← ( Page 66) | Good article reassessment (archive) | ( Page 68) → |
I ran into this article yesterday, and was shocked to see it listed as a good article. What's wrong with it? Well, this article was promoted in 2008 and has not been reassessed since. In that time, it has become more than a decade out of date (there is a "as of 2005" statement in it) and has a number of unsourced paragraphs and subsections. Sections of prose do not meet GA standards for their quality of writing. Inexplicably, the article does not cover Trailer-on-flatcar or Containerization at all, which are significant parts of the trucking industry in the United States. A fair amount of work is needed to bring this back to GA level, especially considering standards for what we consider a good article have increased since 2008. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 15:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
This 2008 promotion needs further attention now. There is uncited text scattered throughout, as well as datedness - the source for One in every 45 (2.2%) last-year users of BZP in New Zealand is classed as dependent upon it, although 97.9% of users said that "it would not be difficult to stop using legal party pills", and 45.2% of people who reported using both BZP and illegal drugs such as methamphetamine reported that they used BZP so that they did not have to use methamphetamine, which was perceived as more harmful. is about 15 years old and probably outdated, and the information in the legal issues section all seems to pre-date 2010. Without a thorough updating and citing, this may have to be delisted as a GA. Hog Farm Talk 06:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Assed in 2016, the has number of citation needed tags some going as far back as 2017. Has random information unrelated to the subject in question and with WP:UNDUE; i.e. 7 lines regarding a book, that he reportedly memorized as a kid. It also has problems with WP:TONE. Skjoldbro ( talk) 21:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
He also memorized the Doctrina Christiana, believed to be the first book printed in the Philippines.[4][12] The title of the work literally means "Christian Doctrine", and thus the primary goal of the book was to propagate Christian teaching across the Philippine archipelago. The book consists of 38 leaves and 74 pages of text in Spanish, Tagalog transliterated into roman letters, and Tagalog in its original Baybayin script, under a woodcut of Saint Dominic, with the verso originally blank, although in contemporary versions bears the manuscript inscription, "Tassada en dos reales", signed by Juan de Cuellar. After a syllabary comes the basic prayers: the Lord's Prayer, Hail Mary, Credo, and the Salve Regina. Following these are Articles of Faith, the Ten Commandments, Commandments of the Holy Church, Sacraments of the Holy Church, Seven Mortal Sins, Fourteen Works of Charity, and points on Confession and Catechism.Skjoldbro ( talk) 09:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
After taking breakfast, he ordered a subordinate, Colonel Queri, to prepare arms and ammunition for the ten men. Then, the men boarded a train destined towards Malinta, which was American-held territory. After giving orders to the men, he let them go and watched them with his telescope. The men, succeeding their mission, eventually returned unharmed. Admiring their bravery, he organized them into a guerrilla unit of around 50 members.I just don't think it reads like other GAs. It sound more like a story rather than statements of facts. Additionally, how is anyone able to know the mood of Luna moments before his death?
Still outraged and furious, Luna rushed down the stairs [...]These are just two examples from a cursory look. Skjoldbro ( talk) 20:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Specific historical facts are routinely censored in this page as highlighted here. The quality of the discussion in the talk page has reached very low levels making it impossible to hold a conversation. The page is also a theater of edit-warring, which should cause immediate failure of being considered a good article. Morgoonki ( talk) 10:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Article passed GA in 2007. Our quality standards have since improved greatly, and this no longer meets them. There are claims that lack citations and the lead fails MOS:LEAD in its length and coverage. The prose arguably fails GA#1 too, due to its jumpy layout. Anarchyte ( talk) 09:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
The table below represents my individual assessment of the article against the Good article criteria. However, I requested a community reassessment given the lack of consensus and high level of disagreement on the article's talk page. Thus, the assessment below represents only one person's opinion; it is neither the complete nor the final good article reassessment. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 19:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Recent contentious editing has degraded the quality of the prose. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The lead is too long, containing text better suited for the article body. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. 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). | Whether or not a reference constitutes a reliable source per WP:MEDRS has been hotly debated. In my estimation, some of the references do not comply with both standard and medical reliable sources criteria, e.g., theoretical articles and primary source citations. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | There appears to be instances of WP:SYNTH. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Not a major problem but excess detail occurs in some places. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Some agendas are being pushed, IMHO of course. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Frequent back-and-forth edits with tendentious arguments common on the talk page. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Regrettably, the article no longer meets GA criteria. |
Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 19:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I am opening a community GAR on this article due to that from my perspective it does not meet the Good Article criteria in the following:
1. Well written- This article in my opinion does not satisfy the requirements according to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. The article is split into eight main sections, but numerous sections are too short or superficial for it to fully satisfy The Manual of Style which states that 'Sections usually consist of paragraphs of running prose.' However, in this article two sections (Awards and Other Reviews) are exceedingly short with the first comprising of only a single sentence whereas the latter only lists a single outdated example in dot point form. The prose is also severely lacking for the section 'Spin-offs', which includes numerous subheadings, but most of them are especially superficial with a single example given. Similarly, numerous other sections, such as 'Game Description' and 'Publication History', also comprise paragraphs also only consisting of one single sentence. Consider those lines under the 'Publication History':
'In May 2012, a new Designer's Edition of Ogre was funded on Kickstarter.com.
In late 2018, SJG ran a Kickstarter for Ogre Battlefields, an update and expansion for both the Designer's Edition and the Sixth Edition.
In 2020, SJG released a updated pocketbox version of Ogre with a 16-page manual and 112 counters, along with updated pocket box versions of G.E.V., Battlesuit, and Shockwave.
In 2021, as part of a Kickstarter campaign, SJG released 1976 Ogre Playtest Booklet, a reproduction of the original typewritten playtest set for the first version of Ogre.'
In my opinion, those do not seem to comply with the Manual of Style, which recommends paragraphs with suitable prose. The article also has numerous grammatical errors, such as 'In 2020, SJG released a updated' where 'an updated' should be utilised instead.
2. Verifiable with no original research- most sections of the GA has pertinent referencing. However, various sections, including the lead paragraph (which should be 'carefully sourced' based on its Wikipedia page entry) as well as the 'Other Reviews' does not consist of any sourcing and might possibly indicate original research, which I believe also does not satisfy the GA criteria.
6. Illustrated- the article only provides two images, and does not show any standard edition of the game; only a deluxe edition image is included along with the cover. This seems fairly lacking in my opinion, especially considering that the inclusion of images in the section 'Game description' would have benefitted from my perspective.
Based on my quick check, I believe that it does not meet at least three criteria, the others (criteria 3, 4 and 5) being weak passes. However, I am a very new Wikipedia editor and hence believe that this article would require a community GA assessment considering its overall quality and that the last GA approval is in 2008, during which the standards would likely be different. Please let me know for any questions and I appreciate sincerely your feedback- VickKiang ( talk) 02:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC).
Note: I also added noteworthy sections of the article requiring clean-ups from my perspective, including expansion for sections 'Awards' and 'Other Reviews' as well as changing list to prose as a suggestion for the 'Spin-offs'.
Agreed, despite some substantial improvements recorded in the new edits, this article seems inferior in quality compared not just to GA articles, but in contrast to most B- grade articles. If anyone else can respond that would be great- VickKiang ( talk) 23:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC).
Per the criteria at WP:GACR, a Good Article should be well-written, verifiable with no original research, broad in its coverage, neutral, stable, and illustrated if possible. This article severely struggles to meet the verifiable and broad categories, and with my own research mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa/Archive 12#African women’s football teams it seems like the topic does not pass WP:GNG (as WP:NTEAM says it should, for the record) and ought to be merged into a new article on Women's football in Burundi or outright AFDed. Keep in mind that there really isn't a true women's national team, just a youth team and and adult team that occasionally are organized (one does not appear to currently exist). As for the specific issues:
I advocate delisting and probably eventually deleting or merging to a new Women's football in Burundi article (an actually notable topic). The existence of this article seems to totally hinge on false expectations that a national sports team is/should be notable. Sorry to say, that is not the case here by my read. But I open the floor to others who may have new sources or ideas. Courtesy @ Aircorn: who first brought this to my attention. - Indy beetle ( talk) 03:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
It is likely this article no longer meets the good article criteria as it features a {{ more citations needed}} cleanup banner and superscript ordinals that go against the manual of style guidelines for numbers (see Pixar#Pixar: 20 Years of Animation).
IAmAnIndividual ( talk) 22:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Delist per nom. Lallint⟫⟫⟫ Talk 22:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Delist Hard for me to argue with you. It's been 3 months and none of the issues highlighted above have been fixed. -- The helper5667 ( talk) 22:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
It was listed good a long time ago. The lead mentions things other than transport but the body text is almost all about transport. For example the lead mentions electricity but there is nothing about charging more for electricity transmission when a line is in demand a lot. Chidgk1 ( talk) 12:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
OK so we agree it needs work to stay good so the question now is whether anyone is willing to do much work on it. I am not but I will leave this open for a while and if no one volunteers put an appeal in the most relevant project before delisting. Chidgk1 ( talk) 19:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Mariordo Thanks for your improvements so far - are you (or anyone else of course such as Snooganssnoogans Sdkb) intending to improve this article further in the next few days? Chidgk1 ( talk) 12:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
My opinion is delist. But note that this is a community assessment so an uninvolved editor will eventually need to close the discussion. Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am hoping someone will update the article as I think it is no longer good because it is out of date. But I don't know the subject. Chidgk1 ( talk) 14:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Pbsouthwood Thanks for your comments about Sea surface temperature. I know this is a long way from your sea but have you time to also comment in this community reassessment? No Australians have commented yet so I wonder if I have messed up something technical with where I put this. Chidgk1 ( talk) 16:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately no one has come here from the Australia and Queensland projects. If no one else comments I will very soon delist as out of date so no longer addresses the main aspects of the topic. Chidgk1 ( talk) 08:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
My opinion is delist because the lead is relying a lot on a 2014 report and a 2016 article, whereas a lot more recent info is available. And nowadays there should be more info added about the recent politics e.g. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/great-barrier-reef-election-battle-brews-amid-fears-of-more-coral-bleaching-20220107-p59mmj.html Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article has changed significantly since it became a GA, with content being culled/added, and I have a few concerns with this. My main being NPOV issues, with the repeated removal/moving/renaming of the criticism section and other general criticism in this article. Because of this, I believe the article now fails GA criterion #4, "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each". Below, I have listed the multiple modifications/removals of the critism section, almost entirely by CactiStaccingCrane:
At this point, the article currently has minimal sections documenting criticism of the project, with a small section half way down the article called "Environmental impact", of which half is dedicated to criticism. Other than this I cannot see any major concerns in the article. Because of this clear NPOV issue, I believe this article should be delisted from GA status.
Throughout the many recent revisions, I believe that the tone of this article is not that of standard Wikipedia tone. Because of this, I believe it fails Criteria 1b, where an article must "[comply] with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation." I've attached a list of a few places I believe are tonally inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia:
Provided are only a few examples of casual tone on the page. To put it bluntly (I don't mean to put anyone down here), a large potion of this article reads as if it was written by a child. I think a major rewrite is required in order to remove the extensive tone inconsistencies.
In January 2020 SpaceX purchased two drilling rigs from Valaris plc for $3.5 million each during their bankruptcy proceedings, planning to repurpose them as offshore spaceportscited to this, which says August.
After the Mark series, SpaceX named subsequent prototypes with the prefix "SN"., has a footnote saying it's obvious; whether or not that's the case, I don't know, but also I have no clue what "Mark series" means.
No prototypes between SN1 and SN4 flew: SN1 along with SN3 collapsed during proof pressure test and SN4 exploded after its fifth engine firing., cited to this, which doesn't support anything about SN2, despite it apparently existing. (I say apparently because I have no familiarity with Starship.)
During the interval, the company accelerated the construction of manufacturing and support infrastructure at Starbase, including large tents, stations, and repurposed intermodal containers. When linked together, these facilities act as a production line, making Starship construction quicker., cited to this. First sentence OK (though I don't know what an intermodal container is; that description is just lifted from the ArsTechnica piece, and I don't understand what a "tent" means without reading ArsTechnica). Second sentence is concerning, because as far as I'm reading the source, all of the information is aspirational - it's what Musk wants to achieve, but it's not necessarily saying that construction actually is quicker, or that being linked together makes construction quicker; both of those conclusions are problematic. But even if all of that is true, I'm not sure we should even be using Berger for that information (or stating it as incontrovertible fact); he seems to have some kind of interest in how we perceive SpaceX, given that he has "unparalleled journalistic access to the company’s inner workings".
I have edited the article to have more criticisms. Is the article due now, or need more improvement? It is worth noting that finding source that is negative about Starship is very difficult. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 08:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Starship is a fully-reusable rocket made out of stainless steel, developing by SpaceX. Both of its stages – Super Heavy booster and Starship spacecraft – contains liquid oxygen and liquid methane. Starship would launch upright, with the booster's thirty-three Raptor engines operating in parallel. Super Heavy separates and the spacecraft fires three of its Raptor Vacuum engines, inserting itself to orbit. The booster then control its descent via grid fins and positions to the launch tower's arms. At the mission end, the Starship spacecraft enters the atmosphere, protected by a series of hexagon heat shield tiles. The spacecraft glides using its flaps, flips up, and fires three of its Raptor engine to land upright.
