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

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

Before opening a reassessment

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

Opening a reassessment

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

Reassessment process

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

Closing a reassessment

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

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

Disputing a reassessment

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

Archives

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

The Good articles listed below would benefit from the attention of reviewers as to whether they need to be reassessed. In cases where they do, please open a community reassessment and remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, remove the template from the article talk page.

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

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

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

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

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

• 21:49:25, 01/04/2025: QuackShot
  

• 20:10:15, 25/04/2025: The Birth of a Nation
  

• 19:42:08, 07/05/2025: Adaptation (film)
  

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

• 09:52:29, 09/05/2025: Mount Adams (Washington)
  

• 15:09:20, 12/05/2025: Muammar Gaddafi
  
• 17:18:40, 12/05/2025: 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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs (especially in the "Maratha-Hyderabad Relations" section). Z1720 (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

This article was GA'd in 2016, and has been updated little since then, with the exception of piecemeal and low quality additions of news sourcing of various Incidents members were involved with, which has now been split to another page.

So that problem is solved, but what remains is much more difficult, which is that this article incorporates no scholarship in the past 9 years, when in that period the group has become far more notorious and many more high quality writings on it have come out since then than in the whole of the period before it. [1] versus [2] to give an example. Entirely absent from this article is content and high-quality sources relating to the period where the subject has become the most notable.

It therefore fails the GAC#3, the broadness criterion in missing out on an entire decade of the group's history and all modern sources on it. I mentioned this on the talk page but it remains unaddressed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:51, 11 May 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 at the end of the "2006-2014" section. No post-2015 information. Z1720 (talk) 21:19, 11 May 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 two sub-sections in the "Islands" section. Text seems to have been uncited when it was promoted to GA. Z1720 (talk) 21:17, 11 May 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. The "History" section does not have much post-2017 information. Z1720 (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might you perhaps add {{fact}} on the errant statements? -- Zanimum (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanimum: I have added citation needed tags to the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Uncited statements in the "Legacy" section and a "more sources needed" orange banner for the "Selected bibliography of works by Döblin" section since 2017. Z1720 (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

As I noted on the article's talk page in April, a fair bit of this article's content is unsourced. Most of what is sourced is sourced only to the company that made this product's own publications, or to web sources of uncertain reliability. I do not believe this article meets the current sourcing expectations for GAs. The original nominator was blocked for socking several years ago. Hog Farm _Talk 04:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. At over 14,000 words, the article is too detailed and information needs to be spun out or trimmed. Z1720 (talk) 03:16, 11 May 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 (especially in "Design"). The "History" section stops at 2005 and should be updated. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 10 May 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. If anyone wants me to add citation needed templates to the article, please ping me. Z1720 (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this briefly, the article seems to be missing an architecture section, even though it's about a building. The structure's architecture is briefly touched upon in the "History" section, but otherwise this may not meet WP:GACR's broadness criterion. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. At over 11,000 words, some information should probably be moved to other articles or trimmed if too detailed. Z1720 (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

This article contains several uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. At over 13,000 words, the article is WP:TOOBIG and too WP:DETAIL. This includes too many quotes and block quotes (which should be summarised instead) and an excessively long lead. Z1720 (talk) 14:31, 10 May 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 "World War II Memoirs" section seems to be an indiscriminate list of external links. Perhaps this should be prose and moved to "Legacy"? Globalsecurity (ref 12) is considered an unreliable source (WP:GLOBALSECURITY) and should be replaced. Z1720 (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

The article fails criteria 3a "addresses the main aspects of the topic"; The "Professional" sub-section of the "Playing career" section has not been updated with any information since September 2020, meaning more 50% of Bozon's professional appearances to date came after the dates covered in the article, and the "International play" section only covers information through the 2019 World Championships, no mention of the 2022, 2023, 2024, or 2025 World Championships that Bozon represented France, again meaning more than 50% of Bozon's international career is not represented in the article. This missing information is important since Bozon's ice hockey career at professional/club and international level is the reason he is notable. Joeykai (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

