venue. Z1720 (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Just like the Texas herself, I believe that it's time to bring this neglected 17 year-old GA to dry dock for repairs. There are several issues (article version):

• 1b. The service history section is well-organized, but the museum section has several sub-sections with three short paragraphs mixed in with much longer sub-sections. Both could also use years in parentheticals in the subheadings.
• 2b. Some claims are cited to unreliable sources, such as YouTube videos (e.g., ref 71). There's also a valid {{failed verification}} tag from Nov. 2012 and three valid citation needed tags (oldest Jan. 2023). Additionally, all but one of the nine footnotes (ref group A) lack inline citations.
• 2c. There are at least 18 portions of text that solely cite primary sources (see all 18 references tagged with {{third-party inline}} as of Sept. 2012)
• 3a. The article lacks relevant detail in that the 2022 dry docking section hasn't been updated since April 2024.
• 3b. The article goes into unnecessary detail in that it relies on primary sources.

Note: the above is modified from my request for MILHIST A-Class reappraisal. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military History, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GAR coordinators: Per this discussion with the MILHIST coordinators, can this be placed on hold pending A-Class reappraisal? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I wasn't involved in the Coord discussion, I don't think there's any conflict of interest, so granted. Unless I'm just blind, there's no place to amend this on the template itself, but it should be considered on hold pending the A-Class work. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a notice at the top of the article talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an issue on waiting to close this until the A class reassessment is closed either. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the A-class reassessment page. If A-Class is retained, this GAR can probably be withdrawn. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How active is Operation Majestic Titan, which would seem/have seemed to be interested in polishing this article up? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan where does this polishing-job stand? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to post this at the A-class page? voorts (talk/contributions) 03:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No? That would be the job of the MILHIST coords, if anyone. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, going a little slow but should be done in a month. Matarisvan (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

This article has had an orange "relies on primary sources" banner at the top of the article since October 2023. Upon looking at the inline citations, I agree with that assessment. This would require a subject-matter expert to look through the citations to see what should be replaced with a more recent source. Z1720 (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The scholarly literature on the Greco-Persian wars is vast -- there's no excuse to be using primary sources here, and the sourcing for the article in general is well below what I'd expect of a GA. The modern sources cited are nearly all either non-scholarly, outdated, generally tangential to the field or from people whose scholarly standing is controversial. Fixing this would need a full rewrite, so I would advise a delist if nobody is willing to do that. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Overuse of primary sources; secondary sources used are plainly insufficient. It's been well known that the ancient sources' description of the battle are not consistent and do not lend themselves to recognisable (today) topographic features. This is not a problem anymore, however, because we now have aerial ground penetrating radar. Jones (2020) p 196 The [battle] is particularly difficult to reconstruct using only literature from ancient sources... Modern historians [list of 10 names], many of whom visited the battlefield north of Erythres/Kriekouki, were unable to agree on the events and locations of the Battle of Plataea. There are too many complications due to lost topographical markers and reliance on ancient sources [list of 6] to identify locations from accounts of the battle. See also Konechny (2022) for detailed reconstruction. Ifly6 (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I can work on this article and restore it to GA level in ~20 days. I hope that timeline is ok for everyone. Matarisvan (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for volunteering to take this up. I want to ask, however, whether any rewrite is (for lack of a better term) happening. Ifly6 (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm working on 2 other GA rewrites so the timeline will be delayed quite a bit, but the rewrite is on. I've done the biblio formatting, I expect to complete the rewrite in 30-40 days instead of the 20 estimated above. I hope that is ok, @Ifly6? Matarisvan (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really matter how quickly it happens to me, just wanted to know that you're in earnest on it. Ifly6 (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matarisvan, just checking in with your rewrite. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, will need 10-20 days more because I am finding some newly published sources, like Konecny 2022, hard to access. Matarisvan (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checking up again Matarisvan? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, should be done in 5 days max. My apologies for asking for a second postponement. Matarisvan (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, I've reduced the number of citations of Herodotus to 18 and of Holland to 15, now a total of 30% of the total citations, earlier these were about 80% of the total citations. However, I've not converted these citations to sfn like the other main citations and will be removing them soon. Would you consider keeping now while I continue removing these citations, or would you have to wait till all of these citations are removed? Matarisvan (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can see progress here, but I'm not sure we're moving entirely in the right direction. We've replaced an overreliance on Tom Holland with an overreliance on a single article by Roel Konijnendijk -- that's unquestionably an improvement, but still leaves major concerns about WP:DUEWEIGHT. Between him and Konecny, we've got nearly the whole article, and two citations is not great for a GA about a very heavily studied part of history. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist, I am working on adding more from sources like Burn, Connolly, Lazenby, etc. I have around 30 other sources I've bookmarked in the bibliography of Konijnendijk and Konecny, and I'm working on getting access to these, since around half are not on TWL. However, I cannot request for all of them on RX at once; I've purchased some of these but their delivery will take 5-10 days, and then incorporating them will take the same amount of time for each one. I asked the GA be kept because this reassessment has been open for 3 months now; even though I began working 2 months ago, I lost one full month because my laptop was not working.

I don't think a GAR can be open for so long, and I acknowledge it's partly because of a fault of my own, but I think it should be closed within a few days, by which time I would've removed all the citations to Herodotus and Holland, and added more material from sources other than the 2 I've used. Also, I counted the citations to Konijnendijk and Konecny, they're 46 in total, so only 40% of the total refs. By the time I've finished adding all the other sources, I guess this %age would be around 10-20%. Matarisvan (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My view would be that there is no deadline as long as progress is being made: I don't see a reason to close a GAR that hasn't stalled or reached consensus, but others may disagree. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, there is no deadline. Progress has been made. If there is a reasonable expectation that it will continue to be made then why would we want to prevent that? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There have in the past been problems with GARs remaining open near-indefinitely while people say that they will work on the article without actually doing so, which is why the normal time limit is set at three months; however, as Matarisvan has a good track record with working on GARs and has made significant efforts on this one I see no reason to place a hard limit here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, @Gog the Mild and @UndercoverClassicist; could we close this reassessment now? I have reduced the percentage of citations to Konecny 2022 and Konijnendijk 2012 to 24% (51 total, 33 + 18) out of all the 211 citations. I will be in the Himalayas from tomorrow onwards for a week, and will be unable to access the Internet for long during that time. Even if that were not the case, I think the article has been improved enough for this reassessment to be closed. Matarisvan (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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