Starship's main features are high capability and low operating cost. The rocket will launch at Starbase, Kennedy Space Center, and two offshore launch platforms. The spacecraft tanker variant can refuel spacecraft in space, increasing its 100 t (220,000 lb) transport range to the Moon and Mars. Other spacecraft variants can deploy satellites, serve space tourists, and explore the Moon. Starship's low cost might make SpaceX Mars ambition and make rocket travel on Earth possible.
The rocket is first outlined by SpaceX as early as 2005, with frequent designs and names changes later on. In July 2019, Starhopper, a prototype vehicle with extended fins, performed a 150 m (490 ft) low altitude test flight. In May 2021, Starship SN15 flew to 10 km (6 mi) and landed, after four failed attempts by previous prototypes. As of January 2022, the BN4 booster and SN20 spacecraft may launch near early 2022. Starship iterative and incremental development has unrealistic goals, harmed environment, and displaced residents.
There also used to be a Finance section that no longer exists in the current article. X-Editor ( talk) 06:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Delist, seems like no one is interested to place the article back to standard, including me. I will renominate the article instead, keeping this GAR is a waste of time. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 04:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Berrely: I think that I have addressed your NPOV concerns, as there are now many paragraphs which details about Starship criticisms. Is it appropriate to close the GAR now? CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 02:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I feel that the GAR of SpaceX Starship is now becoming zombie-like, when I ask for comments multiple times and no one is responding. I also don't feel that the article is that bad that it needs a GAR, as a notice on the article talk page would do for me. So, I would close the assessment, but I am more than happy to reopen the reassessment if anyone wants to chip in, pinging @ Berrely:, @ Urve:, @ Peacemaker67:. I won't add {{GAN/result}} for now, as an uninvolved editor would decide. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 06:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
At the bottom of Starship are six Raptor engines, with three operate in the atmosphere and the other three Raptor Vacuum may operate in space)? What makes this reliable for statements of fact? Is Elon Musk the same as SpaceX, such as when it's said that
SpaceX has stated its goal is to colonize Mars for the long-term survival of the human speciescited to this, which is just repeating what Musk says? And if that is the case, why is it not mentioned that
Musk himself told nonprofit XPrize in April that some astronauts will “probably die” en route to Mars- an important detail about the sustainability and safety of the project? Etc. Urve ( talk) 06:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Also, my questions above don't seem to be resolved? Urve ( talk) 07:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Starship's heat shield is designed to be used multiple times with no maintenance between flights- the source is talking about a thermal protection system doing that; I have no idea whether this is exactly the same as a "heat shield", or whether it includes other elements within and without the spacecraft (like perhaps whatever "reinforced carbon carbon" is), so I can't comment on whether that's accurate.
each mounted and spaced to counteract expansion due to heat- I don't see that in the poster.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Some of the sources show warnings for being preprints or general repositories. Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC) is not mentioned. So I wonder if the article is out of date? Chidgk1 ( talk) 15:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
RE: "Some of the sources show warnings for being preprints or general repositories." This is simply a reminder to make sure you're not citing crap. Here it highlights stuff with links to Google books. Google Books will have things from reputable publishers like Springer Science+Business Media, but also things like Alphascript and Lulu.com. If the books have reputable publishers (which they all seem to have), there's no real problem. See the 'General repository' and 'Google Books' examples in User:Headbomb/unreliable#Common cleanup and non-problematic cases for more information. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I am going to leave this community reassessment open in the hope that other people will comment. Also I see from the instructions that "Any uninvolved editor may close the discussion". Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
My opinion is delist as out of date. Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I am opening a community GAR due to it being poorly written, with questionable refs and most sections being empty. Note its similarity to a previous article on the Burundi Woman's Football Team recently delisted as GA. See the table below:
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Indisputably poor prose with most sections being empty. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Most sections are empty with no info provided, as several tables, lead contains info not mentioned elsewhere, e.g., " It played its first international matches in 2018 in the Cup of Nations qualifiers." | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Most of the refs (2-6) seems to be generally about all African teams, and not specifically this team, so I am tentative on this entire paragraph. | |
2b. 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). | Ref 12 and 14 does not seem reliable, with no editorial standards and an extremely dated interface. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Some lead info as per above not found elsewhere nor verified by any refs. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Does not have copyvios. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Most sections seem entirely empty, and the article does not address all of those. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Verbious info on 2002 performances, but almost none for post-2010 ones. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Mostly adhere to NPOV. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Highly stable. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Adheres well. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Captions extremely short but tolerable. | |
7. Overall assessment. |
As a result, based on my speedy check it seems that this article fails at least three, and IMO it should not be a GA and is a C or start class. Many thanks. VickKiang ( talk) 04:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Active cleanup banners (original research, citation needed issues) on the article, also see Luxtaythe2nd comment on the talk page. ( t · c) buidhe 10:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
many unusual knots were used to tie the body, and the same knots were said to be used in Gordon Park's house and boat. This was one of the key pieces of evidence used against Gordon in the trial.This is cited to this article, which doesn't describe the knots as unusual and doesn't say that they were a "key" piece of evidence.
this article fails "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each." immediately. fried chicken, such a generic dish, exists in many variations in different countries. to draw an analogy, it would be unthinkable if fried rice should only refer to some America's (or any country's) variation.-- RZuo ( talk) 21:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Issues with neutrality (criteria 4). User:Skyerise has been acting like she WP:OWNs the page, bullying and threatening other users into letting her views stand. See Talk:Inanna#Removal of dubious Greek equivalence and User talk:HaniwaEnthusiast#Astarte. In the latter user talk page link Skyerise asserts that her personal religious beliefs should be considered on equal footing with reliable sources, which might indicate an original research (criteria 2) problem as well. - Apocheir ( talk) 23:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Please do not use this forum to continue old disputes. All we care about is how it fails the WP:GACR. If there are concerns with editors behaviour then they need to go to another noticeboard. There is a serious risk of turning away editors well versed in the Good Article process if the above back and forth continues. Aircorn (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
This is similar to some aspects of Greek myths of the abduction of Persephoneand whether John M. Riddle is a reliable source for making that statement. Is this correct? Aircorn (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
according to John M. Riddle .... If its just a sentence in the body the claims of UNDUE are weaker and if you take it out of wikivoice it mitigates the reliable source concerns. Either way none of this seems to rise to the level of demoting the whole article. Aircorn (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm still concerned that this article lets one user's POV dominate. User:Katolophyromai and User:HaniwaEnthusiast have both stated that they think the similarities between Inanna and Persephone are overemphasized. Individual users may have other concerns that I haven't been able to tease out of their flame wars, as well. I am not an expert on this topic, I just happened to see the fighting over it and became interested. If everyone else comes to an agreement, I'll be happy to withdraw this reassessment. I encourage them to speak up. - Apocheir ( talk) 23:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
It's now been months since there was any discussion on this reassessment, the content about Persephone appears to no longer be in the lead, and the dispute about this point appears to have died down. A quick glance over the article suggests that it is in pretty good shape. Can this now be closed as keep GA, or are there any remaining concerns? Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 11:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
This article is not neutral; it frequently editorializing about Pedro II's character and describes him in exclusively positive terms. It describes him as "a monarch who grew tired of his crown" and says he was "beloved by the Brazilian people"; he was "a man grown world-weary with age", and so on. The section titles are hardly encyclopedic: "A tired emperor" and "The monarchy's fate: heirless" are overly dramatic. Also, there is no basis for including the claim "through action and inaction, consciously and unconsciously, he had been sabotaging both the monarchy and the prospects of his daughter's future reign for nearly a decade." Overall, it focuses on Pedro II's psychology as much as the actual rebellion, and it venerates him to an almost propagandistic degree.
It "had an economy that was rapidly developing in 1880s".
To give an idea of the economic potential of the country during the Empire, if "it had been able to sustain the level of productivity achieved in 1780 and managed to increase exports at a pace equal to that verified in the second half of 19th century, its per capita income in 1850 would be comparable to the average per capita income of the Western European nations"
The "countryside echoed with the clang of iron track being laid as railroads were constructed at the most furious pace of the nineteenth century; indeed, building in the 1880s was the second greatest in absolute terms in Brazil's entire history. Only eight countries in the entire world laid more track in the decade than Brazil."
I have reworded the two section titles you have described as dramatic. I removed "a monarch who grew tired of his crown" since it seems inappropriate for the infobox, but there are no issues with the statements "beloved by the Brazilian people" and "a man grown world-weary with age." ("Beginning in late 1880, letters from Pedro II to the Countess of Barral reveal a man grown world-weary with age and having an increasingly alienated and pessimistic outlook."). Put into context, this statement doesn't seem out-of-the-ordinary or exclusively positive. And why would the statement "beloved by the Brazilian people" be a problem if it is reliably sourced?
It also seems that the article regards him in a positive light because that is how historians and sources have evaluated him as — a great monarch. "Through action and inaction, consciously and unconsciously, he had been sabotaging both the monarchy and the prospects of his daughter's future reign for nearly a decade," is a statement immediately supported by a historian's remark and fits what the article is trying to convey. This also brings me to your claim that he is regarded in "exclusively positive terms"; the article seems to put blame on Pedro II for the fall of the monarchy. It is even quoted in a source in the article: "The 'Emperor's indifference towards the fate of the regime was also one of the main factors in the fall of the Monarchy.'" This would have been excluded had this article been created to a "propagandistic degree," along with all the other mentions of Pedro's lackluster attempts at saving and contributing to the downfall of the monarchy.
Finally, you say "it focuses on Pedro II's psychology as much as the actual rebellion." Of course, it does! I clicked here wanting to read about Pedro II's decline, not the Empire of Brazil's sudden disestablishment. The article places equal emphasis on Pedro's psychology, personal thoughts, and life as it does to the factors which contributed to the military coup. If anything, it places more emphasis on the latter at some points. If I wanted to read on the "actual rebellion," I would look up the Proclamation of the Republic. I clicked here in search of Pedro's decline and Pedro's life in this time period, and the article explains both well. For these reasons, I strongly oppose this reassessment and will notify WikiProjects and any significant contributor(s) for them to weigh in. FredModulars ( talk) 04:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
WIN Television was listed at GA in 2007 and survived a GA sweep in 2009. It has been more than a decade. While there is a good amount of what probably are good offline newspaper citations, the page is unfocused and does not do enough to explain the scope of WIN's operation. It is not a GA in its current condition; only now was a {{ cn}} removed from the lead paragraph!
The article sorely needs repair from editors with more knowledge of Australian television. If this is not obtained, it should not stand as a GA. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
43 citation needed tags by my count. Needs a lot of improvement to sourcing to stay a good article. ( t · c) buidhe 13:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a citation needed template in the visual effects section, the music section is quite empty and per WP:IMDb it is not a reliable source. Sahaib ( talk) 06:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
This article should be re-evaluated for Good Article status. Despite a long history of edits, it does not meet GA Criteria: 1a, 1b, 4, and 6b. 1a: there are too many in-line quotes, block quotes, image quotes, external media, and other collections of non-prose items, distracting from the main focus of an article - encyclopedic text. 1b: the Manual of Style is not followed with image sizes, sandwiching media, editorializing, weasel words, and other elements. 4: there is strong editorial bias in the text and quotes given. It is clear that the editor(s) are reflecting the silliness of the topic in the article prose, which is improper. 6b: there are several poor, repetitive, or barely relevant images illustrating the article. The article also suffers from innumerous dead links and run-on sentences. A full source check may be necessary to see if it complies with GA criteria, e.g. sourcing Lovecraft's opinion directly to one of his works of fiction is a nonstarter. ɱ (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
as admitted by one of the article's editors on its talk page– I did not "admit", or even say, that the article has a "tedious" or "tongue-in-cheek" style. What I said is that
The sources are tongue-in-cheek, and the article, by quoting those sources, simply reflects that for the reader[11]. Tell us now whether you can see the difference between those, because if you can't then you're not competent to participate in these discussions. E Eng 19:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
It is clear that the editor(s) are reflecting the silliness of the topic in the article prose, which is improper.It is not improper. There is no rule, in GA or elsewhere, that Wikipedia articles must be dry and humorless, and even less is there such a rule for topics that are notable for being silly (such as this one). The rule is not that humor is outlawed, but rather that the humor should not interfere with being accurate or informative; here I don't think it does. Indeed, I rather suspect that readers of this topic are likely to come to it as a way of seeking out humorous anecdotes about it, and are likely to leave disappointed and uninformed if the humor is excised. This desire to avoid silliness has led the nominator to overreach elsewhere; for instance it also appears to be untrue that the images are
poor, repetitive, or barely relevant; they all look relevant and distinct to me. It is also not true that the dead links are
innumerous, too many to be counted: I count zero {{ deadlink}} tags in the article, a number that is easily small enough for most people to count. I don't think a GA reassessment with such a flawed basis is likely to lead anywhere productive, except as a referendum on Wikipedia:Humor, for which the talk page of that essay might be a more appropriate venue. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
"to the life" - euphemism– Better look up euphemism in a dictionary, or ask your teacher.
"important" - state significance insteadand
"historic" - simply state years– The article text reads
"a memorial of the importance of the Cod-Fishery to the welfare of this Commonwealth" (i.e. Massachusetts, of which cod is officially the "historic and continuing symbol"). The importance is explained in its own section of the article, and aside from the fact that it's a quotation, how in the fuck are we supposed to "simply state years" instead? What are you even talking about? You seem to not understand what the subject of the article is.