The "demographics" section has not been updated since the 2021 UK census was released. There are also uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was only four years ago. There are only a few citations needed. Not worth opening a GAR just for this. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: Agreed that the last census was in 2021. However since the information has not been updated, the demographics information is from 2011, which is 14 years out of date as of this GAR. I think Wikipedia's status articles (like GAs and FAs) should not have information that is that far out of date: if an active, professional athlete's biography was missing 14 years of information, I would recommend a GAR. As for the citations: it might be a few that are needed, or it might be more depending on how much information the sources verify. The citations would have to added to the article before I recommend "keep". Would anyone like me to add "citation needed" tags to the places I think are uncited? Z1720 (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Markussep if he can update with 2021 figures. Demographics are just figures. Hardly an apt comparison to 14 years of missing career prose in an athlete's biography given that they only come around every ten years. I agree that it should be updated asap. The article looks pretty well sourced to me, but there may be a few more citations needed, feel free to identify them. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Uncited text, including entire pargaraphs. With over 10,000 words, some of the text should be considered for spinning out into other articles. Z1720 (talk) 06:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Uncited text, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 06:01, 3 May 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. While some text does not need to be cited, other sections such as the show's development and release on various media do need citations. Z1720 (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

While some of the statements could be cited to the mathematical data included in the article, other prose (such as in the "History" and "Electronics" sections) needs to be cited. Z1720 (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There were not before the GAR was opened and still are not any cleanup tags on this article such as [citation needed]. The only actual error category on the article is the newly-instantiated ISBN-date mismatch. Therefore, to me, starting the cleanup process by immediately opening a GAR seems like an excessively strong first measure. Maybe it would have been less confrontational to have tried placing [citation needed] tags first, and then waited enough time to see whether they were addressed, disputed, or ignored before opening a GAR? Even now that the GAR has been opened, you could still place those tags. Doing so would make it more clear to editors what you think is inadequately cited rather than this vague wave which leaves much to the imagination and makes it impossible to determine whether any steps one might take would satisfy you.

To put it another way: the preferred outcome of a GAR is to restore an article to deserving GA status, not to delist. If cleanup tags can head off a GAR before it starts, that would be even better. And telling us that the article is inadequate without providing specific-enough guidance for why you think so is a step towards the non-preferred outcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 can you provide some citation needed tags and other tags for describing the problem you have listed? As for a quick note, I am pinging @Jakob.scholbach as the nominator in 2009. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @David Eppstein: Some editors have described the addition of citation needed templates as disruptive, which is why I only add them when asked. I have now added some where I think they are needed and I see that other editors have also added cn templates to the article. If any editors are concerned about my conduct in GARs, please open a new thread at WT:GAN where the conversation may be more appropriate. Z1720 (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I did open a thread about WT:GAN, not about you specifically but about whether it is reasonable to expect that an article not tagged for any problems to suddenly come under GAR. And in that thread, you deflected again, saying that you would rather be pinged than discuss things there. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Jakob.scholbach appears not to have been active for almost a year. Fortunately, matrices are a basic enough topic that any other mathematician should be able to contribute, without requiring any special expertise. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, lest this GAR appear inactive: improvement to the tagged missing citations has been ongoing on the article itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I was inactive on Wikipedia for some time, but by accident I stumbled across this GAN. I am not convinced this GAN is actually warranted, but I will try to allocate some time to resolve the citation needed tags. Any help is of course appreciated! Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jakob.scholbach Since the nominator, again, did not provide further comments, I should have intervened as well. @Z1720, I will take over the nomination, hope you do not mind. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dedhert.Jr: Happy for anyone to help. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions or if this is ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

• I never heard of ${\displaystyle M}$, or ${\displaystyle \operatorname {Mat} }$, is used in place of ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}}$ as a symbol for square matrix, although it is used in some StackExchange's posts. If this is often, then more sources are preferable use them at all. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The article is getting technical as scrolling down, starting from Linear transformations. Another one is in the infinite matrices, where ${\displaystyle \bigoplus }$ is not very well-known to strangers.

I agree this section was not well done. I have removed most of it. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "There are many algorithms for testing whether a square matrix is invertible." Should you add some more algorithms?
• I will add some citation needed tags in some places, but I will also help to supply the requested citations.

That's all, and I'll check again after this. My time is short now. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the "Matrix groups" section has a confusing (and maybe redundant?) footnote that refers to "the general linear group" before general linear groups are defined. Footnote 95 just says "See any reference in representation theory or group representation." As I understand the culture here, that should be replaced with a specific book.

