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

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

Before opening a reassessment

1. Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
2. Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
3. Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
4. If there are many similar articles already nominated at GAR, consider delaying the reassessment request. If an editor notices that many similar GARs are open and requests a hold, such requests should generally be granted.

Opening a reassessment

1. To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
2. The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment).
3. Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.

Reassessment process

1. Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them. Comments should focus on the article's contents and adherence to the good article criteria.
2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
3. Interested editors can indicate their intention to fix the article and give updates on their progress in the GAR. Commentators should periodically check the GAR and give additional comments when necessary. Wikipedia is not compulsory and editors should not insist that commentators, interested editors, or past GAN nominators make the suggested changes, nor should they state that edits should have been completed before the GAR was opened.
4. If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion.
5. If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.

Closing a reassessment

To close a discussion, use the GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).

1. GARs typically remain open for at least one month.
2. Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
3. If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time.
   • If there is no consensus, the reassessment may also be closed as keep.
4. After at least one month, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
   • If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.
5. If the article has been kept, consider awarding the Good Article Rescue Barnstar to the editor(s) who contributed significantly to bringing it up to standard.

Disputing a reassessment

1. A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect. A closure should only be disputed within the first seven days following the close.
2. Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
3. If discussing does not resolve concerns, editors should post at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the coordinators.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88

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.

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

• 19:48:26, 07/05/2025: King Kong (2005 film)
  

• 18:28:45, 10/06/2025: QuackShot
  

• 13:19:33, 16/06/2025: Muammar Gaddafi
  

• 03:41:24, 17/06/2025: Ocean of Sound
  

• 20:05:27, 07/08/2025: Pies Descalzos
  
• 03:55:37, 24/08/2025: Current date for reference

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • 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]

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 almost 13,000 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. Information should be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed if too much detail. Z1720 (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Busy with citations. If there are any statements you feel specifically need further citation, please tag as such. Preferably with some indication of why if it is not obvious. (I will query if it is not obvious to me). Sections with multiple subsections may include summaries which contain material cited elsewhere in the section.

Please feel free to make actionable suggestions for which content should be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed, specifying which of these you are recommending, and motivating each case. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citations mostly done, but you may want more. If so, please specify. Some summarising tightened up and a bit of "too much detail" removed when available in hatlinked articles. Many hatlinks added, as a large number of sections are already summaries of other articles, but were not linked, It is now 10 years since the original GA, and a lot has changed in our coverage of diving related topics, hence the proliferation of hatlinks. I will continue to tinker, but would like some feedback where there are things that are obvious to you but may not be obvious to me. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pbsouthwood: Thank you for working on this article. I added some citation needed templates to the article to indicate some places that need citations. The "Standard sizes by internal volume", "Rebreathers" "The cylinder's capacity to store gas" and "South Africa" sections have a lot of uncited text (the former has a citation in each list entry: is this verifying all the information in that line?) so I didn't add cn tags, but it still needs to be resolved. At over 12,000 words I still suggest that more information be spun out or trimmed. I don't think the article needs a list of manufacturers (at the end) and should be removed. Z1720 (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have added more citations per your tags, and expect to add a few more in the sections you mentioned. A couple of points have proven intractable. The information is out there somewhere, but does not seem to have been accessibly published on the internet. I would also like to reduce the overall article size, and am considering how best to do this.

  Is there some other place where you think the list of manufacturers would be better suited? It is interesting and useful information that took a while to gather, and is not yet complete, as it has no mention of Turkish, Indian, Chinese or Japanese manufacturers, which I think exist - I know I have seen Turkish oxygen cylinders, for example, but not for diving. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pbsouthwood: If the list is notable, I think it could be its own article with the information summarised in the article. If it was to remain, I would want this section to have more information, like who was the first to produce the product and which companies innovated on the design. However, considering how big this list can get, the fact that most of these entries are not notable (as indicated by a lack of wiki-article), how the article is already quite large, and that Wikipedia is not a directory, I do not think the list is needed in the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Lack of a Wikipedia article is no indication of lack of notability. All it proves is that there is no article at this time. In my opinion, it is likely that most of the manufacturers are notable by our standards - it takes some serious industrial capacity to make diving cylinders - but it may take some effort to gather the sources, and some may be in languages other than English.

  The reason I put the list in this article is because it is relevant to the topic, but not enough to have much more information, which would be more relevant in an article on the specific manufacturer, if or when it is written. All that is relevant to this topic is that those companies manufactured diving cylinders, but that is relevant, and this is the best place for it that I know of. A section on the history of diving cylinders might be the right place for the other information you suggest, and if I can find such information I will probably write such a section. On the other hand all those companies probably manufacture or manufactured other products as well, including gas cylinders for non-diving purposes, so that is a can of worms I will not be opening too soon.

  It is also a relatively short section, and there may be other areas which are more amenable to summarising more tightly. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pbsouthwood: If you feel that it is important information for the reader to know, then I'm fine with it. However, I would note that the article is over 12,000 words: About 1/4 of the article prose needs to be cut for the article to fit within WP:TOOBIG. WP:SPINOUT and trimming things that are too much detail are probably going to be necessary. In other words, if this section stays as it is then something else will need to go. Z1720 (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:TOOBIG does not forbid an article of this size, even larger, it recommends trying to reduce it, but accepts that some articles are going to be large. I agree that this is larger than ideal, but am working on trimming it down where it does not detract from usefulness. It is not a good solution to make the article worse just to get past an arbitrary criterion so that a box can be ticked. We are necessarily flexible in our guidance as reality tends to find an exception to most arbitrary rules. The tricky thing here is to work out what is too much detail that can be cut without harm. We try to avoid the Procrustean solution. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:24, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pbsouthwood: TOOBIG is a good indicator if information should be cut. Manufacturers is one example of a section that, as a general interest reader, I have suggested can be WP:SPINOUT. I think there are other sections that could also be considered. If articles have too much detail, the reader will not know what is the most important information they need to know about that topic. I do not think the scope of this topic justifies having more than 9,000 words, especially when articles like Earth, Philosophy, and Beyonce (the latter which I worked on) are able to have ~9000 or less words. I am happy to do a copyedit and suggest other prose to remove if pinged. Z1720 (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have split many articles, including Diving cylinder, from which Scuba cylinder valve was split out a few years ago. I am looking into the current possibilities here. There are a 9 sections already hatlinked to 10 main articles, and a larger number hatlinked to 'see also' or 'further' articles or sections. In these cases there may be potential to move some of the content to the other article if it is also relevant there, create a new article with content from both where a new article makes sense, or condense the current content where the linked article is logically appropriate for the more detailed information and already contains it. What we need to avoid is indiscriminate removal of information specifically relevant to this topic, just to make it shorter, if that removal reduces comprehensibility of the local content.