"prehistoric creature of tradition" - poetry– Again it's a quote, and one which perfectly transmits what's intended. You seem to consider lifelessness a sign of quality writing.
"natural habitat" - editorializing, euphemism– For the nth time, PLEASE look up euphemism so you can learn what it means. And editorializing too while you're at it. I openly admit that "natural habitat" is meant to make the reader smile, and if you don't like that, tough. Don't smile if you don't want to.
When you're unable to respond substantively I guess there's nothing like some good old-fashioned forum-shopping to keep a crusade alive:
Planning to recruit anywhere else? E Eng 02:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
One should not confound writing that is skillful and distinctive with writing that is unencyclopedic; this is the former. Most of the criticisms raised here are matters of The RulesTM, rather than substantive ones about page quality.But you'll probably just ignore that and keep yelling "run-on" and "euphemism" and "bias" at random. E Eng 23:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
... His forum-shopping having failed, the OP is now taking out his frustrations by making WP:POINTy edits adding random inpopcult trivia to other articles [15]. E Eng 19:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
This article was marked as a Good Article in 2008, when the standards were probably not as high. Looking at it today, it has only a few citations, many of them not highly reliable sources. A lot of praise for the comic is extrapolated from these. More information comes from primary sources than is ideal.
Primarily, I think this doesn't meet the current Good Article criteria because too much information is drawn from primary sources. However, I'm putting this as a community reassessment because I'm not an expert in the Good Article space. HenryCrun15 ( talk) 02:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Concern that the article includes unsourced content and downplays the controversies that the organization has been involved in, see the talk page for details. ( t · c) buidhe 15:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment by Swiss romulus moved from the other GAR:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lack of citations, cleanup banners, lack of updates on post-2009 work, poor prose in areas (elaboration on the talk page) ( t · c) buidhe 12:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Last month, User:Lilredreb removed a large amount of information from this page, asserting that the article was conflating different people. This article needs someone familiar with the subject area to sort it out. It needs to be determined if the removal of information was the correct thing to do. If it was, then the references listed in the bibliography section need to be checked if they apply to this guy or the other guy. The infobox would need to be removed or replaced. I also have some concerns relating to whether this is sufficiently broad in coverage. Some newspaper references could be used. If that is not possible, then I would call into question whether this subject matter passes GNG. Steelkamp ( talk) 06:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delist. A good article does not need to be long, but this is less informative than some stub articles i've seen. Also i think that he may not be notable based on the lack of info i've found online. The helper5667 ( talk) 19:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delist I am unsure if this is an option, but agree per nom, as the article is extremely poor IMO. With barely more than 100 words, a one-sentence lead, and few refs, IMO this should at best be a start article; its notability is also probably questionable, namely this line: Much of his early life is unknown
.
VickKiang (
talk)
23:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Got a few concerns with this one. First the Copyvio score appears to be quite high. Further to this, the article is VERY brief - the coverage may not be broad enough to satisfy all aspects of Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. The information when direct quotes from Fineas are removed is very sparse. Not convinced there was enough prose to assess a decent coverage of the topic. This is problematic as it was promoted as a "good topic" too. Would appreciate other's thoughts. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have nominated this article for GA reassessment, as it does not meet the good article criteria. The article was last reviewed in 2009, and has changed considerably since then. It consists of several prose-related problems, and also lacks citations, as shown in the templates. Also, there has recently been no major contributor for this article. With so many issues, a proper review should be done. Kpddg (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Churches of Christ may warrant re-assessment for a number of reasons, including number of issues with page structure and layout. This includes: the length of the lead; the volume of imagery (none until section four, and none in the sixth section either); sections starting with pull quotes before the subject is introduced in prose; a degree of overcite, other citation needed, and a number of overly short subsections (also in section six); also some badly out-of-date statistics (at least one 2014 source in the infobox); and a general lack of conciseness - at 135,000kb, the page could merit splitting. Iskandar323 ( talk) 14:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article is woefully outdated. It does not include enough details about White's recent political activities, public statements, or his recently announced campaign for congress (MN-05). Also, as others have pointed out on the talk page, negative edits tend be removed quickly (possibly by a PR team?). It no longer meets the criteria for a good article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minneapples ( talk • contribs) 17:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Almost all the sources are to two Indian commanders who were involved in the battle, most notably the head naval commander. Does not used independent reliable sources. Bumbubookworm ( talk) 00:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm concerned the article includes a source that is quite unreliable, Illyrian Pirates, there are no authors, no editorial staff and I can't just remove it as it is a backbone of the article. MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 15:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm concerned the article includes a source that is quite unreliable, Illyrian Pirates, there are no authors, no editorial staff and I can't just remove it as it is a backbone of the article. MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 15:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
2022-08-24 Reassessed as Keep | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The content of this article is the subject of a long-running dispute on the talk-page, with no sign that I can see that resolution is imminent or even likely; it can't be considered stable. The text is far from neutral in tone, and contains so much off-topic material that it can't reasonably be considered to be focused on the topic either (as an example, material about James Hinks, who bred a totally different dog from this one, starting from the same nineteenth-century cross-bred dogs). I hope that others will comment on the quality of the sourcing and any possible WP:OR. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 21:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I did not call for another round of debate from the parties. The article lacks a WP:NPOV and has been tagged accordingly. It cannot endure as a GA article as it currently stands. 14.2.195.135 ( talk) 04:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So, a few weeks ago I installed a major rewrite of this article and there are later edits too. I should have done this GAR earlier, since the article is now completely different from the time at which it passed GAN I think the new version should be checked against the GA criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Femke ( talk) 19:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have several reasons regarding this reassesment:
Hence why I believe this article does not meet requirements for Good Article status and reassesment is very much needed. Thank you very much Nyanardsan ( talk) 09:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article seems to have been having issues with stability lately, as I'm seeing a lot of blanking and reverting (ETA: and sockpuppetry). I got it to GA back in 2008 and don't think it holds up anymore. The reviewer retired in 2015.
Issues are stability and comprehensiveness. Some facts have gotten removed entirely with time for unknown reasons, such as Bed Bath & Beyond opening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenPoundHammer ( talk • contribs)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article is tagged for lack of sources. Though it has a section of references, it lacks inline citations. The math markup is also a bit rough and probably needs to be converted to LaTeX style due to the MOS:BBB character, and italics not meshing well with superscripts. There are also equations in section headers, which might be good to avoid? -- Beland ( talk) 07:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This one seems to fail WP:WIAGA points:
Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 05:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't think that this article meets the criteria as there is not a lot of media, and precautions and biological occurences could be expanded. Bli231957 ( talk) 20:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
So, what shall we conclude with? It has been 6 months since the original reassessment has been started. 141 Pr 19:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article gained GA status eight years ago. Since then, the page has changed quite a bit, including the plot section getting completely mangled, which meant I had to replaced it with a clunkily-written plot summary of my own (I am not the best at using words). In addition, there are claims on the talk page that the Development section is now severely outdated now that more sources have been found and translated into English. I'm not entirely sure whether or not it meets the criteria to be delisted from being a good article, but I feel it deserves being looked at again. -- Eldomtom2 ( talk) 17:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Merely a cursory glance at the page revealed examples of poor writing and misrepresenation of a web source (both present at time of original GA assessment), which I edited to fix. Reassessment required. U-Mos ( talk) 07:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not convinced that this meets GA criteria. Lonely Planet is a tourism website and doesn't seem sufficient for supporting notability. Most of the other sources are similar tourism blurbs too. There's very little info about the mall, as the article is only two paragraphs long. It doesn't seem to be a thorough enough look, especially when compared to other mall articles. tl;dr: comprehensiveness and sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article had substantial amounts of content removed for being a copyright violation; this diff is the removal and this is the source. The source is paywalled to Gale through TWL. There is a very high chance that I have missed more close paraphrasing and copyright violations from both this source and others, as I only removed the most blatant of what I could see. The original addition was also blatantly copy-pasted, and then subsequently edited down. There was an effort by the nominator to reword, but it barely changed the actual copied text. There was also plagiarism, and there's a chance that more needs to be attributed. The copyright issues means that this article is possibly not broad enough as it stands. Sennecaster ( Chat) 04:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
He also made improvements to guns, cylindro-conoidal bullets,[22] ice-breaking wooden hull boats, paraffin oil candles, velocipedes, machines for making rivets and nails, and self-closing inkwells.[23][24] He also invented the Antipodean Performers suction-cup shoes claimed to be used by circus performers to ascend up solid side walls and walk upside down across high ceilings.[20][25] He did not realize the significance of many of his inventions when he produced them and sold off most of his patent rights to others for low prices making little for himself in the long run- Three sentences in a row that start with "He" make for a very awkward paragraph indeed. I'm pretty sure the second sentence also needs a comma after "shoes".
He developed the first modern feasible operating sewing machine[20] sometime between the years 1832 and 1834[28] at his Amos Street shop that was up a narrow alley in Abingdon Square[29] at the borough of Manhattan in the city of New York.is a run-on sentence and needs to be split into preferably two, or even three, sentences. Also, "at the borough of Manhattan in the city of New York" is both unnecessarily detailed and technically grammatically correct. No one would say "at Manhattan", and most people would just say "in Manhattan, New York City".
He gave as reasons for not procuring a patent that 1) he was busy with other businesses then; 2) the expense of getting the appropriate drawings and paperwork together to register a patent was more than he could afford and; 3) the difficulty of introducing the new sewing machine into public use, saying it would have cost two thousand (equivalent to $54,290 in 2021) or three thousand (equivalent to $81,430 in 2021) dollars to start the sewing machine business.- Technically, this is not a run-on, but it is a very long sentence, and "1) 2) 3)" aren't necessary in a prose list like this.
its prose is engaging and of a professional standard—to be significantly above that of GA's "well-written". GA as you've quoted would seem to require a level of quality above "some weak prose": clear and concise is frequently not particularly engaging but I wouldn't expect it to be weak or repetitive if we're calling it "good". (Personally, I've always had trouble elevating my workmanlike prose to "engaging" or "of a professional standard". With some care and self-editing, however, "clear and concise" is well within my wheelhouse, along with a bit of variation in structure.) BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This GA since November 2007 needs substantial additional work to remain at modern standards. Several sections are ten years or more out of date; a handful have uncited sentences; and there are bare URLs and "Archived copy"s all over the place. This page can be rescued, but I can't do this alone. Even though I have the ability to add newspaper references, that is not all that is needed to rescue this page from removal. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This has been raised in the BTG WikiProject in a discussion with Piotrus, IMHO improvement is needed for this to still be a GA. After this was passed as a good article long ago, new edits were made, including a dot-pointed list with list of minor awards the game won, according to its publisher (non-indepedent and self published). I've changed that to a paragraph, Guinness323 did another cleanup, but IMO there are more problems.
2b) Several refs are poor. I've rm the citing for
RPGNet, an user forum (see
Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Sources, in the cases when the statement was also supported by another ref, but it's still used. Also unreliable is the 4th ref. Ref 15 is also another SPS talking about itself, which per the guideline, is all right when The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim
, this is a bit debatable, as talking about awards it won itself seems to be meeting this IMHO, but this is a minor concern.
Othermore optional issues: a) 5 of the 15 refs are from the publisher, mostly for gameplay, but per
WP:RS, Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources
, it's understandable as the majority of these refs are for mundane details and rules, but IMO this is still a bit too much. Also, its review section formatting is like a ref section, but the layout IMHO does not follow notes and references layout (maybe it's similar to external links?)
3b) IMHO this isn't followed. The reception section cites very minor awards won by the 3rd edition, all just refed to the publisher. the Development and release seems also to be way too detailed, listing all of the cards and modules, and needs trimming. The review is almost all quoted with attribution, which is fine, but also IMO doesn't follow summary style (this is also cautioned by the MoS for Video Games, but the latter isn't relevant to GAs).
I'll update for more suggestions, many thanks! VickKiang ( talk) 07:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Having a look at the Mail chute article as it stands, it doesn't appear to be at a GA level. Some issues I notice:
I'm not a GA expert at all (just put up my first article for review) but this doesn't seem at the right standard. I realise some content has been removed recently which may have effected the article. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 03:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
The firm's grip on the technology was so firm that
@ EEng, I'd add it, but that doesn't make the logical link from "cutbacks in delivery" to "decline in chutes". Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)But clogs always have been a problem. Long ago they were usually fixed quickly because mail was so important and delivered as many as 12 times a day in some cities before World War II. When the Postal Service cut back to one daily delivery in 1950, "the populace was not happy about it," said Nancy Pope, a curator at the Smithsonian's National Postal Museum.
The merged company continued to defend its portfolio of patents; in 1910, the Cutler Mail Chute Company won a patent infringement lawsuit against the United States Mail Chute Equipment Company.(emphasis mine) is sourced to this newspaper clipping [25]. The source does not directly support the italicised assertion but describes a standalone event that has been woven into the article to create a narrative. Likewise
Concurrently with the growth of the company within the United States, it was also selling systems internationally. London's Savoy Hotel featured the first installation of a Cutler chute in England when it was expanded in 1904.is sourced to this newspaper article [26]. The article, about the Savoy Hotel, only briefly mentions the mail chute and doesn't talk about growth in the US or international sales. I guess these are not the only two examples. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 04:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is not a good article. If it was only not-so-good while still meeting the Good Article criteria fine, but it's a terrible article. I get that "Good Article" has its own rubric, but I don't think a "Good Article" should be an actually awful article. This would be confusing to readers.