I think it is fine this way, especially given that is just a footnote. There is a tradeoff between keeping the focus and being correct (or even pedantic) here. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The section heading "Linear combinations of quantum states" seems rather obfuscated. Why not just call it "Quantum physics" or "Quantum mechanics"? The text is also somewhat confused. Density matrices aren't an example of "matrix mechanics" as Heisenberg developed it in 1925; they were introduced some years later. 64.112.179.236 (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I changed the quantum physics paragraph. I think bringing in "eigenstates" was also confusing. That was just one more unfamiliar and undefined term. 64.112.179.236 (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there rules for what goes in the "See also"? It looks kind of like a junk drawer. I mean, why "Bohemian matrices", of all things? 64.112.179.236 (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, these items should mostly (or all?) be removed.Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been trimmed now; I think the present status looks OK. 64.112.179.236 (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote to Mehra & Rechenberg (1987) needs a page number. Those are pretty big books. 64.112.179.236 (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ISBN given was for the wrong volume (Part 1 of Volume 5 is about Schrödinger's wave mechanics, not the Heisenberg–Born–Jordan matrix mechanics). I replaced it with a reference to the relevant pages in B. L. van der Waerden's editorial introduction to Sources of Quantum Mechanics, which is probably easier to get a hold of anyway. 64.112.179.236 (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few references in response to the citation needed tags. My overall impression is that the large majority of these requests are quite overblown: especially when it comes to the more survey-like sections, a look in the corresponding sub-article will practically always bring up references etc. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• When I saw some of the cn tags removed on my watchlist, I checked and agreed that they could be removed. If I disagree, I'll post below. Regarding the latter part of your comment about "corresponding sub-article will practically always bring up references": Information in the article needs to be referenced in the same article, as Wikipedia does not expect readers to click on a wikilink and find the information in a sub-article to verify the information (WP:V). Of course, Wikipedia articles can use the same sources: if the source is in the sub-article, the referencing can be copied and pasted into this article. Z1720 (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

"Update needed" orange banner at the top of the page since April 2022. Uncited statements in the article. Z1720 (talk) 05:54, 3 May 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 a section that has had a "This section has no sources" orange banner since February 2024. Z1720 (talk) 05:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 05:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

An "Update needed" banner in the "Viewing figures" section from 2019, as well as uncited text. Z1720 (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Could you clarify where the article has uncited statements?

Overall I am a bit concerned if GAR was actually needed here; the rest of the article meets standards, and patching up a few loose uncited statements and updating one section does not seem difficult, and could easily have been performed by one editor. If no one else does it, I can probably take a look at it myself sometime in the next week or two, but I do believe this should have been patched up by the nominator before it was brought to GAR. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: Please see WP:GAR #3, which states "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." I have added cn tags to the places where they are needed. I have no interest in fixing up this article although I will re-review when an editor thinks the article meets the GA criteria again. Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Ah, apologies, I'm confusing this with another guideline. Sorry about that. Thank you for the tags! I'll let you know when I get to these. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:51, 5 May 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) 05:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Took me a little while, but I've just read through the article, looked at a good few citations, but it seems fine to me. My qualm would be incomplete match information in the results table. I am not sure what your problem with the article exactly is, you didn't exactly state any direct problem. Govvy (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: The good article criteria requires that text be cited no later than at the end of the paragraph. There is a lot of text in this article that is not cited. I went through and added "citation needed" templates to the places which need a citation. Z1720 (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Needs more citations and better sources. —LastJabberwocky (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Not that close to modern GA standards. The lede including quotes of random reviews that don't appear particularly notable-as-reviews is not a good sign, and the referencing does not appear very strong. SnowFire (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

"Gameplay" section is missing citations, which Wikipedia:VG/LEAD states is necessary. Z1720 (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 The reception section is also quite lacking, given that there are reviews from reliable sources such as Eurogamer and Game Informer that aren't acknowledged in the prose or infobox. Sourcing the gameplay section would be a straightforward fix, but the problems with Reception show that there may be some GA Criteria #3 issues issues that need to be worked on. Just wanted to let you know! Fathoms Below (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Going back to the state the article was in when it was promoted, it is fully cited. However, it is still pretty lackluster compared to 2025 Good Article standards. It would really need a large amount of improvement. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, some which have been marked with "citation needed" templates since May 2015. Z1720 (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Too much use of block quotes and citations to legal decisions. I think this article needs more analysis from secondary sources and use of summary-style prose to be a good article. Z1720 (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. The block quotes are fine. However the referencing is not up to GA standard - there are entire paragraphs sourced solely to raw legal opinions. It's okay to have primary sources mentioned in addition to secondary sources, but they can't be used without such a secondary source, and should be second banana to the secondary source's take even when used given the extreme ease in misrepresenting them and their implications. SnowFire (talk) 02:04, 7 May 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. I also do not think the lead summarises all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