  I would welcome suggestions for prose which could be removed, provided the proposal also explains why it is not better to keep it, and where the information should go if it is not already elsewhere on Wikipedia. There is some information that is repeated because it is relevant in more than one place to provide context to the reader. It may be possible to trim some of this down, though that level of editing is more appropriate to a FA nomination, and this is GA review, and the criteria are different.

  I have had mixed experience with copy editing during GA. Some has been good, but some have been overzealous and resulted in removal of necessary context and changes in meaning by editors with reasonable command of the language, but lacking in the technical comprehension of the topic. This is Wikipedia, and anyone can edit, but it is preferable when the edits are consistently improvements. I have no idea of what your background is in technical writing in general and particularly underwater diving, so have no expectations either way. If you are confident that you will conserve the relevant information and comprehensibility, go ahead.

  At the moment I am concentrating on trimming and condensing the summary sections. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have trimmed the size down some more, and will continue to look for places to trim further, but I don't think it is going to get significantly smaller, and over time it is likely to get larger again, as new material is found. You are welcome to point out places which you think can be trimmed more, and I suggest you finalise any further edit requests. The article has been objectively greatly improved, so you have done the job. I do not think there are any points that fail GAN criteria left, but it is your responsibility to make that check. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:47, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sports but really about technology: Oh my deity, this article is just like inline skates which I've spent 8 months rewriting and expanding. I recently nominated it for GA review under sports. But found no takers. I just re-listed it under technology/engineering. I figured that I should look around for similar articles being reviewed, so I can reciprocate before others help me. The diving cylinder is so similar to my long article in so many ways... not the least of which is that the article has so much more to do with technology/engineering than "sports". No wonder mainstream sports-article enthusiasts find no interests in these. Fred Hsu (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agree that sports is inappropriate. It was not my choice. However it was originally assessed for GA under that category, and it is now being reassessed after many changes over several years. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:20, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA says nothing about length: I am going to carefully read existing comments, and take a look at the article. I think I have many of the same problems, starting with the length of the article. Sigh. I had in fact split some content into new child articles. But I found it hard to trim further, because the main reason I rewrote it was to create a one-stop shop where all inline-related terms can be found and defined. These terms and concepts reference one another, forming a knowledge web. To scatter terms across many independent articles would be antithetical. BUT I NEED TO POINT OUT: Wikipedia:Good article criteria says nothing about the length of the article. We should simply re-assess it based on GA criteria. Am I missing something? Fred Hsu (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree entirely. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:21, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended TOC organization: I took an extensive reading of the article. I think the reason why a new reader feels that the article is too long isn't necessarily due to just the length of the article, and the existence of "bullet lists". One reason I felt that way was because of the TOC (table of content) didn't help me a lot in navigating article and finding what I wanted to see. This is especially true when the TOC is shown on the side navigation bar - long section names wrapped around causing the bar to be hard to read and use. Fred Hsu (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is, a slight re-org and a rephrasing of section names will enhance this article w.r.t to the first GA criterion: Well-written. The criterion does say 'the prose is clear, concise and understandable'. I am extrapolating to the organization and TOC navigation. Therefore, I propose this TOC structure with reduced section names, and a slight re-org. Fred Hsu (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you actually offer a considered suggestion that could improve the article. I have not studied your suggestions in detail yet, but I will. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:24, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology
Parts
    Pressure vessel
    Cylinder valve
    Aluminium cylinder
    Steel cylinder
    Cylinder neck
    Permanent markings
Accessories
    Manifolds
    Valve cage
    Cylinder bands
    Cylinder boot
    Cylinder net
    Cylinder handle
    Dust caps and plugs
Pressure rating
    Working pressure
    Test pressure
    Developed pressure
    Pressure monitoring
Capacity
    Internal volume     (includes standard sizes list)
    Nominal volume      (includes standard sizes list)
Measurement
    Dimensions
    Mass
    Buoyancy
Types
    Open-circuit scuba  (merely define it)
    Rebreather
    Emergency supply    (both surface-supplied diver and diving bells)
    Suit inflation
    Above water
Configurations
    Multiple mixtures
    Single back cylinder
    Main and auxiliary
    Independent twins
    Plain manifolded twins
    Isolation manifolded twins
    Sling cylinders
    Side cylinders
    Hand-off and drop cylinders
Gas planning
    Capacity to store gas
    Diver gas consumption
    Breathing gas endurance
    Reserves
    Mass of gas consumed
Filling
    Pre-fill inspection
    Filling from compressor
    Cascade fill
    Heat from air compression
    Filling safety
    Gas purity and testing
    Handling of specialty gases
    Gas contamination
Safety and Standards
    Manufacturing standards
    Periodic inspection
    Intervals between tests
    Cleaning
    Service life
    Sustained load cracking
    Accidents
    Handling
    Long-term storage
Transportation
    International air
    Europe
    United States
Labels and colour-coding
    Worldwide
    European Union
    Offshore
    South Africa
(move MANUFACTURERS into a expandable template at the end)
(possibly consider moving standard sizes, OD dimension bullets, etc. to child articles)

• The material, neck and permanent makings are parts of the pressure vessel basic structure and the cylinder valve is a separate but essential component, so I think the existing order is better for that part. As subheaders I don't think Aluminium cylinders and Steel cylinders are any more informative than just Aluminium and Steel, but open to discussion. "Permanent stamp markings" is the official term, but trimming it down should not cause any confusion, so I have done that.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:55, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah. You are the expert. I was only approaching this from a novice point of view. You need to make the final call, as these are mere suggestions. My main points included making the TOC use only two-levels, instead of three. I've tried three levels with inline skates. I found it distracting instead of helping. If you are able to re-org into a two-level hierarchy, I think it makes the structure of the article more accessible. Fred Hsu (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate your reasoning, but I find the logic better for the extra level in this case. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:36, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Bringing "Accessories" up to level 2 makes sense, so I have done it.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:55, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Moving "Pressure monitoring" into "Pressure rating" makes enough sense to do it, so also done. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Capacity, linear dimensions, mass and buoyancy are all measurements/dimensions/sizes, so have compromised on a single section "Size" to contain them all as subsections.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Cascade filling is a special case of filling from high pressure storage. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Transportation is a subtopic of handling so have raised Handling to level 2 instead.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:15, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• What does move MANUFACTURERS into a expandable template at the end mean? Are you suggesting a wikitable format? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:25, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See Bicycle. At the bottom there are a bunch of templates grouping related sibling articles, or grouping child articles of this one. See for instance Template:Italian bicycle manufacturers. I've seen articles where a template binds "activities" associated with the "equipment", plus rows showing key manufacturers. I can't find too many examples right now. But here is one: K2 Sports with this template: Template:Sports equipment brands. Fred Hsu (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I see. That template is a navbox. Diving cylinder already has a navbox, but it does not include cylinder manufacturers. I might get round to making one some day, but there are not many with wikipedia articles yet. Also a navbox is not content, and the list of manufacturers is content, so does not have to show notability for each entry, just a verifiable reference.

  Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:28, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Surface finish, colour-coding and labeling contains content on surface finishing that is not labels or colour coding.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Multiple mixtures now mentioned in Open-circuit scuba, under Applications, as that is where they are used.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Emergency supply is also an important application in open circuit scuba and rebreathers. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:37, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah. I understand your reasoning. But on the other hand, the TOC structure isn't limited to one specific way to slice relationships between sections. So you can still choose different ways to group topics. I think one of the hardest task that an editor of a long article faces is how to structure sections to make them fit together logically, yet still make the structure accessible and intuitive to a casual reader. Hard problem :) Fred Hsu (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That is so true, and once you choose one way it can be difficult to see the others and change to a better one. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:31, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review. See WP:WIAGA for criteria. Also see WP:GAR for reassessment.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• The lead summary paragraphs are concise and comprehensive. These have been expanded and refined compared to the 2016 GA version and the 2017 reviewed version. Fred Hsu (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I am reading the rest of the article now. The paragraphs flow well so far. I am just going to park minor observations for discussion. These do not present issues for the GA reassessment, unless explicitly stated. Here is the first observation: in the Aluminium section, this sentence "Most aluminum cylinders are flat bottomed..." in the first paragraph, and a similar one "Most aluminum cylinders are flat bottomed..." in the second paragraph made me look twice at the first read. I understand that the first one compares flat bottom to a round bottom. The second one is talking about making of a bottle, and how a flat bottom and a thick wall both contribute to added weight which is ironically preferred. Fred Hsu (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Rewritten to avoid repeat. This had bothered me for some time, and I think the revision flows better too. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The bullet list of types "scuba cylinder neck threads" probably should be housed somewhere else. It's not clear to me where though. I don't think it impacts the GA-ness. But these are details a regular read (such as myself) will simply skip over. I like the discussion pointing out differences in tapered vs parallel. But that's all that a casual reader needs. The hatlink to "cylinder neck" isn't necessarily the right place to house the bullet list either, as the bullet list seems specific to scuba cylinders. Just an observation. Fred Hsu (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the neck threads are mostly relevant to portable cylinders for breathing apparatus - scuba, scba and first aid oxygen, which all use breathing gas regulators with specific connections different to industrial cylinders. Not sure about aviation applications. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In last paragraph of "cylinder neck" ends like this "... gas cylinders – Part 1: Specifications.[5]" - is the "Part 1: Specifications" referring to a chapter of the cited book? If so, that should be turned into a part of the reference, right? Fred Hsu (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is part of the title for ISO 11363-1: full title is "ISO 11363-1, Gas cylinders – 17E and 25E taper threads for connection of valves to gas cylinders – Part 1: Specifications". Maybe I should add the quotes in the text. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  MOS:TITLE does not seem to mention standards, so this is my best guess. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I am ambivalent about the bullet list of things stamped on the cylinder. MOS:LIST seems to indicate a preference for prose in most cases. Fred Hsu (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I use a bulleted list because it makes it clear that they are separate items, and it is easy to see where each starts and finishes. MOS is guidance and gives suggestions that are usually helpful. It should not be ignored, but should also not always be followed when it is not the best solution. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, the sources tend to list this type of information, presumably for similar reasons. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I was thinking more of the list of neck thread specifications when I wrote the above, as the stamped item are much simpler, and probably could be listed in a sentence or two, to look more like prose, but they would still be listed unless there was somewhat more to be said about each item. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:48, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Added clarification links to terms in the list. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I do agree that often a bullet list or a definition is more appropriate. But sometimes a list can be converted to prose without losing clarity. As I made minor copy editing of the article, I came across one such example. This is the "Diver gas consumption" subsection in a list format. I took the liberty of converting it to prose. Cheers :) Fred Hsu (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks fine. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In the "nominal volume" section, this last sentence in the first paragraph doesn't make senses to me: "The nominal gas content of these cylinders is based on the 10% higher pressure." The paragraph started by saying that "nominal" volume is the same as "free gas volume". The next paragraph shows an example tank with 80 cubic feet of "nominal free gas" pressurized to 3,000 psi which is presumably the stamped nominal working pressure, and NOT the +10% pressure. Fred Hsu (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not really very logical. I have tried to clarify with another example, so let me know if I have succeeded. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Your enhanced example is very clear. So what was written before was right, and my understanding of it was right. It just wasn't very logical, because the word "nominal" appears to have opposite meaning when used with pressure vs volume. To wit... Fred Hsu (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  nominal working pressure == 2,400 psi

  actual (max) working pressure == nominal working pressure * 1.10 == 2,640 psi

  ??? volume == amount of gas held at nominal working pressure == 72.7 cubic feet

  nominal volume == amount of gas held at actual (max) working pressure == 80 cubic feet

  Yes. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• the "Mass" section: this section/paragraph feels incomplete, and the sentences are not quite right. Since I don't know how to expand it to first talk about normal mass of common tanks, I can't revise it. What is "to CE standards"? Is this EU standards perhaps? Fred Hsu (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  CE standards are indeed EU standards. The CE mark on a product is the indication that it meets requirements for marketing in the EU. and complies with all relevant health, safety and environmental standards. I have copyedited the section to try to make it clearer. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• When reading various gas types used for technical diving, in the "Open-circuit scuba" section, something bothered me about the bullet point on "stage cylinder". I couldn't pin down exactly what bothered me, until I looked at "Sling cylinders" under the "Configuration" section.
  • I now know what bothered me. "stage cylinder" is not a type of gas unlike all other bullets in the bullet list. It doesn't belong there. Elsewhere in the article "stage cylinder" is often mentioned, and one of those even links to that bullet by a visible anchor.
  • But "stage cylinder" isn't exactly a "configuration" unlike all other configuration subsections, including "sling cylinders". "Stage" is a function, or application. Stage cylinders can be "dropped", or it seems nowadays mostly carried "side-slung" - so "sling cylinders".
  • The aha moment was when I read a brief summary of all gas types under "sling cylinders" which is a short version of that gas bullet list. That's they I put two and two together.
  • While not perfect, I think it is best to place "stage cylinder" next to "sling cylinders", compare and contrast them. Both can now function as proper # anchors without the visible anchor template. And only one subsection needs to house a brief summary of all gas types. Following articles can provide further context on stage and sling cylinders: Scuba set, Scuba gas planning, and Decompression equipment. Fred Hsu (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Stage cylinders can be dropped if you are sure to be coming back along the same route. If the route may change, it could be a fatal mistake to drop them. There is a book about one case with two fatalities, called "The Last Dive" where that happened.