It's a bad article because a quarter of it -- the "Allegations of cultural appropriation" section -- is an egregious tabloid hatchet job. My recommendation is that the section titled "Allegations of cultural appropriation" be removed, and the material in it be cut down to a couple-few anodyne sentences and stuck at the end of the "Personal life" section, or something to that general effect.
This section probably doesn't violate either WP:BLP, exactly, or WP:NOTGOSSIP, exactly, but it sure does skirt close to it. Beyond that, it just sucks. It sucks to punch down at this private person, and it double sucks that other media have picked up on this article and spread the egregious and very detailed defamation we're engaged in here. If "a good part of the article double sucks" and "It is a Good Article, which we want to display to the world as some of our best work" can coexist according to our rubric, then something's really wrong with our rubric, and until and if that is fixed, we are not a bureaucracy here and let's fix this particular problem right now. I have more to say, at length, I'll hat it, but it's probably worth scanning if you want to engage.
Altho it's arguable whether the section in question truly violates WP:BLP, at the very least it's skirting the edge, and also the edge of the policy WP:NOTGOSSIP ("Wikipedia is not a newspaper... not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not:... Celebrity gossip...", altho the rest of that section does let you get away with it. The woman is not close to being a public figure, she's a rich man's wife who has done this and that and been on this or that show because she is, and wants to enjoy that. And BLP says "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restrain... Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures."
Sure, truth is generally a defense against libel, but I mean "We shred this person in excruciating detail, but not in a way which crosses the line of being actually criminal" isn't what you'd want to see in any article, let alone one we want to crow about.
Who gives a... gosh-freaking-darn... if people want to have some fun with their persona. Jeepers creepers, half the people you meet are like "Oh I have some Cherokee blood" or "My people came over on the Mayflower" or "Actually I'm descended from Eric the Red" or whatever. Who knows if its true. Probably not. People put on airs, people say that they played an a band with Trent Reznor years ago, people hide that their parents were poor, etc etc etc. We all have different faces. So? Who is this woman harming, with her chosen face. Spain is a first-world country for crying out loud. They can watch out for their heritage without our help I am quite confident.
But wait. It gets worse. There's a "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations" tag here, and the media says horrible things about this person which I don't even want to repeat here, and apparentlythey are getting this from us in part at least. We are actively popularizing and spreading this... shinola.... I mean, for marginally notable persons, we are the biggest part of their public face. We are the second google hit on this person, after her instagram. We describe her to the world much more loudly and widely than any other source. And for centuries, maybe.
We are a huge, huge organization read by millions of people and which helps shape the zeitgeist. She is just a little person, a marginally notable person, who has her own inner life and her own reasons for doing things. Writing stuff like this at detailed length is punching down, punching way down, and it's not a good look. Let other people be egregious... scamps... and revel in shaming people. Let the National Enquirer do it. We don't have to. We really don't. We are free people on this earth, and we don't.
You know, there's a lot of facts and other material that we don't publish. A lot. See WP:NOT. We don't have to publish this.
I have been here a long time and I know the counterarguments. You can make them again and will. I know that I didn't hardly cite any WP:RULES. I know about beep beep boop boop, so I don't expect to win this one. But I'd be ashamed if I didn't try.
Anyway, I'm sending this article back for reconsideration until the nothingburger "cultural appropriation scandal" (yes, this Good Article says that, and in our words) is removed as a section and cut down to a couple-few anodyne sentences at the end of the personal-life section, or something to that general effect.
Herostratus ( talk) 06:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is nothing in the article about anything post World War II and it gives no indication whether or not it is still being manufactured (although I suspect that it isn't). It also doesn't include information about what happened to the product when the Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation was split up. Also, was it ever produced by Haskell Manufacturing Company? The Haskell Manufacturing Company says that it is but this page is unclear about it. How did it relate and compete with other plywoods? There is only a single reference after 1965 which I suspect is part of the issue. Gusfriend ( talk) 04:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
The bulk of the final paragraph, from "One of these airplanes..." forward, is lightly-rephrased copyvio from the cited Chicago Tribune source. e.g.
One of these airplanes received a commercial license to fly daily, and 500 hours of testing proved its worthiness.Source:
One of these ships has received a commercial license and is flying daily. More than 500 hours has been flown in the plane and it is proved to have superior performance.
The fuselage was molded in 2 hours 35 minutes, which was 1⁄30 the time required to construct an ordinary fuselage.Source:
The fuselage of the plane was molded in 2 hours 35 minutes, about one-thirtieth of the time taken to construct an ordinary fuselage.
It was without longitudinal or cross bracing.Source:
It is without longitudinal or cross bracing and is very light.
That took 30 seconds to identify, and there's no good reason to trust the policy compliance of other text in the article. To the contrary, if this is what we see in the easily checked sources, we might safely assume that the sources we can't easily access have been treated in the same way. A ground-up rewrite is probably necessary simply to comply with our basic copyvio policies, regardless of any other issues. Indignant Flamingo ( talk) 21:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is laughably incomplete. The Spencer Shops were in operation from 1896 to at least the 1960s. The article, however, abruptly ends at when the shops first opened and dedicates not a single sentence to their 60+ years of operations. This is ridiculously far from meeting the GA requirement for broad coverage of the subject, and should be delisted unless it is massively expanded from what it is now. The primary source used for this article, [27], gives no indication is is a reliable source, and I have noticed several instances of close paraphrasing of the source in this article's prose. This article should be delisted, it needs to be completely rewritten and massively expanded before we can say it meets the GA criteria. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 14:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Imagine if Cedar Hill Yard (my own FA, but I've picked it as it's one of the two existing FAs on a railroad facility, the other being Rogers Locomotive and Machine Works) ended after the "The yard is expanded, 1917 to 1920" section. See how much more material would be missing? I hope that gives an idea of the extent to which this article is incomplete and does not give its subject an encyclopedic treatment, or even come close to doing so. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 14:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The information about the demise/closure of the company is on this page and another related GA page, Lambert Automobile Company, is inconsistent.
These may be the only errors or there may be other issues with these pages but I believe that it is worth re-evaluation. Gusfriend ( talk) 07:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swath of outright copy and pasted content from a PDF source; it was either GA'd before scrutiny for CV or the reviewer AGF'd on the source. It probably has other issues, and unless someone wants to rewrite the article it fails to be broad enough. Sennecaster ( Chat) 13:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a maintenance template at the top of the article that says that the article contains self-published sources. Because of this, I believe that the article could no longer remain a good article. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 05:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The factual accuracy of this article is disputed. The claim that this locomotive set a speed record is widely contested in reliable sources, but this article treats it like an undisputed fact. In addition, this article was created by Doug Coldwell who habitually included major instances of close paraphrasing in his articles. An article which utterly fails to consider all viewpoints in reliable sources cannot be said to meet the GA criteria. This should be delisted unless someone is willing to put in significant work to improve the article. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 17:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a maintenance template at the top of the article that says that the article contains self-published sources. Because of this, I believe that the article could no longer remain a good article. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 05:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given the
WP:CCI of the nominator for GA status and close paraphrasing that has been found in other recent GARs of their articles I am reluctant to try and solve the identified issues. I am not saying that there is any incorrect information in the article and the books Coleman, Alan (2018).
North Carolina Transportation Museum. Charleston, South Carolina.
ISBN
1-4671-2775-2.
OCLC
1007842710.{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link) and Galloway, Duane (1996).
Southern Railway's Spencer shops : 1896-1996. Jim Wrinn. Lynchburg, Va.: TLC Pub.
ISBN
1-883089-23-9.
OCLC
36152758. may have enough information to support everything especially with some local news reports but absent some significant effort this article should be delisted.
I expect that someone could turn this into an amazing article with some effort as I suspect that the references are out there but it is not there yet.
I will be posting a message about this GAR on the Railways Wikiproject. Gusfriend ( talk) 08:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Elon Musk is considered to be very influential to many, as he has contributed a lot to technological advancement in spaceflight and technology, most notably electric vehicles and near-future enhancements. Musk is without a doubt a respectable individual in these fields, but his recent actions and past comments on various social issues and perceived problems has generated a good amount of warranted controversy. A good article is meant to document various things that are well-received on Wikipedia and elsewhere, but by allowing him to have a good article status does not reason under our current social climate
Musk is known to have spread misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic. If Wikipedia aims to document individuals who are professorial in science, then including a denier of vaccines and lock downs as a "good example" is pretty strange. We have a zero-tolerance policy on fringe science and conspiracies, so why must we include a proponent of hoaxes as a "good article"?
Elon recently acquired Twitter, and fired an employee responsible from preventing a coup by Donald Trump. If Wikipedia aims to be a place to get accurate information on extremely sensitive events such as the attempted coup at the capitol, then why do we wish to promote someone who advocates the restoration of a major proponent of de-democratization in the United States? Makes absolutely no sense to me.
Elon has made continuous references to far-right politics. Far-right politics in the United States have been recently responsible for many mass shootings and huge political disinformation, such as QAnon and Trumpism. If we aim to be a neutral space that presents individuals at their best, then why must we include a " meme lord" as a good article? It just shows how out of touch we are.
Musk no longer deserves a good article due to his behaviour and actions, which will unfortunately account for the restoration of Donald Trump on the biggest micrblogging website, which will be a direct threat to democracy. We need to reassess this article for the betterment of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alohaidled ( talk • contribs) 01:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are currently three unsolved issues with the article's sourcing as shown at the top of the article inside the {{ Multiple issues}} template. Because of this, I believe that the article could no longer remain a good article. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 04:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is quite a short article, and there are no images on the page, therefore failing the 6th GA criterion. 141 Pr 08:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Simply put, the reception section of the article is overflowing with the often hated listicles ( word defined here on Merriam-Webster). While they do come from reliable sources, they are generally poorly written and say little of the character. The reception section in general also gives undue weight towards her physical appearance and body. Outside of the reception section, a lot of the sources are WP:PRIMARY. Due to these factors, I believe it fails criteria 2b at its current state. Also, as a minor point, File:Tifa Lockhart art.png and File:Tifa Lockhart.png could have better fair-use rationale. (Oinkers42) ( talk) 02:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Rearranged some parts of the reception and added commentary from Advent Children and Remake. I hope it helps. Tintor2 ( talk) 18:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
@ ProtoDrake: Sorry. I won't edit it. Tintor2 ( talk) 21:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I rearranged it a bit more like Aya Brea to separate the sex appeal from other themes related with the character. Now the first paragraph of critical response explores her character in general, the second her relationship with Cloud and the last one her role in the movie and Remake. Tintor2 ( talk) 04:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I've done a copyedit of the whole article at Tintor's request. I think his recent reorganization of the Reception section is really nice and de-emphasizes the listicles that motivated this GAR to begin with. Are there additional issues people have identified or is it time to make a final decision on the GAR? Axem Titanium ( talk) 22:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Axem Titanium: Thanks for the quick help. Tintor2 ( talk) 18:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The page no longer meets Good Article criteria in my opinion, reception section in particular is almost empty besides the reviews of the game being listed in a box. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 06:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Stumbled across this GA while looking for examples of tournament articles to use as inspiration for another project. I was shocked to find a complete lack of a prose summary, goalscorer information, and most statistics. As such, I believe this article (and some other CECAFA Cup entries) fails criteria 3a, as it does not address the main aspects of the topic. Sounder Bruce 06:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Doug Coldwell GA. I approved it in January, but it has sourcing issues. I have attempted a partial rewrite (which included two SIGCOV sources unavailable to Doug), but this is not my field, and I'm a bit out of my depth here after having seen this page too much. I'm hoping that the rest of the article can be improved—it has great images and concerns a now-defunct operation—but I can't take this much further than I already have. I only approved two Coldwell GAs of six I reviewed; the other one was delisted here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi all. I came across this page reading through the engineering and technology GA pages, and think it still may need some work.
To me, the page feels like it would fit B-class. Would be great to get some community insight. SerAntoniDeMiloni ( talk) 21:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My 2nd ever GA, I'm now taking it to GAR myself. When I wrote this at the beginning of my content-writing career, I was too naive/stupid to realize the source I used the most was user-generated. Those refs have since been removed and replaced with CN tags. As I don't have the time/energy to fix this myself, I think it needs delisted unless someone else is willing to pick it up. Hog Farm Talk 00:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I nominated Mamie Eisenhower for GA, but it was quick-passed. The subsequent discussion was unhelpful, so I feel it should be reassessed to confirm that it meets the standards or so I know what to fix if it does not. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 08:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not doubting the quality of this article, but it was reviewed by a new user who did not give an in-depth assessment. I only would like to ensure that it receives this. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Large portions of this page are uncited. There are also parts that are poorly written. Steelkamp ( talk) 07:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Specific problems are as follows:
alternatives to larger efforts to create or expand the high-speed rail networks.
Though the definition of higher-speed rail varies from country to country, most countries refer to rail services operating at speeds up to 200 km/h (125 mph).Should not be in its own paragraph
but usually falling short on the intended speeds.Why the "usually". Surely if it fulfilled intended speeds, then it would become true high speed rail.
the speed range for India's higher-speed rail will be between 160 and 200 km/h (100 and 125 mph).What's with the "will be"?