There are uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. The "Legacy" section is far too short and should be expanded. Z1720 (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be WP:BOLD and just drop this legacy section in its current state. It currently goes against MOS:POPCULT (Cultural references about the article's subject should not be included merely because they exist. Cultural aspects of the subject should be included only if they are supported by reliable secondary or tertiary sources that discuss the subject's cultural impact in some depth.) and WP:PROPORTION, (an article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject). In short, these articles just mention that characters are mentioned or have extremely brief appearances in single episodes of a television series. Without context for these statements, they shouldn't be included. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to tidy it up, but if anything, the merchandice and legacy sections are often citing YouTube, Toy Manfacturer websites, or books citing that they themselves exist with no context or third party notices. This section is a bit of a beast to re-write, but requires a lot of fixing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Lots of uncited statements, especially in the "Editions and translations" section. Z1720 (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. An "update needed" banner at the top of "Right to die" since 2021. Z1720 (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, paragraphs like the one starting It was held in the Malaysian Court of Appeal case of Sugumar Balakrishnan v. Pengarah Imigresen Negeri Sabah (1998) are cited solely to court cases and thus WP:OR. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, especially in "Recording and composition". Z1720 (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Z1720: I improved citation; turns out the source was already in the section but cited only the last paragraph (this is the source [3]). Is it a good source; seems to be self-published? —LastJabberwocky (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @LastJabberwocky: Website seems to be self-published with no editorial oversight. I recommend that the source be replaced with something more reliable. Z1720 (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

See talk page: the article is based primarily on two sources, one being an application for his house to be declared a national historic site, and the other being a book that, according to an opera scholar of note (see talk page), is full of disinformation and should not be considered a reliable source on the life and career of Paoli. Lopez also, according to the review, unfortunately did not properly cite his sources, making it difficult to determine what portion of his biography is backed up by primary sources.

Referring also to my comment on the talk page: a full rewrite of the article based on sources other than the Lopez book and the cursory summary in the NHS application would be necessary if this were to remain a GA, as the Lopez book is unreliable and as it is, the article contains much that is readily contradicted by other scholarly literature. A starting point for improving the article would be to examine period opera publications for information about Paoli. Wannabe rockstar (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

See talk page: the article is based primarily on two sources, one being an application for his house to be declared a national historic site, and the other being a book that, according to an opera scholar of note (see talk page), is full of disinformation and should not be considered a reliable source on the life and career of Paoli. Lopez also, according to the review, unfortunately did not properly cite his sources, making it difficult to determine what portion of his biography is backed up by primary sources.

Referring also to my comment on the talk page, several assertions in the body of the article are contradicted by existing scholarly literature. A full rewrite of the article based on sources other than the Lopez book and the cursory summary in the NHS application would be necessary if this were to remain a GA, as the Lopez book is unreliable and as it is, the article contains much that is readily contradicted by other scholarly literature. A starting point for improving the article would be to examine period opera publications for information about Paoli. Wannabe rockstar (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Uncited statements in the article, particularly in the "Live performances" section. Z1720 (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added all the missing citations I could find! —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 06:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LastJabberwocky: Added some cn tags. User:Phlsph7/HighlightUnreferencedPassages.js is the script I use to find potential uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, also thank yo for the nice plugin recommendation! —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 15:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. My concerns have been addressed and resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

There is a lot of text on the storylines section, which is not concise. There is also uncited text outside of what is covered under MOS:PLOT. Z1720 (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Films or episodes don't need to cite the plot section because the plot is the the film or episode. This isn't the case for character articles. They need to cite what episode is each statement from. That's a basic feature of WP:V. Gonnym (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Concerning citing the character's story arc: Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, like MOS:FICTIONPLOT and WP:PLOTREF, seem to only talk about works of fiction, not characters. I think that if the character's plot summary references when things happen on the show (for example, "In the sixth season finale...") then a citation is not required. However, in my opinion, the plot as currently structured is too long and needs to be written with more references to which season/point of time out-of-universe that events happen. Z1720 (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

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

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

Result pending

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

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

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

Result pending

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

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

Result pending

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

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. I also think some of the quotes can be removed and the information summarised instead. Z1720 (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Not much post-2009 information, and no indication that the band has gone inactive. Z1720 (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