  You are technically correct that staging cylinders is a function, but it is also common diver terminology to refer to a sling mounted cylinder as a stage cylinder, even if it is not used that way.

  I will look into your suggestion. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Rewrote the paragraph, and added a note. I think it should be clearer now, but let me know. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Cool. Fred Hsu (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am trying to separate applications and configurations more cleanly. Also avoiding cross-commentary which could be confusing. Let me know if you spot anything I miss. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• preliminary assessment: this is still a good article: It took me a while to read through every sentence and make minor tweaks wherever necessary. See edit history of the article. I can say that as a non-diver I understood everything, and learned interesting info. The coverage is comprehensive, though as a casual reader I do think some lists can be further summarized, and then moved to child articles. Overall, I think this is a good article. I thus checked most of the criteria checklist items. Fred Hsu (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  While revising every sentence, I cross-checked with relevant wiki articles. Often I wikilinked to them. By doing this I can confirm the accuracy of info in this article. I found usable archived PDF files for key references, and spot-checked a some of them. I can't always look into other book references. But from my long revision of the entire article, I am fairly confident about verification aspects. So I checked those assessment items. Fred Hsu (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I left only two items unchanged in neural for now: the "without unnecessary detail" one, and the "image copyright" one - the "detail" one because I do think some lists can be summarized, but I do think the current state is more than good enough for good article, and the "copyright" one because I haven't looked at images yet. Cheers. Fred Hsu (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Image copyrights:

  File:USMC-100608-M-3740P-5234.jpg: this image is lacking an author, but it probably will never get one. I am not familiar with how "Slick-o-bot" works, but it seems that the image is perfectly fine, being auto-published from USDOD. Just a note. Fred Hsu (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I am going to close this re-assessment. Fred Hsu (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before that happens, pinging the GAR nominator Z1720 for their opinion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I am on vacation until Sunday and can't evaluate the article until then. If a consensus forms in the meantime that it fulfills the GA criteria, the GAR can be closed without me. I avoid closing GARs in which I've made significant contributions or have made significant edits to the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I already pinged Z1720 yesterday, here. Thanks for taking an interest. I'll leave the conclusion of this GAR to the two of you. Cheers. Fred Hsu (talk) 01:41, 19 August 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]

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]

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

Result pending

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

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

Result pending

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

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

Result pending

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

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

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

Result pending

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

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

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

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

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

Result pending

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

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

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

Pinging @Esw01407:. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in participating, thanks. Esw01407 (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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

Result pending

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

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

Result pending

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

@Joeykai, I noticed you put ^{[citation needed]} tags after literally every sentence without a direct citation even if that sentence was cited at the end of the paragraph. Please don't do that, because it makes it much harder to determine which passages are actually uncited. This also goes against WP:REPCITE, which recommends using a citation once at the end of a passage, if multiple consecutive sentences are backed up by that source.

For example, the sentence "In August 1998, Disney announced that the opening of Test Track would be delayed once again" is tagged as unsourced even though there is a source for this (number [16]) that covers the three sentences before it. Since you tagged the entire article like this, making it unreadable, I'm afraid I'm going to have to revert all of these tags for now. You can re-tag the sentences that are actually unsourced, not just backed up by a reference further on in the paragraph. Epicgenius (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, I recommend delisting this article as a GA at this time. There is a lot of info about the ride description that is unsourced or unsourceable (essentially being original research). More to the point, however, it's missing any kind of commentary about critical reception or ridership, as would be expected of many major amusement rides (let alone this one), so I cannot say in good faith that this topic is covered broadly. I can probably work on that later, but can't make any promises. Epicgenius (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

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

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

Result pending

To start off, the lead section starts with "Through processing, chocolate can turn into a foam." That sounds too much like a hook. Maybe it can start off with more "Aerated chocolate is a kind of chocolate," and so on. The largest selling point of this GA is that 16 (40%) of citations are all to one source (by Fitzgerald). Shouldn't there be anything else that talks about the chocolate? They also appear to be separate ones but they are all the same. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 01:53, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I recently passed this as GA so I'm probably biased, but I think there's no issue with having a lot of the citations pointing to one source, especially when that source is about as reliable as you can get. @Floating Orb please could you explain exactly how you think this doesn't meet the GA criteria? IAWW (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might meet the criteria but it does also meet the WP:SINGLESOURCE problem. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 15:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing that would make the page better would be to take the Fitzgeralds and put them into one citation. Then you can use the {{RP}} to put the page number. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 20:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SINGLESOURCE has nothing to do with this article, as this article has multiple sources. The current citation style using Template:Sfn is extremely common and used in many FAs. I vote keep for this as the nominator has not demonstrated any issues with this article meeting the criteria. IAWW (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Lee Vilenski @User:Iazyges @User:Trainsandotherthings @User:Chipmunkdavis

I've modified the first sentence to be read as less of a hook. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 15:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – the article seems to be in good shape. I've merged a few refs but there's nothing really wrong here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

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

Keep: I've added some refs, removed some uncited material, and done a little copy-editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The physical cosmology section had quite a few dubious bits which I worked on. I hope others will take a pass at other sections. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up several sections for you. The main issue I've addressed is the presence of descriptions of the findings of astronomy, rather than descriptions of the science itself. An analogy is describing what an animal is rather than saying what zoology is: obviously, we have articles of both kinds, but they're different. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjbarton and TompaDompa: are you satisfied with the edits? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a couple of spot-checks and added additional maintenance tags related to sourcing. TompaDompa (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed those to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. In the meantime, I have continued spot-checking a bit. I have found a number of additional issues and tagged them accordingly. I suspect that further spotchecking would reveal even more issues. If this were at WP:GAN rather than WP:GAR, I would at this point have probably gone for a WP:QUICKFAIL on the grounds of serious WP:Text–source integrity issues. This article has turned out to be in a much worse state than was apparent at the surface level. TompaDompa (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please tag the article and post when you feel that your review is complete. Multiple cycles of "all fixed" followed by "here's more" is discouraging. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I've removed the unneeded accretions, added several refs, and tagged "citation needed" for the useful bits. There are some "page needed" tags also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's one way of avoiding a WP:FIXLOOP, and probably the easiest way when there are only a handful of discrete issues. Another way, considering that this particular article pretty much needs to be rewritten to deal with the widespread issues, is to wait until the article has been rewritten before checking again. Resolving this much WP:Text–source integrity issues requires determining what needs to be sourced better and what can be removed entirely, which means that the overall WP:WEIGHT of the article is highly likely to shift. Adding sources to material that was originally added without any always runs the substantial risk of not reflecting the balance of different aspects in the overall literature on the overarching topic correctly. TompaDompa (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weight has indeed shifted. I've cut, as mentioned above, a large amount of material that concerned findings rather than the astronomical method, and I've restructured quite a bit to make this clear. The remaining text mainly concerns either history or types of astronomy, and those are certainly the correct subject-matter for this article, so I don't think we need worry too much on that front. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I should have clarified. You are right: a re-review after major changes is useful. The only reason to complain about drip-drip reviews is that once I located and loaded sources it much easier to get several fixes at once. So reviewing and reporting a section at a time is perfectly fine. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have spot-checked a sample of sources, and found serious issues in something like three quarters of my checks. Now this wasn't a random sample but a targeted spot-check where I deemed issues to be likely, so it very well may be non-representative, but it is still enough for me to say that fixing issues identified via spot-check is highly unlikely to be sufficient to bring this up to snuff. I believe this article needs to be overhauled basically from the ground up to ensure that there are no WP:Text–source integrity issues. Now I can always keep doing spot-checks for straightforward verification and WP:Close paraphrasing issues (as long as I'm able to access the sources, at least), but when it comes to the more subject-specific things (e.g. whether the sources used are appropriate for the material they support, ensuring that everything that should be covered in the article is covered, avoiding overemphasizing WP:Minor aspects, and so on), that's where more familiarity with the topic and sources is required. TompaDompa (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa, I've overhauled the text, removing a large amount of off-topic description, including many "minor aspects", and restructuring; and I've asked Johnjbarton to check he's happy with that in terms of the science. He and I have added or replaced numerous references. We are thus doing quite a root-and-branch reform of the article: it's still in progress.