In Canada, the assumption about grade crossing is that operating higher-speed rail services between 160 and 200 km/h (99 and 124 mph) would require "improved levels of protection in acceptable areas".This is a nebulous statement.
In developing higher-speed rail services, one of those safety systems must be used.This seems to be original research.
which regulates the speed limits of trains with Class 5, Class 6, Class 7 and Class 8Is this grammatically correct?
In the United States, railroad tracks are largely used for freight with at-grade crossings.Is that meant to link to level crossing rather than At-grade intersection?
Steelkamp ( talk) 07:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
There has been no improvement to this article in the last month. I suggest to any uninvolved users passing by that you close this GAR as delist. Steelkamp ( talk) 05:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is the "context" template at the top of the article, saying that it provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject
. So, I believe that the article now fails the GA criteria.
GeoffreyT2000 (
talk)
15:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a maintenance template at the top of the article that says that the article contains self-published sources. Because of this, I believe that the article could no longer remain a good article. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 05:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
By way of improving the article I noticed that the Glen Royall Mill Village Historic District PDF reeference includes the statement Along the high ground on the west boundary runs Wake Forest's North Main Street (U.S. Highway lA), a historic ridge road connecting the town to communities to the north and in the early twentieth century North Carolina's principal "national highway" connection to the North. which would be a useful addition to the page. Also have there been articles in local news about roadworks or other changes? Even information about where it meets US 1? Gusfriend ( talk) 09:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I am concerned that this GAR will be used as some sort of precedent-setting political weapon to say that all road GAs are deficient in some way - that is not the case. There is nothing wrong with citing a map just because it is a map. That being said, I do agree with Gusfriend and the first part of Indy beetle's comments and think that this article falls below even the standards set by WP:MAPCITE. (As far as the routing issue, the proper use is to either say by 1916 or point to a map the same edition from a year earlier.) The use of maps in this article is sloppy. -- Rs chen 7754 15:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article covers a controversial topic which has been in the news regularly in the United States over the past month. It was made a GA in 2008. The article is considerably different now. I would appreciate multiple members of the community to take a look at it. I don't really have any interest in the subject, but I think it is important to make sure this article is reassessed. Thriley ( talk) 03:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Severely US-biased, confuses railway-operated hospitals with doctors paid by railway companies to represent them in legal cases involving medical matters, contains blatantly false statements like "in Europe, the majority of injuries were due to collisions, hence passengers rather than employees formed the bulk of the injured" that because of the way the article is written are very hard to remove without major rewrites or massive excisions. -- Eldomtom2 ( talk) 16:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
In Europe, the majority of injuries were due to collisions, hence passengers rather than employees formed the bulk of the injured. For instance, in Britain, accidents on the line such as crushing between wagons and being struck by trains (accidents suffered mostly by railway staff) were far fewer than passenger injuries through collisions in 1887.
accidents belonging to the first class enormously preponderate. The "first class" is contusions and shocks resulting from slight collisions; the source does not say that the victims are mostly passengers. Nor does it say whether this enormous preponderance applies to Britain, or to Europe as a whole (which is it?) Nor does it say that it is referring to 1887. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 22:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My reasons for nomination can be seen at Talk:Madagascar women's national football team/GA2, an individual reassessment that I performed. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 16:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is so bad it's actually embarrassing. Most of the article is an unsourced mess that I doubt can even be fixed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 20:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An article made a GA back in 2007. Though this was nominated for GAR request by an IP, after checking through the article, the numerous uncited statements are bad enough for me to open this GAR. The main problem i've noticed is the uncited statements that should be addressed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Even before official adoption of the label, Frank Zappa...- unsourced
Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Made a GA in 2010 and last assessed back in 2013. This article has major sourcing problems with massive amounts of uncited material. This will need to be addressed for this article to remain a GA. Also its lead is way too long. MOS:LEAD dictates that a lead should be four paragraphs. This has seven. So that will also need to change. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 03:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I concur that this article does not meet the good article criteria. In addition to the things said above, there are many instances of poor writing and short paragraphs. Steelkamp ( talk) 04:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A GA from 2015. There's quite a lot of unsourced material that needs to be addressed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 17:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Some of the issues raised are fixable but I am not sure if all of them are without significant effort.
Note: This is a Doug Coldwell article.
Gusfriend (
talk)
11:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Here.
"James L. Buie, 68; Scientist, Inventor". Los Angeles Times. L.A. TIMES ARCHIVES. September 28, 1988. Buie, who retired in 1983, was a graduate of USC. He was elected a fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers in 1973.
7&6=thirteen (
☎)
05:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I think the article's claim in the lead that "The integrated circuit industry came into existence as a result" of Buie's work is far overstated. The integrated circuit industry was well underway in the late 1950s with the work of Kilby and Noyce. Buie's invention of TTL is very important, and our integrated circuit article writes that "TTL became the dominant integrated circuit technology during the 1970s to early 1980s.", I think accurately. But it did not create an industry. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2007 listing not up to standard, with many unsourced paragraphs, possibly verging on OR. On a related note, the university has many sub-articles which may fail WP:NFACULTY. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
house 1,100 studentsthat are unsourced, this section similar has problematic unsourced statistics, including
which has won 16 NCAA National Championships; the women's soccer team, which was rated as the top first-year women's program in the country in 1998. The Notable people section is additionally deficiently sourced and clearly fails criteria 2b, additionally, the article also has three valid citation needed tags. IMO this is somewhat difficult to salvage but if anyone addresses these concerns please ping me. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My reasons for nomination can be seen at Talk:Cambodia women's national football team/GA2, an individual reassessment that I performed. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 16:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
← ( Page 66) | Good article reassessment (archive) | ( Page 68) → |
I ran into this article yesterday, and was shocked to see it listed as a good article. What's wrong with it? Well, this article was promoted in 2008 and has not been reassessed since. In that time, it has become more than a decade out of date (there is a "as of 2005" statement in it) and has a number of unsourced paragraphs and subsections. Sections of prose do not meet GA standards for their quality of writing. Inexplicably, the article does not cover Trailer-on-flatcar or Containerization at all, which are significant parts of the trucking industry in the United States. A fair amount of work is needed to bring this back to GA level, especially considering standards for what we consider a good article have increased since 2008. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 15:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
This 2008 promotion needs further attention now. There is uncited text scattered throughout, as well as datedness - the source for One in every 45 (2.2%) last-year users of BZP in New Zealand is classed as dependent upon it, although 97.9% of users said that "it would not be difficult to stop using legal party pills", and 45.2% of people who reported using both BZP and illegal drugs such as methamphetamine reported that they used BZP so that they did not have to use methamphetamine, which was perceived as more harmful. is about 15 years old and probably outdated, and the information in the legal issues section all seems to pre-date 2010. Without a thorough updating and citing, this may have to be delisted as a GA. Hog Farm Talk 06:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Assed in 2016, the has number of citation needed tags some going as far back as 2017. Has random information unrelated to the subject in question and with WP:UNDUE; i.e. 7 lines regarding a book, that he reportedly memorized as a kid. It also has problems with WP:TONE. Skjoldbro ( talk) 21:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
He also memorized the Doctrina Christiana, believed to be the first book printed in the Philippines.[4][12] The title of the work literally means "Christian Doctrine", and thus the primary goal of the book was to propagate Christian teaching across the Philippine archipelago. The book consists of 38 leaves and 74 pages of text in Spanish, Tagalog transliterated into roman letters, and Tagalog in its original Baybayin script, under a woodcut of Saint Dominic, with the verso originally blank, although in contemporary versions bears the manuscript inscription, "Tassada en dos reales", signed by Juan de Cuellar. After a syllabary comes the basic prayers: the Lord's Prayer, Hail Mary, Credo, and the Salve Regina. Following these are Articles of Faith, the Ten Commandments, Commandments of the Holy Church, Sacraments of the Holy Church, Seven Mortal Sins, Fourteen Works of Charity, and points on Confession and Catechism.Skjoldbro ( talk) 09:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
After taking breakfast, he ordered a subordinate, Colonel Queri, to prepare arms and ammunition for the ten men. Then, the men boarded a train destined towards Malinta, which was American-held territory. After giving orders to the men, he let them go and watched them with his telescope. The men, succeeding their mission, eventually returned unharmed. Admiring their bravery, he organized them into a guerrilla unit of around 50 members.I just don't think it reads like other GAs. It sound more like a story rather than statements of facts. Additionally, how is anyone able to know the mood of Luna moments before his death?
Still outraged and furious, Luna rushed down the stairs [...]These are just two examples from a cursory look. Skjoldbro ( talk) 20:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Specific historical facts are routinely censored in this page as highlighted here. The quality of the discussion in the talk page has reached very low levels making it impossible to hold a conversation. The page is also a theater of edit-warring, which should cause immediate failure of being considered a good article. Morgoonki ( talk) 10:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Article passed GA in 2007. Our quality standards have since improved greatly, and this no longer meets them. There are claims that lack citations and the lead fails MOS:LEAD in its length and coverage. The prose arguably fails GA#1 too, due to its jumpy layout. Anarchyte ( talk) 09:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
The table below represents my individual assessment of the article against the Good article criteria. However, I requested a community reassessment given the lack of consensus and high level of disagreement on the article's talk page. Thus, the assessment below represents only one person's opinion; it is neither the complete nor the final good article reassessment. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 19:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Recent contentious editing has degraded the quality of the prose. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The lead is too long, containing text better suited for the article body. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. 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). | Whether or not a reference constitutes a reliable source per WP:MEDRS has been hotly debated. In my estimation, some of the references do not comply with both standard and medical reliable sources criteria, e.g., theoretical articles and primary source citations. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | There appears to be instances of WP:SYNTH. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Not a major problem but excess detail occurs in some places. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Some agendas are being pushed, IMHO of course. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Frequent back-and-forth edits with tendentious arguments common on the talk page. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Regrettably, the article no longer meets GA criteria. |
Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 19:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I am opening a community GAR on this article due to that from my perspective it does not meet the Good Article criteria in the following:
1. Well written- This article in my opinion does not satisfy the requirements according to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. The article is split into eight main sections, but numerous sections are too short or superficial for it to fully satisfy The Manual of Style which states that 'Sections usually consist of paragraphs of running prose.' However, in this article two sections (Awards and Other Reviews) are exceedingly short with the first comprising of only a single sentence whereas the latter only lists a single outdated example in dot point form. The prose is also severely lacking for the section 'Spin-offs', which includes numerous subheadings, but most of them are especially superficial with a single example given. Similarly, numerous other sections, such as 'Game Description' and 'Publication History', also comprise paragraphs also only consisting of one single sentence. Consider those lines under the 'Publication History':
'In May 2012, a new Designer's Edition of Ogre was funded on Kickstarter.com.
In late 2018, SJG ran a Kickstarter for Ogre Battlefields, an update and expansion for both the Designer's Edition and the Sixth Edition.
In 2020, SJG released a updated pocketbox version of Ogre with a 16-page manual and 112 counters, along with updated pocket box versions of G.E.V., Battlesuit, and Shockwave.
In 2021, as part of a Kickstarter campaign, SJG released 1976 Ogre Playtest Booklet, a reproduction of the original typewritten playtest set for the first version of Ogre.'
In my opinion, those do not seem to comply with the Manual of Style, which recommends paragraphs with suitable prose. The article also has numerous grammatical errors, such as 'In 2020, SJG released a updated' where 'an updated' should be utilised instead.
2. Verifiable with no original research- most sections of the GA has pertinent referencing. However, various sections, including the lead paragraph (which should be 'carefully sourced' based on its Wikipedia page entry) as well as the 'Other Reviews' does not consist of any sourcing and might possibly indicate original research, which I believe also does not satisfy the GA criteria.
6. Illustrated- the article only provides two images, and does not show any standard edition of the game; only a deluxe edition image is included along with the cover. This seems fairly lacking in my opinion, especially considering that the inclusion of images in the section 'Game description' would have benefitted from my perspective.
Based on my quick check, I believe that it does not meet at least three criteria, the others (criteria 3, 4 and 5) being weak passes. However, I am a very new Wikipedia editor and hence believe that this article would require a community GA assessment considering its overall quality and that the last GA approval is in 2008, during which the standards would likely be different. Please let me know for any questions and I appreciate sincerely your feedback- VickKiang ( talk) 02:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC).
Note: I also added noteworthy sections of the article requiring clean-ups from my perspective, including expansion for sections 'Awards' and 'Other Reviews' as well as changing list to prose as a suggestion for the 'Spin-offs'.
Agreed, despite some substantial improvements recorded in the new edits, this article seems inferior in quality compared not just to GA articles, but in contrast to most B- grade articles. If anyone else can respond that would be great- VickKiang ( talk) 23:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC).
Per the criteria at WP:GACR, a Good Article should be well-written, verifiable with no original research, broad in its coverage, neutral, stable, and illustrated if possible. This article severely struggles to meet the verifiable and broad categories, and with my own research mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa/Archive 12#African women’s football teams it seems like the topic does not pass WP:GNG (as WP:NTEAM says it should, for the record) and ought to be merged into a new article on Women's football in Burundi or outright AFDed. Keep in mind that there really isn't a true women's national team, just a youth team and and adult team that occasionally are organized (one does not appear to currently exist). As for the specific issues:
I advocate delisting and probably eventually deleting or merging to a new Women's football in Burundi article (an actually notable topic). The existence of this article seems to totally hinge on false expectations that a national sports team is/should be notable. Sorry to say, that is not the case here by my read. But I open the floor to others who may have new sources or ideas. Courtesy @ Aircorn: who first brought this to my attention. - Indy beetle ( talk) 03:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
It is likely this article no longer meets the good article criteria as it features a {{ more citations needed}} cleanup banner and superscript ordinals that go against the manual of style guidelines for numbers (see Pixar#Pixar: 20 Years of Animation).