It looks like the most egregious examples of missing references are in the Compounds and Applications sections. The "Precautions" section also seriously needs a hazard infobox and should be renamed to something else to reduce "how-to guide" implications. One more thing: there's no good reason for the levels of WP:SANDWICH going on under Applications. Though I can't dedicate much time to this until I finish other tasks (as Keresluna is probably well aware; sorry!!) -- Reconrabbit 18:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

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

Delist, the first four references I checked on a quick spot check:

[29]: N says nothing about "William E. Walsh"

[36]: N doesn't support the 1968 date

[178]: N doesn't support the paragraph, which also includes an arguably WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim

[184]: N permanently dead link

It's clear this needs a full source-text integrity check, or there can be no confidence that this meets criterion 2b. That is a gigantic task for an article with 213 references. IAWW (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

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

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

Result pending

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

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Lots of short, one-sentence paragraphs that can be formatted more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

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

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

Result pending

Old GA is having an issue per [4] with an active template at the top. Multiple dead links also 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Result pending

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

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

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

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

Result pending

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Is splitting the year by year sections of Carlsen's career to separate articles like "2025 Magnus Carlsen chess season" what's being suggested here? As far as I can tell, the durations of the annual ATP Tours are used to define an official "season" in tennis. I suppose the chess equivalent to this would be the FIDE Circuit, but that has only existed since 2023, so it might not be clear how exactly to define chess seasons. 9ninety (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @9ninety: Splitting the prose out into new articles might be a solution, but the new articles have to meet Wikipedia's general notability requirements on their own. Another solution is to remove non-notable prose from the biography, as Carlsen's appearance at every tournament and his actions in each round of the tournament does not need to be described in the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Some of the sections (like 2017 which contains no less than 11 paragraphs) are quite long and go in depth into the details of each tournament he played. This could easily be trimmed down to 2 or 3 paragraphs going over the main results and other events or controversies he's involved in, and then the rest of the detail can be covered in a dedicated article.

  Another reason I'll be supportive of splitting is the results tables, which aren't very easy to navigate due to their length; it requires a decent amount of scrolling just to get to his most recent results in 2025. This table could benefit from being split into the respective sub articles. Splitting might also help avoid some proseline issues. 9ninety (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care whether the detailed results appear elsewhere, but they should not be in this article. So I do not have an opinion on "splitting" as such, but certainly cutting 80% of the year by year sections from this article would help. —Kusma (talk) 08:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Work seems to have stalled, uncited statements remain, and the article remains too detailed. Z1720 (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• @Rodney Baggins: I added some cn templates to help identify what needs citations. Z1720 (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Will be starting extended work today. Hope end of May is a good deadline 750h+ 14:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: i'll get to this soon, please ping me if i don't start on this soon. 750h+ 13:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: hmm i don't really see anything from "marriage and children" that should be moved into the "career" sect. what do you think? 750h+ 02:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since Ms. Knowles wed Jay-Z in 2008, I would recommend mentioning that along with giving birth to Blue in the 2008–2012 section (especially when giving birth in the end of that range) and maybe her miscarriage. Twins Rumi and Sir can first be introduced within 2015–2017 based on when they were born. There already is a mention within the latter section of how pregnancy concerns were why she dropped out of performing at Coachella in 2017. It also talks a bit about being married to Mr. Carter. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that information is better in the Personal life section: if consensus is to mention it in the Career section, the information should be removed from the subsequent section. Z1720 (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, I was hoping to avoid redundancies of collabs and relationship info with such a move. We currently have different places where Jay-Z is mentioned as her husband, and seeing that under 2015–2017 without a prior indication of when they got married would likely make readers unfamiliar with such details ask when that happened. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

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

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

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

Some quotes could be removed and summarised;

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

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

--

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

--

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

> reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

      I intend to look at the details as well. I have pulled 10 books off my shelves that appear to have information on the battles; one is about only those battles. I should be able to begin to review and work on this within the next few days. Donner60 (talk) 07:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Would adding citation needed templates be helpful in identifying the uncited text? At a minimum, every paragraph (except the lead) should have a citation at the end of it, verifying the information that proceeds it. Z1720 (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

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

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

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

@Horse Eye's Back: I see that you are working on the article and adding templates. What's your opinion on the status of this article? Should this GAR be kept open for additional improvements? Z1720 (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Result pending

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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