BTW You just found that Forbes 1909 had gone missing, flagging up multiple maintenance issues: I've reinstated it, and checked and documented each individual ref to it. That was a single small error (probably mine some while back), now fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I suppose I'll check back later. Forbes 1909 appears to be available at the Internet Archive with proper pagination (but different ones depending on the edition), by the way. TompaDompa (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been through the whole article, sorted all the citations you flagged and checked many others. The text is far tighter (and shorter). I've removed one or two images either for reasons of space or of relevance to their sections, and added one or two new ones. The remaining statements, which cover all the major areas of the science, will be seen as broad and obvious by astronomers; they are well attested by the sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Result pending

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

This building seems to have a surprising lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. I guess that's why this article cites literally none. The following sources mention it not at all or only in passing:

• The 2011 version of the "Pevsner Architectural Guide – Somerset: North and Bristol" does not mention it at all. For context this is an almost 900 page long dense book on buildings in Bristol
• It is mentioned once in passing in the 2004 version of "Pevsner Architectural Guide – Bristol"
• "T. H. B. Burrough, Bristol" mentions it only as one of the buildings George Oatley designed
• Not mentioned in "Bristol: City on the Edge"
• "A university for Bristol: an informal history in text and pictures" mentions it a few times in passing as one of the halls or residence

I was not able to access "Sir George Oatley: Architect of Bristol", which may have contain significant coverage. The most detailed sourcing I can find is the National Heritage England entry, where it is listed as a Grade II listed building. This may mean it's notable per WP:GEOFEAT, but it's hard to interpret that guideline (see this discussion). I'm curious what you make of that, and what you think of "The Manor Hall Association" as a source? It contains only university alumni, but it could be seen as an association outside of the university? The other potential source mine is the British Newspaper Archive: this search gives over 1000 results which would need to be sifted through for non-trivial mentions (it seems almost everything hit is about some event happening there). Unfortunately I don't have access to that site though, as it's not available through the Wikipedia Library anymore. IAWW (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @It is a wonderful world: Thanks for commenting. I dislike having notability discussions on GAR pages, as I think WP:AfD is a more appropriate place to discuss that. Primary sources can be used in good articles and are sometimes the only places where information has been published. However, WP:RSPRIMARY states "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources". If the majority of the article is cited to primary sources, my opinion is that the article does not meet the GA criteria.
• I don't think "The Manor Hall Association" is a secondary source, as university alumni have a clear conflict of interest with the school's reputation. I don't know if they are connected to the university, but I would only use them if a secondary source was not available.
• I also do not have access to the British Newspaper Archive. Newspaper Archive might have some sources, as well as some other databases accessed through WP:LIBRARY or your local library system. Z1720 (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you Z1720, I agree with all you said. I reached out to a fellow editor in the hopes they may be able to help with the British Newspaper Archive sifting. IAWW (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

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, especially in the "Aftermath" section. The "In history" and "In literature" sections are quite short and should be reformatted or developed more thoroughly. Z1720 (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All uncited statements fixed. Maybe Jackyd101 wants to come back and take a look? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:23, 23 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) 04:49, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally there is heavy use of non-RS Global Security. Hog Farm _Talk 22:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Result pending

The article has an "update needed" banner at the top, with more information on the article's talk page on what might be missing. It seems like there were features and updates added to the game since the article's GAN which editors feel need to be included in the article. There are also some uncited paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not think the article is really that "outdated". Yes, it is true that the game may have some updates here and there, but they aren't widely covered by our reliable sources. There aren't really significant changes to the overall gameplay formula, and most of the additions seems to be the introduction of new cosmetics/collaboration with other franchises and limited-time modes, both of which should be summarized in one or two sentences (otherwise we fall into WP:CATALOGUE). I honestly do not see anything that is urgently missing. OceanHok (talk) 09:34, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above, and also, covering every single new type of game would be very exhaustive, likely impossible and mostly irrelevant, so could we remove the tag?. Earth605 (talk) 14:52, 11 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 is quite large. I recommed that level 3 headings be used to break up the text and the later paragraphs be merged together. There is an orange "update needed" banner at the top of "Wigan Warriors R.L.F.C.". There is uncited text, including entire paragraphs. The "Surroundings" section is something I have never seen before in an article, and perhaps should be removed. I also think the "Robin Park Arena" is offtopic and potentially a WP:COATRACK. Z1720 (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

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

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

Result pending

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

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

Result pending

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

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

Result pending

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

• Delist, it was approved in 2008 without a real review. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 08:59, 19 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 and most of the "Tour" section. Z1720 (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Result pending