IAmAnIndividual ( talk) 22:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Delist per nom. Lallint⟫⟫⟫ Talk 22:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Delist Hard for me to argue with you. It's been 3 months and none of the issues highlighted above have been fixed. -- The helper5667 ( talk) 22:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
It was listed good a long time ago. The lead mentions things other than transport but the body text is almost all about transport. For example the lead mentions electricity but there is nothing about charging more for electricity transmission when a line is in demand a lot. Chidgk1 ( talk) 12:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
OK so we agree it needs work to stay good so the question now is whether anyone is willing to do much work on it. I am not but I will leave this open for a while and if no one volunteers put an appeal in the most relevant project before delisting. Chidgk1 ( talk) 19:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Mariordo Thanks for your improvements so far - are you (or anyone else of course such as Snooganssnoogans Sdkb) intending to improve this article further in the next few days? Chidgk1 ( talk) 12:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
My opinion is delist. But note that this is a community assessment so an uninvolved editor will eventually need to close the discussion. Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am hoping someone will update the article as I think it is no longer good because it is out of date. But I don't know the subject. Chidgk1 ( talk) 14:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Pbsouthwood Thanks for your comments about Sea surface temperature. I know this is a long way from your sea but have you time to also comment in this community reassessment? No Australians have commented yet so I wonder if I have messed up something technical with where I put this. Chidgk1 ( talk) 16:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately no one has come here from the Australia and Queensland projects. If no one else comments I will very soon delist as out of date so no longer addresses the main aspects of the topic. Chidgk1 ( talk) 08:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
My opinion is delist because the lead is relying a lot on a 2014 report and a 2016 article, whereas a lot more recent info is available. And nowadays there should be more info added about the recent politics e.g. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/great-barrier-reef-election-battle-brews-amid-fears-of-more-coral-bleaching-20220107-p59mmj.html Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article has changed significantly since it became a GA, with content being culled/added, and I have a few concerns with this. My main being NPOV issues, with the repeated removal/moving/renaming of the criticism section and other general criticism in this article. Because of this, I believe the article now fails GA criterion #4, "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each". Below, I have listed the multiple modifications/removals of the critism section, almost entirely by CactiStaccingCrane:
At this point, the article currently has minimal sections documenting criticism of the project, with a small section half way down the article called "Environmental impact", of which half is dedicated to criticism. Other than this I cannot see any major concerns in the article. Because of this clear NPOV issue, I believe this article should be delisted from GA status.
Throughout the many recent revisions, I believe that the tone of this article is not that of standard Wikipedia tone. Because of this, I believe it fails Criteria 1b, where an article must "[comply] with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation." I've attached a list of a few places I believe are tonally inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia:
Provided are only a few examples of casual tone on the page. To put it bluntly (I don't mean to put anyone down here), a large potion of this article reads as if it was written by a child. I think a major rewrite is required in order to remove the extensive tone inconsistencies.
In January 2020 SpaceX purchased two drilling rigs from Valaris plc for $3.5 million each during their bankruptcy proceedings, planning to repurpose them as offshore spaceportscited to this, which says August.
After the Mark series, SpaceX named subsequent prototypes with the prefix "SN"., has a footnote saying it's obvious; whether or not that's the case, I don't know, but also I have no clue what "Mark series" means.
No prototypes between SN1 and SN4 flew: SN1 along with SN3 collapsed during proof pressure test and SN4 exploded after its fifth engine firing., cited to this, which doesn't support anything about SN2, despite it apparently existing. (I say apparently because I have no familiarity with Starship.)
During the interval, the company accelerated the construction of manufacturing and support infrastructure at Starbase, including large tents, stations, and repurposed intermodal containers. When linked together, these facilities act as a production line, making Starship construction quicker., cited to this. First sentence OK (though I don't know what an intermodal container is; that description is just lifted from the ArsTechnica piece, and I don't understand what a "tent" means without reading ArsTechnica). Second sentence is concerning, because as far as I'm reading the source, all of the information is aspirational - it's what Musk wants to achieve, but it's not necessarily saying that construction actually is quicker, or that being linked together makes construction quicker; both of those conclusions are problematic. But even if all of that is true, I'm not sure we should even be using Berger for that information (or stating it as incontrovertible fact); he seems to have some kind of interest in how we perceive SpaceX, given that he has "unparalleled journalistic access to the company’s inner workings".
I have edited the article to have more criticisms. Is the article due now, or need more improvement? It is worth noting that finding source that is negative about Starship is very difficult. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 08:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Starship is a fully-reusable rocket made out of stainless steel, developing by SpaceX. Both of its stages – Super Heavy booster and Starship spacecraft – contains liquid oxygen and liquid methane. Starship would launch upright, with the booster's thirty-three Raptor engines operating in parallel. Super Heavy separates and the spacecraft fires three of its Raptor Vacuum engines, inserting itself to orbit. The booster then control its descent via grid fins and positions to the launch tower's arms. At the mission end, the Starship spacecraft enters the atmosphere, protected by a series of hexagon heat shield tiles. The spacecraft glides using its flaps, flips up, and fires three of its Raptor engine to land upright.
Starship's main features are high capability and low operating cost. The rocket will launch at Starbase, Kennedy Space Center, and two offshore launch platforms. The spacecraft tanker variant can refuel spacecraft in space, increasing its 100 t (220,000 lb) transport range to the Moon and Mars. Other spacecraft variants can deploy satellites, serve space tourists, and explore the Moon. Starship's low cost might make SpaceX Mars ambition and make rocket travel on Earth possible.
The rocket is first outlined by SpaceX as early as 2005, with frequent designs and names changes later on. In July 2019, Starhopper, a prototype vehicle with extended fins, performed a 150 m (490 ft) low altitude test flight. In May 2021, Starship SN15 flew to 10 km (6 mi) and landed, after four failed attempts by previous prototypes. As of January 2022, the BN4 booster and SN20 spacecraft may launch near early 2022. Starship iterative and incremental development has unrealistic goals, harmed environment, and displaced residents.
There also used to be a Finance section that no longer exists in the current article. X-Editor ( talk) 06:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Delist, seems like no one is interested to place the article back to standard, including me. I will renominate the article instead, keeping this GAR is a waste of time. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 04:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Berrely: I think that I have addressed your NPOV concerns, as there are now many paragraphs which details about Starship criticisms. Is it appropriate to close the GAR now? CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 02:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I feel that the GAR of SpaceX Starship is now becoming zombie-like, when I ask for comments multiple times and no one is responding. I also don't feel that the article is that bad that it needs a GAR, as a notice on the article talk page would do for me. So, I would close the assessment, but I am more than happy to reopen the reassessment if anyone wants to chip in, pinging @ Berrely:, @ Urve:, @ Peacemaker67:. I won't add {{GAN/result}} for now, as an uninvolved editor would decide. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 06:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
At the bottom of Starship are six Raptor engines, with three operate in the atmosphere and the other three Raptor Vacuum may operate in space)? What makes this reliable for statements of fact? Is Elon Musk the same as SpaceX, such as when it's said that
SpaceX has stated its goal is to colonize Mars for the long-term survival of the human speciescited to this, which is just repeating what Musk says? And if that is the case, why is it not mentioned that
Musk himself told nonprofit XPrize in April that some astronauts will “probably die” en route to Mars- an important detail about the sustainability and safety of the project? Etc. Urve ( talk) 06:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Also, my questions above don't seem to be resolved? Urve ( talk) 07:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Starship's heat shield is designed to be used multiple times with no maintenance between flights- the source is talking about a thermal protection system doing that; I have no idea whether this is exactly the same as a "heat shield", or whether it includes other elements within and without the spacecraft (like perhaps whatever "reinforced carbon carbon" is), so I can't comment on whether that's accurate.
each mounted and spaced to counteract expansion due to heat- I don't see that in the poster.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Some of the sources show warnings for being preprints or general repositories. Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC) is not mentioned. So I wonder if the article is out of date? Chidgk1 ( talk) 15:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
RE: "Some of the sources show warnings for being preprints or general repositories." This is simply a reminder to make sure you're not citing crap. Here it highlights stuff with links to Google books. Google Books will have things from reputable publishers like Springer Science+Business Media, but also things like Alphascript and Lulu.com. If the books have reputable publishers (which they all seem to have), there's no real problem. See the 'General repository' and 'Google Books' examples in User:Headbomb/unreliable#Common cleanup and non-problematic cases for more information. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I am going to leave this community reassessment open in the hope that other people will comment. Also I see from the instructions that "Any uninvolved editor may close the discussion". Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
My opinion is delist as out of date. Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I am opening a community GAR due to it being poorly written, with questionable refs and most sections being empty. Note its similarity to a previous article on the Burundi Woman's Football Team recently delisted as GA. See the table below:
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Indisputably poor prose with most sections being empty. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Most sections are empty with no info provided, as several tables, lead contains info not mentioned elsewhere, e.g., " It played its first international matches in 2018 in the Cup of Nations qualifiers." | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Most of the refs (2-6) seems to be generally about all African teams, and not specifically this team, so I am tentative on this entire paragraph. | |
2b. 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). | Ref 12 and 14 does not seem reliable, with no editorial standards and an extremely dated interface. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Some lead info as per above not found elsewhere nor verified by any refs. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Does not have copyvios. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Most sections seem entirely empty, and the article does not address all of those. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Verbious info on 2002 performances, but almost none for post-2010 ones. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Mostly adhere to NPOV. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Highly stable. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Adheres well. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Captions extremely short but tolerable. | |
7. Overall assessment. |
As a result, based on my speedy check it seems that this article fails at least three, and IMO it should not be a GA and is a C or start class. Many thanks. VickKiang ( talk) 04:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Active cleanup banners (original research, citation needed issues) on the article, also see Luxtaythe2nd comment on the talk page. ( t · c) buidhe 10:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
many unusual knots were used to tie the body, and the same knots were said to be used in Gordon Park's house and boat. This was one of the key pieces of evidence used against Gordon in the trial.This is cited to this article, which doesn't describe the knots as unusual and doesn't say that they were a "key" piece of evidence.
this article fails "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each." immediately. fried chicken, such a generic dish, exists in many variations in different countries. to draw an analogy, it would be unthinkable if fried rice should only refer to some America's (or any country's) variation.-- RZuo ( talk) 21:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Issues with neutrality (criteria 4). User:Skyerise has been acting like she WP:OWNs the page, bullying and threatening other users into letting her views stand. See Talk:Inanna#Removal of dubious Greek equivalence and User talk:HaniwaEnthusiast#Astarte. In the latter user talk page link Skyerise asserts that her personal religious beliefs should be considered on equal footing with reliable sources, which might indicate an original research (criteria 2) problem as well. - Apocheir ( talk) 23:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Please do not use this forum to continue old disputes. All we care about is how it fails the WP:GACR. If there are concerns with editors behaviour then they need to go to another noticeboard. There is a serious risk of turning away editors well versed in the Good Article process if the above back and forth continues. Aircorn (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
This is similar to some aspects of Greek myths of the abduction of Persephoneand whether John M. Riddle is a reliable source for making that statement. Is this correct? Aircorn (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
according to John M. Riddle .... If its just a sentence in the body the claims of UNDUE are weaker and if you take it out of wikivoice it mitigates the reliable source concerns. Either way none of this seems to rise to the level of demoting the whole article. Aircorn (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm still concerned that this article lets one user's POV dominate. User:Katolophyromai and User:HaniwaEnthusiast have both stated that they think the similarities between Inanna and Persephone are overemphasized. Individual users may have other concerns that I haven't been able to tease out of their flame wars, as well. I am not an expert on this topic, I just happened to see the fighting over it and became interested. If everyone else comes to an agreement, I'll be happy to withdraw this reassessment. I encourage them to speak up. - Apocheir ( talk) 23:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
It's now been months since there was any discussion on this reassessment, the content about Persephone appears to no longer be in the lead, and the dispute about this point appears to have died down. A quick glance over the article suggests that it is in pretty good shape. Can this now be closed as keep GA, or are there any remaining concerns? Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 11:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
This article is not neutral; it frequently editorializing about Pedro II's character and describes him in exclusively positive terms. It describes him as "a monarch who grew tired of his crown" and says he was "beloved by the Brazilian people"; he was "a man grown world-weary with age", and so on. The section titles are hardly encyclopedic: "A tired emperor" and "The monarchy's fate: heirless" are overly dramatic. Also, there is no basis for including the claim "through action and inaction, consciously and unconsciously, he had been sabotaging both the monarchy and the prospects of his daughter's future reign for nearly a decade." Overall, it focuses on Pedro II's psychology as much as the actual rebellion, and it venerates him to an almost propagandistic degree.
It "had an economy that was rapidly developing in 1880s".
To give an idea of the economic potential of the country during the Empire, if "it had been able to sustain the level of productivity achieved in 1780 and managed to increase exports at a pace equal to that verified in the second half of 19th century, its per capita income in 1850 would be comparable to the average per capita income of the Western European nations"
The "countryside echoed with the clang of iron track being laid as railroads were constructed at the most furious pace of the nineteenth century; indeed, building in the 1880s was the second greatest in absolute terms in Brazil's entire history. Only eight countries in the entire world laid more track in the decade than Brazil."
I have reworded the two section titles you have described as dramatic. I removed "a monarch who grew tired of his crown" since it seems inappropriate for the infobox, but there are no issues with the statements "beloved by the Brazilian people" and "a man grown world-weary with age." ("Beginning in late 1880, letters from Pedro II to the Countess of Barral reveal a man grown world-weary with age and having an increasingly alienated and pessimistic outlook."). Put into context, this statement doesn't seem out-of-the-ordinary or exclusively positive. And why would the statement "beloved by the Brazilian people" be a problem if it is reliably sourced?
It also seems that the article regards him in a positive light because that is how historians and sources have evaluated him as — a great monarch. "Through action and inaction, consciously and unconsciously, he had been sabotaging both the monarchy and the prospects of his daughter's future reign for nearly a decade," is a statement immediately supported by a historian's remark and fits what the article is trying to convey. This also brings me to your claim that he is regarded in "exclusively positive terms"; the article seems to put blame on Pedro II for the fall of the monarchy. It is even quoted in a source in the article: "The 'Emperor's indifference towards the fate of the regime was also one of the main factors in the fall of the Monarchy.'" This would have been excluded had this article been created to a "propagandistic degree," along with all the other mentions of Pedro's lackluster attempts at saving and contributing to the downfall of the monarchy.
Finally, you say "it focuses on Pedro II's psychology as much as the actual rebellion." Of course, it does! I clicked here wanting to read about Pedro II's decline, not the Empire of Brazil's sudden disestablishment. The article places equal emphasis on Pedro's psychology, personal thoughts, and life as it does to the factors which contributed to the military coup. If anything, it places more emphasis on the latter at some points. If I wanted to read on the "actual rebellion," I would look up the Proclamation of the Republic. I clicked here in search of Pedro's decline and Pedro's life in this time period, and the article explains both well. For these reasons, I strongly oppose this reassessment and will notify WikiProjects and any significant contributor(s) for them to weigh in. FredModulars ( talk) 04:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
WIN Television was listed at GA in 2007 and survived a GA sweep in 2009. It has been more than a decade. While there is a good amount of what probably are good offline newspaper citations, the page is unfocused and does not do enough to explain the scope of WIN's operation. It is not a GA in its current condition; only now was a {{ cn}} removed from the lead paragraph!
The article sorely needs repair from editors with more knowledge of Australian television. If this is not obtained, it should not stand as a GA. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
43 citation needed tags by my count. Needs a lot of improvement to sourcing to stay a good article. ( t · c) buidhe 13:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a citation needed template in the visual effects section, the music section is quite empty and per WP:IMDb it is not a reliable source. Sahaib ( talk) 06:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
This article should be re-evaluated for Good Article status. Despite a long history of edits, it does not meet GA Criteria: 1a, 1b, 4, and 6b. 1a: there are too many in-line quotes, block quotes, image quotes, external media, and other collections of non-prose items, distracting from the main focus of an article - encyclopedic text. 1b: the Manual of Style is not followed with image sizes, sandwiching media, editorializing, weasel words, and other elements. 4: there is strong editorial bias in the text and quotes given. It is clear that the editor(s) are reflecting the silliness of the topic in the article prose, which is improper. 6b: there are several poor, repetitive, or barely relevant images illustrating the article. The article also suffers from innumerous dead links and run-on sentences. A full source check may be necessary to see if it complies with GA criteria, e.g. sourcing Lovecraft's opinion directly to one of his works of fiction is a nonstarter. ɱ (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
as admitted by one of the article's editors on its talk page– I did not "admit", or even say, that the article has a "tedious" or "tongue-in-cheek" style. What I said is that
The sources are tongue-in-cheek, and the article, by quoting those sources, simply reflects that for the reader[11]. Tell us now whether you can see the difference between those, because if you can't then you're not competent to participate in these discussions. E Eng 19:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
It is clear that the editor(s) are reflecting the silliness of the topic in the article prose, which is improper.It is not improper. There is no rule, in GA or elsewhere, that Wikipedia articles must be dry and humorless, and even less is there such a rule for topics that are notable for being silly (such as this one). The rule is not that humor is outlawed, but rather that the humor should not interfere with being accurate or informative; here I don't think it does. Indeed, I rather suspect that readers of this topic are likely to come to it as a way of seeking out humorous anecdotes about it, and are likely to leave disappointed and uninformed if the humor is excised. This desire to avoid silliness has led the nominator to overreach elsewhere; for instance it also appears to be untrue that the images are
poor, repetitive, or barely relevant; they all look relevant and distinct to me. It is also not true that the dead links are
innumerous, too many to be counted: I count zero {{ deadlink}} tags in the article, a number that is easily small enough for most people to count. I don't think a GA reassessment with such a flawed basis is likely to lead anywhere productive, except as a referendum on Wikipedia:Humor, for which the talk page of that essay might be a more appropriate venue. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
"to the life" - euphemism– Better look up euphemism in a dictionary, or ask your teacher.
"important" - state significance insteadand
"historic" - simply state years– The article text reads
"a memorial of the importance of the Cod-Fishery to the welfare of this Commonwealth" (i.e. Massachusetts, of which cod is officially the "historic and continuing symbol"). The importance is explained in its own section of the article, and aside from the fact that it's a quotation, how in the fuck are we supposed to "simply state years" instead? What are you even talking about? You seem to not understand what the subject of the article is.
"prehistoric creature of tradition" - poetry– Again it's a quote, and one which perfectly transmits what's intended. You seem to consider lifelessness a sign of quality writing.
"natural habitat" - editorializing, euphemism– For the nth time, PLEASE look up euphemism so you can learn what it means. And editorializing too while you're at it. I openly admit that "natural habitat" is meant to make the reader smile, and if you don't like that, tough. Don't smile if you don't want to.
When you're unable to respond substantively I guess there's nothing like some good old-fashioned forum-shopping to keep a crusade alive:
Planning to recruit anywhere else? E Eng 02:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
One should not confound writing that is skillful and distinctive with writing that is unencyclopedic; this is the former. Most of the criticisms raised here are matters of The RulesTM, rather than substantive ones about page quality.But you'll probably just ignore that and keep yelling "run-on" and "euphemism" and "bias" at random. E Eng 23:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
... His forum-shopping having failed, the OP is now taking out his frustrations by making WP:POINTy edits adding random inpopcult trivia to other articles [15]. E Eng 19:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
This article was marked as a Good Article in 2008, when the standards were probably not as high. Looking at it today, it has only a few citations, many of them not highly reliable sources. A lot of praise for the comic is extrapolated from these. More information comes from primary sources than is ideal.
Primarily, I think this doesn't meet the current Good Article criteria because too much information is drawn from primary sources. However, I'm putting this as a community reassessment because I'm not an expert in the Good Article space. HenryCrun15 ( talk) 02:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Concern that the article includes unsourced content and downplays the controversies that the organization has been involved in, see the talk page for details. ( t · c) buidhe 15:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment by Swiss romulus moved from the other GAR:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lack of citations, cleanup banners, lack of updates on post-2009 work, poor prose in areas (elaboration on the talk page) ( t · c) buidhe 12:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Last month, User:Lilredreb removed a large amount of information from this page, asserting that the article was conflating different people. This article needs someone familiar with the subject area to sort it out. It needs to be determined if the removal of information was the correct thing to do. If it was, then the references listed in the bibliography section need to be checked if they apply to this guy or the other guy. The infobox would need to be removed or replaced. I also have some concerns relating to whether this is sufficiently broad in coverage. Some newspaper references could be used. If that is not possible, then I would call into question whether this subject matter passes GNG. Steelkamp ( talk) 06:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delist. A good article does not need to be long, but this is less informative than some stub articles i've seen. Also i think that he may not be notable based on the lack of info i've found online. The helper5667 ( talk) 19:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delist I am unsure if this is an option, but agree per nom, as the article is extremely poor IMO. With barely more than 100 words, a one-sentence lead, and few refs, IMO this should at best be a start article; its notability is also probably questionable, namely this line: Much of his early life is unknown
.
VickKiang (
talk)
23:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Got a few concerns with this one. First the Copyvio score appears to be quite high. Further to this, the article is VERY brief - the coverage may not be broad enough to satisfy all aspects of Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. The information when direct quotes from Fineas are removed is very sparse. Not convinced there was enough prose to assess a decent coverage of the topic. This is problematic as it was promoted as a "good topic" too. Would appreciate other's thoughts. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have nominated this article for GA reassessment, as it does not meet the good article criteria. The article was last reviewed in 2009, and has changed considerably since then. It consists of several prose-related problems, and also lacks citations, as shown in the templates. Also, there has recently been no major contributor for this article. With so many issues, a proper review should be done. Kpddg (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Churches of Christ may warrant re-assessment for a number of reasons, including number of issues with page structure and layout. This includes: the length of the lead; the volume of imagery (none until section four, and none in the sixth section either); sections starting with pull quotes before the subject is introduced in prose; a degree of overcite, other citation needed, and a number of overly short subsections (also in section six); also some badly out-of-date statistics (at least one 2014 source in the infobox); and a general lack of conciseness - at 135,000kb, the page could merit splitting. Iskandar323 ( talk) 14:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article is woefully outdated. It does not include enough details about White's recent political activities, public statements, or his recently announced campaign for congress (MN-05). Also, as others have pointed out on the talk page, negative edits tend be removed quickly (possibly by a PR team?). It no longer meets the criteria for a good article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minneapples ( talk • contribs) 17:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Almost all the sources are to two Indian commanders who were involved in the battle, most notably the head naval commander. Does not used independent reliable sources. Bumbubookworm ( talk) 00:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm concerned the article includes a source that is quite unreliable, Illyrian Pirates, there are no authors, no editorial staff and I can't just remove it as it is a backbone of the article. MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 15:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm concerned the article includes a source that is quite unreliable, Illyrian Pirates, there are no authors, no editorial staff and I can't just remove it as it is a backbone of the article. MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 15:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
2022-08-24 Reassessed as Keep | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The content of this article is the subject of a long-running dispute on the talk-page, with no sign that I can see that resolution is imminent or even likely; it can't be considered stable. The text is far from neutral in tone, and contains so much off-topic material that it can't reasonably be considered to be focused on the topic either (as an example, material about James Hinks, who bred a totally different dog from this one, starting from the same nineteenth-century cross-bred dogs). I hope that others will comment on the quality of the sourcing and any possible WP:OR. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 21:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I did not call for another round of debate from the parties. The article lacks a WP:NPOV and has been tagged accordingly. It cannot endure as a GA article as it currently stands. 14.2.195.135 ( talk) 04:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So, a few weeks ago I installed a major rewrite of this article and there are later edits too. I should have done this GAR earlier, since the article is now completely different from the time at which it passed GAN I think the new version should be checked against the GA criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Femke ( talk) 19:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have several reasons regarding this reassesment:
Hence why I believe this article does not meet requirements for Good Article status and reassesment is very much needed. Thank you very much Nyanardsan ( talk) 09:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article seems to have been having issues with stability lately, as I'm seeing a lot of blanking and reverting (ETA: and sockpuppetry). I got it to GA back in 2008 and don't think it holds up anymore. The reviewer retired in 2015.
Issues are stability and comprehensiveness. Some facts have gotten removed entirely with time for unknown reasons, such as Bed Bath & Beyond opening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenPoundHammer ( talk • contribs)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article is tagged for lack of sources. Though it has a section of references, it lacks inline citations. The math markup is also a bit rough and probably needs to be converted to LaTeX style due to the MOS:BBB character, and italics not meshing well with superscripts. There are also equations in section headers, which might be good to avoid? -- Beland ( talk) 07:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This one seems to fail WP:WIAGA points:
Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 05:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't think that this article meets the criteria as there is not a lot of media, and precautions and biological occurences could be expanded. Bli231957 ( talk) 20:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
So, what shall we conclude with? It has been 6 months since the original reassessment has been started. 141 Pr 19:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article gained GA status eight years ago. Since then, the page has changed quite a bit, including the plot section getting completely mangled, which meant I had to replaced it with a clunkily-written plot summary of my own (I am not the best at using words). In addition, there are claims on the talk page that the Development section is now severely outdated now that more sources have been found and translated into English. I'm not entirely sure whether or not it meets the criteria to be delisted from being a good article, but I feel it deserves being looked at again. -- Eldomtom2 ( talk) 17:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Merely a cursory glance at the page revealed examples of poor writing and misrepresenation of a web source (both present at time of original GA assessment), which I edited to fix. Reassessment required. U-Mos ( talk) 07:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not convinced that this meets GA criteria. Lonely Planet is a tourism website and doesn't seem sufficient for supporting notability. Most of the other sources are similar tourism blurbs too. There's very little info about the mall, as the article is only two paragraphs long. It doesn't seem to be a thorough enough look, especially when compared to other mall articles. tl;dr: comprehensiveness and sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article had substantial amounts of content removed for being a copyright violation; this diff is the removal and this is the source. The source is paywalled to Gale through TWL. There is a very high chance that I have missed more close paraphrasing and copyright violations from both this source and others, as I only removed the most blatant of what I could see. The original addition was also blatantly copy-pasted, and then subsequently edited down. There was an effort by the nominator to reword, but it barely changed the actual copied text. There was also plagiarism, and there's a chance that more needs to be attributed. The copyright issues means that this article is possibly not broad enough as it stands. Sennecaster ( Chat) 04:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
He also made improvements to guns, cylindro-conoidal bullets,[22] ice-breaking wooden hull boats, paraffin oil candles, velocipedes, machines for making rivets and nails, and self-closing inkwells.[23][24] He also invented the Antipodean Performers suction-cup shoes claimed to be used by circus performers to ascend up solid side walls and walk upside down across high ceilings.[20][25] He did not realize the significance of many of his inventions when he produced them and sold off most of his patent rights to others for low prices making little for himself in the long run- Three sentences in a row that start with "He" make for a very awkward paragraph indeed. I'm pretty sure the second sentence also needs a comma after "shoes".