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

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

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

Result pending

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

@Z1720: I haven't really been involved in this too much since the GAN, but I'm willing to take a look and see if there's anything I can do to help. Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Making my way through 16 years of revisions isn't an easy task. Do you know if there's a way to use a WikiBlame-like tool that only shows me major deletions and additions? That's all I need to see really. Viriditas (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: I'm not aware of any such tool, other than comparing diffs. Z1720 (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just realized. The page statistics page basically does this in a compact form. I will start there. Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the page statistics tool does all of this and more. Very handy. Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Dunham family tree was deleted from the article in 2017. Do you have any objection to restoring it? Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not a fan of family trees, but I don't think there's anything against having them in Wikipedia MOS. Z1720 (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just throwing that out there. I've been making copyedits. Viriditas (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Z1720: I'm looking through the article now and I see there are some minor issues with what newer sources have reported. I also don't like how the family life section is given precedence over her other achievements. If this was an article about a single father pursuing a career you can guarantee that the article wouldn't be structured this way. Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Viriditas: Is there information from sources about her other accomplishments that can be added? I am fine with de-emphasizing her family life in favour of giving more information to her accomplishments. I suspect this happened because she is Obama's mother, so many sources give information in relation to him. Z1720 (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My overarching point is that the article needs a renewed effort at clarification and verification. I was browsing through Scott 2011, which I don't believe is used as a source since it was published years after the GAN. There's been a lot of new information and analysis since that time. For example, the opening line in the early life section says the subject was born at St. Francis Hospital, but this may not be true. It also doesn't mention anything about the Unitarian church they attended in Seattle. Lots of missing details like that. Further, the early life section skips over most of her formative years, which is detailed by Scott 2011. It then segues right into family life and marriages even though Scott 2011 makes it clear that this is not what Ann wanted or wanted to be define by, but I admit it is difficult to structure this otherwise. All I'm saying is that this GAR will need some extra time. My biggest concern is making sure there are no errors. Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Viriditas: Thanks for the update and the clarification. If editors are willing to work on the article, this GAR will remain open. I went through the "Family life" section and removed off-topic or TMI information. Feel free to revert anything you felt should not have been removed. I fully support expanding the article, and feel free to ping me with questions or if this is ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I just dived in. I had no idea this article had degraded to such an extent. Dunham's thesis is cited in four different types of citations and dozens of times from those four. It's like whoever was editing just didn't care and did whatever. This is going to take weeks to fix. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

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

Just curious as to why Panarmenian.net is unreliable. It's a quite well-established Armenian news agency. ----Երևանցի ^talk 08:39, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yerevantsi: This determination is based on consensus at WP:RSN, including the latest one at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 445#panarmenian.net. Z1720 (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to focus largely on the article (which does appear problematic), not its reliability per se. A simple Google Books search indicates that it is widely cited in scholarly works. ----Երևանցի ^talk 11:10, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Panarmenian aside, I've already removed some of the uncited sentences and paragraphs and will work on the rest in coming days. ----Երևանցի ^talk 11:10, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

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

Which paragraphs did you have in mind? The introduction summary doesn't need citations (unless to support something like a quote) and the two uncited paragraphs towards the end of the article were uncited in 2008 when the last GA decision took place. Sionk (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720; @Sionk - some reorganising done, refs checked (some needed moving or updating) and some added. A little more to do, but getting there, I think. Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added cn tags to the article, although it looks like most of the uncited statements have been resolved. @Sionk: The GA criteria has been updated since this article was promoted; one such change is that all statements (except usual exceptions like the lead, plot summaries, and WP:CALC) need to be cited. Z1720 (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think everything is cited now, and some more fixing, copy editing and tweaking done. Happy to do more if any suggestions for further improvement are forthcoming. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

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

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

Result pending

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

@Trainsandotherthings Just to let you know, I've removed the "media appearances" and the train numbers given that the sources didn't even support it. I've also removed some of the overlinking. Anyways, I think it needs to be delisted. An insurmountable of work needs to be done before it can aptly be GA. Icepinner 16:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help Icepinner, and for Trainsandotherthings for bringing the issues with this article up. Will work on it and see if I can get it back up to GA status, so kindly give me some time. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 04:07, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I may also work on it, though perhaps not to the same extent as actuall. This would also depend on how much time I have. Icepinner 05:52, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The article looks substantially cleaned up, though I am not particularly satisfied in how some notable and sourced details were removed in a rush to rescue this. Obviously the article has been a victim of trivia stuffing by enthusiasts over the years. While I still have access to certain databases to locate sources, are there any particular lines that needs addressing? - Mailer Diablo 17:12, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that the edits were quite rushed, and have expanded on other aspects of the article to remedy this. I have also attempted to add back some other statements, although most of it is WP:FANCRUFT/WP:OR by rail enthusiasts and I couldn't find sources for them. Does it look better now? – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 03:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I've cleaned it up quite a bit. Which ones are still not sourced? - Mailer Diablo 01:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Trainsandotherthings: Could you kindly take a second look at the article to see if there are still any issues? – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 01:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The article has definitely been significantly improved since it was nominated. Sourcing and overlinking issues have been addressed and the excess railfan trivia has also been pared back and properly sourced. I'm still catching issues, however. For instance, "As of 18 August 2025, 46 of them have been scrapped or preserved, 9 trains are laid up awaiting scrapping, and only 11 trains remain in service." is sourced to a news article from June 2025 which couldn't possibly support a claim from two days ago. This is clearly an example of enthusiasts engaging in original research because they are unwilling to wait for reliable sources to confirm this information. Similarly, "106 R151 trains would subsequently replace all 66 C151 trains along with the 19 C651 and 21 C751B trains from 2023 onwards, while the C151 trains would be decommissioned." is supported by a source from 2018 which again couldn't possibly support a claim from 2023 (and misuses the word "would").

  I admittedly didn't check much for text-source integrity due to the more blatant problems initially present. Considering I found these in less than 5 minutes of checking, I'm concerned about the state of the entire article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for pointing these out, I have removed all the unreferenced mentions of specific names of C151s. Other editors have also helped in removing all the specific number of trains that violated WP:OR. I hope this resolves the issues that you have pointed out. Would it be better to give this article some page protection in the long run to solve these unreferenced additions by rail enthusiasts? – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 12:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with actuall on the protection proposal. This has been an issue for a long time. I know that they intend their contributions to be helpful but without prior reading of Wikipedia's policies, this leads to situations like this. Something similar could very well easily happen to North East MRT line or another FA. Icepinner 00:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

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

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

Result pending

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

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

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

Result pending

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

• I'm a delist from a look through the article. There are numerous spelling and grammar errors and straight up not very good writing (the fare section is a mess to read and needs to be reorganized, the "issues" section really doesn't seem to be justified at all, and there's a completely empty rolling stock section). This is in addition to the numerous paragraphs and entire sections lacking citations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Z1720, thanks for the ping. The GA promotion was from a while ago (nearly 5 years to the day, as I write this). Since then, this article has undergone drastic changes - unfortunately, not all for the better. In addition to the issues mentioned above by TAOT, there are other issues I see:

• Currently, the Network section lists the Yellow Line as one of the four operational lines, even though it's technically not yet operational. The four currently-operating lines are already listed.
• Some text in the article (like the number of stations, and some of the names of the lines) is bolded in violation of MOS:BOLD.
• This article unnecessarily capitalizes certain things like a Tunnel boring machine hit an Aquifer at Bowbazar. This wasn't the case when I originally reviewed the article, by the way; the inconsistent formatting and capitalization is more of a recent development.
• The "Proposed expansions" section is from 2012. Since then, some of these expansions have been constructed, but it isn't clear which ones; this section is currently presented in present tense.

Unfortunately, I also have to !vote delist. However, I do hope @ArnabSaha will come back to remedy these issues, or that someone else will fix them in his place (as ArnabSaha hasn't edited for nearly 7 months now). – Epicgenius (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If folks aren't around, I could theoretically take a look over the weekend even though this isn't necessarily my area of expertise. Sohom (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Epicgenius, I can also work on it – though I am not sure what turn-around does a reassessment expect. For instance, if it's to be fixed in next 7 days, then it's unlikely that I'll be able to address everything in that span. Let me know! — WeWake (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WeWake and @Sohom Datta, that would be appreciated. I didn't initiate the GAR, but from past experience, a GAR can be kept open for as long as someone is actively working on it, even it takes a few months. Epicgenius (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Lots of uncited statements, including most of the "Production and development section". Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel the plot summary is way too long relative to the article, and the "popular culture" segment way too long and overly detailed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Unsourced statements, some of which have been tagged with "citation needed" since 2016. Several sections are too long, including "Campaign" and "Reception". These should use additional headings to break up the text and have their prose trimmed of excessive detail. Z1720 (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist as it stands, per nom. Fixable, but currently not up to snuff: there are lots of untagged, uncited statements, and a video game can't be a source for itself. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:29, 5 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) 19:09, 24 July 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 labelled with "citation needed" templates since 2019. Z1720 (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The orange banner from June 2024 states the article relies upon primary sources. The lead is too short and does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph:

• "The hexagonal form corresponding to graphite..." what does that statement even mean?
• " is the most stable and soft among BN polymorphs, and is therefore used as a lubricant and an additive to cosmetic products." also pretty awkward.
• " The cubic (zincblende aka sphalerite structure) variety analogous to diamond is called c-BN; it is softer than diamond, but its thermal and chemical stability is superior. The rare wurtzite BN modification is similar to lonsdaleite but slightly softer than the cubic form." why the obsession with carbon allotropes?
• "Boron nitride has potential use in nanotechnology." so what? glib.
• History section consists of two sentences, one about a high school teacher who discovered "boron nitride". Which boron nitride?
• Next sentence "Boron Nitride [see capitalization] is now used to make nanotubes, and used for mechanical insulation, and other nanomaterials used in the industry and occasionally pharmaceutical purposes, as well as recent development in electronics." Sounds like flim-flam. A quote from the (single) supporting ref "The first device demonstrations are very encouraging." unconvincing. How many tons are produced and what industries depend on it?

Tentative conclusion, the boron nitride article has promise, but the present version is not ready for prime time.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:05, 24 July 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 the "In popular culture" section and entire paragraphs. There are short, one sentence paragraphs in the "Legacy" section. "Personal life" has a chart outline his teaching career, but I think this should be prose in the article body to better conform to MOS:LAYOUT. Z1720 (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

The 2014-2019 section is quite large, and should probably be split up or trimmed. Post-2019 information suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION and might need and expansion of more recent career highlights. There is an "update needed" orange banner at the top of "Pitching profile" from 2021. The lead needs to be updated and expanded to include new information added to the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will see what I can do here. It will probably take me a week or two. Hog Farm _Talk 20:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - there is a lot of updating needed. I have gotten very busy with work IRL, a state which will probably continue until at least the beginning of October, and I just don't see myself having the time/energy the complete the needed work in a reasonable period of time. Hog Farm _Talk 02:13, 15 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) 18:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Delisting per nom. NotJamestack (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

Maintenance tags show issues with verification & uncited states. pretty well; article also relies heavily on breaking news stories (unreliable per WP:RSBREAKING) and contemporaneous weather reports. Not inherently problematic, but this has resulted in large sections being built almost entirely from primary sources which are an issues for compliance with criterion 2. Large amounts of the article are also copied directly from contemporaneous NOAA reports, and to keep in line with our plagiarism policies I have fixed those (though the material really needs to be sourced better). Aftermath section also has multiple paragraphs sourced to organizations about the organizations own activities; these likely need secondary sources.

Note that this passed a GAR recently, but that GAR was closed essentially procedurally. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 06:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Every source in the article is either a primary source (Michigan Department of Transportation), a map, or both. Article fails WIAGA 2B due to a total lack of secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The GA criterion 2B does not say that. The criterion only requires that sources be reliable, so unless they are going to advance an argument that they're not reliable, the article meets the requirement. Imzadi 1979 → 07:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Imzadi1979: Yeah, I probably got a little trigger-happy after the recent Horse Eye's Back incident. Without saying too much, I should also point out that some of their messes still haven't been fully cleaned up. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Of the nine sources in the article, one is About.com (which is listed as questionable on Wikipedia:DOTDASHMEREDITH), one is the show itself, two are press releases from the dubious looking "Cat Channel", and two are press releases. Given the show's short life and obscurity, this is probably about the best article you could write about it, but I still don't feel it's enough to pass GA. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:11, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well seeing as how this is a single-program game show without information about contestants and winners, I'd say it's missing key information. Gonnym (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Heavily tagged for uncited content, overuse of primary sources (i.e., road maps), and text-source integrity. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article was substantially expanded after this GAR was filed, but I don't want to close it yet as I feel the current form of the article should be checked to see that the expansions merit it staying GA. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Article is only two and a half paragraphs long, which seems to fail criteria 1 and 3. Sourcing is also dubious, with an over-reliance on primary sources (the mall's website, developer's website, or websites of tenants), press releases, and even a Fodor's review of all things. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:19, 21 July 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 the first paragraph in "Design and construction" and the entire "Demolition" section. Z1720 (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It does need some work, but I think it should be manageable without needing to look at a delisting. I have done a little work in the demolition section and reworked it more into a closure/demolition with some minor rephrasing, but some other stated facts would benefit from being cross-checked. I found a couple of period newspaper articles to support some of the prose here too. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:46, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

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

"Curator" of the article here. Won't argue any of that in the slightest. It's been a decade and a lots of material has been added since. I did originally mean to spin off the History section into its own article but never got around to it. Would that be a good first step? As for detail, any particular sections that should be trimmed? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mac Dreamstate: Spinning out the "History" section might be good if the article on its own would be notable (I suspect that it is). I usually prefer subject-interested editors to review the article's prose first because they often have a better sense of what is the most important information. However, I think spinning out/reducing the amount of text in the History section will probably solve most of the too-detailed concerns. Z1720 (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'll get to work on that. Also, could you point to the paragraphs of uncited text—those should be easy to fix. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mac Dreamstate: I have added citation needed templates to the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mac Dreamstate: Maybe it should be considered to move some of the content from the "Rules and technique" and "Scoring and judging" sections to the Ski jumping article? Since most of it applies to both ski jumping and ski flying, and the coverage on these topics in the other article is less detailed. Rewording the Ski flying article in such a way that the common regulations are only roughly outlined and the focus is given to the key differences. Maybe it would prove to be more friendlier than laying out every detail of the combined regulations in a unified fashion? Dżamper (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That could work as well. At the time of writing, I was more enthusiastic about fleshing out the ski flying article to notice that the ski jumping article was sparse in comparison, and written—in part—by non-English speakers. What I'll focus on first is addressing all the cite tags, then creating the History article, and finally seeing what I can do about transplanting some of the Rules and techniques content to the ski jumping article. I will say, however, that a lot of the techniques described are specific to ski flying, so it's not a simple copy-and-paste job. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion, having dealt with a decent amount of cite tags: rather than create a separate history article, would it be sufficient for bringing the page size down if the content from the abovementioned Rules and techniques section (as well as Scoring and judging) were instead incorporated into the ski jumping article? I'd much rather summarise the latter than write up new truncated prose for the current History section. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

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

Hmmm. I wandered over from WikiProject Plants to look at this, and it looks like the 3 issues identified were present when the article originally passed GA. I think I'd rank them in the following order of priority:

• Uncited paragraphs. Our institutional culture has generally gotten increasing lax about what constitutes a "reasonable challenge" to material and more fascinated by blue clicky numbers, but I editorialize. Fixing these should not be too hard and is useful.
• Spinning out the "Further reading" section. The original review noted "I'm not sure the system of subheadings in the bibliography is appropriate, but I wouldn't change it yet." Looking over Wikipedia:Further reading, it might be desirable to spin off a separate bibliographic list based on the existing references section (including subheadings), as I think just moving all the uncited materials there would create a somewhat arbitrary and overly-large "Further reading".
• Article size. This is the real sticking point—spinning off articles and condensing to summary style requires a lot of labor and energy (especially given our communal drift towards "Anything that's not exactly, explicitly stated in a source is vile reprehensible OR!") I think there is some room to argue that Narcissus is a broad and important topic and is inevitably going to be a big article when (G/g)ood; looking at the sections, most of them already have spin-off articles. "Cultivation" and "Uses" are probably the two best targets for further summarization here, but I'm not sure how much improvement we can expect. Choess (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Choess: Regarding article size: If articles like Earth, Philosophy and Beyonce can get to the ~9,000 or less word count, I think this article can also reach for that goal. Most Wikipedia editors are looking for general knowledge and an introduction to the topic: more specific details can go into the spunout articles. A copy edit might also help with summarising the information more effectively and reducing the size of very large sections with more headings or by trimming words: the "Flowers" (under Description), "Bacteria" (under pests), "History" (under "Cultivation"), "Commercial uses" (under "Uses") and "Western culture" (under "Art") are all very large sections that might be good places to start.

There is also some MOS:OVERSECTION in the article with short, one or two sentence sections. Merging these sections together might help reduce the word count. Some OVERSECTIONs include some "Art" level 3 headings, the level 4 headings in "Commercial uses", and some headings under "Reproductive" (fruit, seeds, etc.) I usually recommend a target of 2-4 paragraphs per heading, though this is not a specific rule and there are always cases where shorter or longer sections are necessary. However, anything too long makes it hard for mobile users to navigate the text, and paragraphs that are too short make the article look like a list. Z1720 (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with this critique–I've been fixing individual tagged errors on some other broad-scope plant GAs recently, and they also have that sprawly, OVERSECTIONed feel. I would definitely feel that it was a blocker if the article was brought to FA, but I am not sure whether it warrants delisting as GA. I don't personally have a clear feeling for how stringently the community wants to interpret "unnecessary detail" in 3b. Broadly speaking, condensing and summarizing appropriately is definitely something that takes effort and helps separate good writing from mediocre, and it's not unreasonable to ask people to do that to achieve a hallmark of quality. On the other hand (to be a little less peevish than above), I do think our cultural drift towards increasingly high adhesion to "exactly what the secondary source said" (driven by worst-case scenarios like CTOP) makes this unusually hard to accomplish compared to our other markers of quality, and we ought to consider that when we set our thresholds. YMMV.

Another thing that caught my eye was the big illustrated table in Taxonomy. It's not clear why that particular system was selected, and while it won't change prose size, spinning that off would reduce the visual clutter and scrolling. I'm sure there are opportunities like that for spin-off, but I am not sure how much I will be able to accomplish. Hopefully we can get the primary author and their collection of sources involved. Choess (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is 10 years since the GA promotion, and at that time this was basically a rewrite by myself, so I might be a little biased. Obviously a number of people have "improved" it since, which is inevitable but sometimes destabilises the original concept, but the way Wikipedia is run continues to evolve necessitating some tweaking. At the time of review, one reviewer stated it was well beyond GA! I think there needs to be a very high bar for delisting GAs on important topics. I really can't see anything fatal in the article that would justify its delisting, but of course it can be continually revised to meet changing stylistic guidelines. I have never been too concerned about size in GA provided that there is a good lead and the contents are well organised so readers can read what they want to. Nor do I think it makes sense to insist every source used is explicitly cited in the text, provided the text is actually supported by reliable sources. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 23:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael Goodyear: My biggest concern is the uncited text: I would not be able to recommend that this article keeps its GA status until that was resolved. The formatting concerns fall within MOS:LAYOUT, which is required for WP:GA? 1b. The "Further reading" concerns are of less importance, and I'm happy to help if requested. Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, thanks so much for stopping by. I've added some "citation needed" tags, not in the spirit of challenge but just to help keep track of where the uncited text occurs. There are a few cases where we might be best off just dropping the sentence. Choess (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as spin-offs go, we had already added multiple spin-offs. In my experience, "uncited" paragraphs largely occur when somebody splits a cited paragraph leaving sections "uncited" rather than implying text is unsupported. That is a cosmetic issue that is easily addressed. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 00:10, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A bit surprised to find that we didn't cite the number of species from POWO (76 species and 93 named hybrids); I've added it now - MPF (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At GA we went with the World Checklist and spun off species to a separate list. You will note that the current POWO list contains a large number of hybrids, so one could make an argument for two numbers - with and without hybrids. This was originally discussed in the section dealing with historical difficulties in determining the number of species. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 01:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that small subsections should be merged. I also agree that the Taxonomy section should be drastically cut given the separate article – the present situation with taxonomy discussed in two places makes maintenance unnecessarily difficult. This is a genus with massive historical, horticultural and cultural significance, which the article reflects. It's always possible to split off some sections into separate articles, but the determining factor should be value to readers, not some arbitrary length limit. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the Taxonomy section should be drastically cut. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]