He developed the first modern feasible operating sewing machine[20] sometime between the years 1832 and 1834[28] at his Amos Street shop that was up a narrow alley in Abingdon Square[29] at the borough of Manhattan in the city of New York.is a run-on sentence and needs to be split into preferably two, or even three, sentences. Also, "at the borough of Manhattan in the city of New York" is both unnecessarily detailed and technically grammatically correct. No one would say "at Manhattan", and most people would just say "in Manhattan, New York City".
He gave as reasons for not procuring a patent that 1) he was busy with other businesses then; 2) the expense of getting the appropriate drawings and paperwork together to register a patent was more than he could afford and; 3) the difficulty of introducing the new sewing machine into public use, saying it would have cost two thousand (equivalent to $54,290 in 2021) or three thousand (equivalent to $81,430 in 2021) dollars to start the sewing machine business.- Technically, this is not a run-on, but it is a very long sentence, and "1) 2) 3)" aren't necessary in a prose list like this.
its prose is engaging and of a professional standard—to be significantly above that of GA's "well-written". GA as you've quoted would seem to require a level of quality above "some weak prose": clear and concise is frequently not particularly engaging but I wouldn't expect it to be weak or repetitive if we're calling it "good". (Personally, I've always had trouble elevating my workmanlike prose to "engaging" or "of a professional standard". With some care and self-editing, however, "clear and concise" is well within my wheelhouse, along with a bit of variation in structure.) BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This GA since November 2007 needs substantial additional work to remain at modern standards. Several sections are ten years or more out of date; a handful have uncited sentences; and there are bare URLs and "Archived copy"s all over the place. This page can be rescued, but I can't do this alone. Even though I have the ability to add newspaper references, that is not all that is needed to rescue this page from removal. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This has been raised in the BTG WikiProject in a discussion with Piotrus, IMHO improvement is needed for this to still be a GA. After this was passed as a good article long ago, new edits were made, including a dot-pointed list with list of minor awards the game won, according to its publisher (non-indepedent and self published). I've changed that to a paragraph, Guinness323 did another cleanup, but IMO there are more problems.
2b) Several refs are poor. I've rm the citing for
RPGNet, an user forum (see
Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Sources, in the cases when the statement was also supported by another ref, but it's still used. Also unreliable is the 4th ref. Ref 15 is also another SPS talking about itself, which per the guideline, is all right when The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim
, this is a bit debatable, as talking about awards it won itself seems to be meeting this IMHO, but this is a minor concern.
Othermore optional issues: a) 5 of the 15 refs are from the publisher, mostly for gameplay, but per
WP:RS, Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources
, it's understandable as the majority of these refs are for mundane details and rules, but IMO this is still a bit too much. Also, its review section formatting is like a ref section, but the layout IMHO does not follow notes and references layout (maybe it's similar to external links?)
3b) IMHO this isn't followed. The reception section cites very minor awards won by the 3rd edition, all just refed to the publisher. the Development and release seems also to be way too detailed, listing all of the cards and modules, and needs trimming. The review is almost all quoted with attribution, which is fine, but also IMO doesn't follow summary style (this is also cautioned by the MoS for Video Games, but the latter isn't relevant to GAs).
I'll update for more suggestions, many thanks! VickKiang ( talk) 07:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Having a look at the Mail chute article as it stands, it doesn't appear to be at a GA level. Some issues I notice:
I'm not a GA expert at all (just put up my first article for review) but this doesn't seem at the right standard. I realise some content has been removed recently which may have effected the article. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 03:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
The firm's grip on the technology was so firm that
@ EEng, I'd add it, but that doesn't make the logical link from "cutbacks in delivery" to "decline in chutes". Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)But clogs always have been a problem. Long ago they were usually fixed quickly because mail was so important and delivered as many as 12 times a day in some cities before World War II. When the Postal Service cut back to one daily delivery in 1950, "the populace was not happy about it," said Nancy Pope, a curator at the Smithsonian's National Postal Museum.
The merged company continued to defend its portfolio of patents; in 1910, the Cutler Mail Chute Company won a patent infringement lawsuit against the United States Mail Chute Equipment Company.(emphasis mine) is sourced to this newspaper clipping [25]. The source does not directly support the italicised assertion but describes a standalone event that has been woven into the article to create a narrative. Likewise
Concurrently with the growth of the company within the United States, it was also selling systems internationally. London's Savoy Hotel featured the first installation of a Cutler chute in England when it was expanded in 1904.is sourced to this newspaper article [26]. The article, about the Savoy Hotel, only briefly mentions the mail chute and doesn't talk about growth in the US or international sales. I guess these are not the only two examples. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 04:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is not a good article. If it was only not-so-good while still meeting the Good Article criteria fine, but it's a terrible article. I get that "Good Article" has its own rubric, but I don't think a "Good Article" should be an actually awful article. This would be confusing to readers.
It's a bad article because a quarter of it -- the "Allegations of cultural appropriation" section -- is an egregious tabloid hatchet job. My recommendation is that the section titled "Allegations of cultural appropriation" be removed, and the material in it be cut down to a couple-few anodyne sentences and stuck at the end of the "Personal life" section, or something to that general effect.
This section probably doesn't violate either WP:BLP, exactly, or WP:NOTGOSSIP, exactly, but it sure does skirt close to it. Beyond that, it just sucks. It sucks to punch down at this private person, and it double sucks that other media have picked up on this article and spread the egregious and very detailed defamation we're engaged in here. If "a good part of the article double sucks" and "It is a Good Article, which we want to display to the world as some of our best work" can coexist according to our rubric, then something's really wrong with our rubric, and until and if that is fixed, we are not a bureaucracy here and let's fix this particular problem right now. I have more to say, at length, I'll hat it, but it's probably worth scanning if you want to engage.
Altho it's arguable whether the section in question truly violates WP:BLP, at the very least it's skirting the edge, and also the edge of the policy WP:NOTGOSSIP ("Wikipedia is not a newspaper... not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not:... Celebrity gossip...", altho the rest of that section does let you get away with it. The woman is not close to being a public figure, she's a rich man's wife who has done this and that and been on this or that show because she is, and wants to enjoy that. And BLP says "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restrain... Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures."
Sure, truth is generally a defense against libel, but I mean "We shred this person in excruciating detail, but not in a way which crosses the line of being actually criminal" isn't what you'd want to see in any article, let alone one we want to crow about.
Who gives a... gosh-freaking-darn... if people want to have some fun with their persona. Jeepers creepers, half the people you meet are like "Oh I have some Cherokee blood" or "My people came over on the Mayflower" or "Actually I'm descended from Eric the Red" or whatever. Who knows if its true. Probably not. People put on airs, people say that they played an a band with Trent Reznor years ago, people hide that their parents were poor, etc etc etc. We all have different faces. So? Who is this woman harming, with her chosen face. Spain is a first-world country for crying out loud. They can watch out for their heritage without our help I am quite confident.
But wait. It gets worse. There's a "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations" tag here, and the media says horrible things about this person which I don't even want to repeat here, and apparentlythey are getting this from us in part at least. We are actively popularizing and spreading this... shinola.... I mean, for marginally notable persons, we are the biggest part of their public face. We are the second google hit on this person, after her instagram. We describe her to the world much more loudly and widely than any other source. And for centuries, maybe.
We are a huge, huge organization read by millions of people and which helps shape the zeitgeist. She is just a little person, a marginally notable person, who has her own inner life and her own reasons for doing things. Writing stuff like this at detailed length is punching down, punching way down, and it's not a good look. Let other people be egregious... scamps... and revel in shaming people. Let the National Enquirer do it. We don't have to. We really don't. We are free people on this earth, and we don't.
You know, there's a lot of facts and other material that we don't publish. A lot. See WP:NOT. We don't have to publish this.
I have been here a long time and I know the counterarguments. You can make them again and will. I know that I didn't hardly cite any WP:RULES. I know about beep beep boop boop, so I don't expect to win this one. But I'd be ashamed if I didn't try.
Anyway, I'm sending this article back for reconsideration until the nothingburger "cultural appropriation scandal" (yes, this Good Article says that, and in our words) is removed as a section and cut down to a couple-few anodyne sentences at the end of the personal-life section, or something to that general effect.
Herostratus ( talk) 06:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is nothing in the article about anything post World War II and it gives no indication whether or not it is still being manufactured (although I suspect that it isn't). It also doesn't include information about what happened to the product when the Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation was split up. Also, was it ever produced by Haskell Manufacturing Company? The Haskell Manufacturing Company says that it is but this page is unclear about it. How did it relate and compete with other plywoods? There is only a single reference after 1965 which I suspect is part of the issue. Gusfriend ( talk) 04:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
The bulk of the final paragraph, from "One of these airplanes..." forward, is lightly-rephrased copyvio from the cited Chicago Tribune source. e.g.
One of these airplanes received a commercial license to fly daily, and 500 hours of testing proved its worthiness.Source:
One of these ships has received a commercial license and is flying daily. More than 500 hours has been flown in the plane and it is proved to have superior performance.
The fuselage was molded in 2 hours 35 minutes, which was 1⁄30 the time required to construct an ordinary fuselage.Source:
The fuselage of the plane was molded in 2 hours 35 minutes, about one-thirtieth of the time taken to construct an ordinary fuselage.
It was without longitudinal or cross bracing.Source:
It is without longitudinal or cross bracing and is very light.
That took 30 seconds to identify, and there's no good reason to trust the policy compliance of other text in the article. To the contrary, if this is what we see in the easily checked sources, we might safely assume that the sources we can't easily access have been treated in the same way. A ground-up rewrite is probably necessary simply to comply with our basic copyvio policies, regardless of any other issues. Indignant Flamingo ( talk) 21:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is laughably incomplete. The Spencer Shops were in operation from 1896 to at least the 1960s. The article, however, abruptly ends at when the shops first opened and dedicates not a single sentence to their 60+ years of operations. This is ridiculously far from meeting the GA requirement for broad coverage of the subject, and should be delisted unless it is massively expanded from what it is now. The primary source used for this article, [27], gives no indication is is a reliable source, and I have noticed several instances of close paraphrasing of the source in this article's prose. This article should be delisted, it needs to be completely rewritten and massively expanded before we can say it meets the GA criteria. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 14:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Imagine if Cedar Hill Yard (my own FA, but I've picked it as it's one of the two existing FAs on a railroad facility, the other being Rogers Locomotive and Machine Works) ended after the "The yard is expanded, 1917 to 1920" section. See how much more material would be missing? I hope that gives an idea of the extent to which this article is incomplete and does not give its subject an encyclopedic treatment, or even come close to doing so. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 14:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The information about the demise/closure of the company is on this page and another related GA page, Lambert Automobile Company, is inconsistent.
These may be the only errors or there may be other issues with these pages but I believe that it is worth re-evaluation. Gusfriend ( talk) 07:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swath of outright copy and pasted content from a PDF source; it was either GA'd before scrutiny for CV or the reviewer AGF'd on the source. It probably has other issues, and unless someone wants to rewrite the article it fails to be broad enough. Sennecaster ( Chat) 13:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a maintenance template at the top of the article that says that the article contains self-published sources. Because of this, I believe that the article could no longer remain a good article. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 05:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The factual accuracy of this article is disputed. The claim that this locomotive set a speed record is widely contested in reliable sources, but this article treats it like an undisputed fact. In addition, this article was created by Doug Coldwell who habitually included major instances of close paraphrasing in his articles. An article which utterly fails to consider all viewpoints in reliable sources cannot be said to meet the GA criteria. This should be delisted unless someone is willing to put in significant work to improve the article. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 17:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a maintenance template at the top of the article that says that the article contains self-published sources. Because of this, I believe that the article could no longer remain a good article. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 05:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given the
WP:CCI of the nominator for GA status and close paraphrasing that has been found in other recent GARs of their articles I am reluctant to try and solve the identified issues. I am not saying that there is any incorrect information in the article and the books Coleman, Alan (2018).
North Carolina Transportation Museum. Charleston, South Carolina.
ISBN
1-4671-2775-2.
OCLC
1007842710.{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link) and Galloway, Duane (1996).
Southern Railway's Spencer shops : 1896-1996. Jim Wrinn. Lynchburg, Va.: TLC Pub.
ISBN
1-883089-23-9.
OCLC
36152758. may have enough information to support everything especially with some local news reports but absent some significant effort this article should be delisted.
I expect that someone could turn this into an amazing article with some effort as I suspect that the references are out there but it is not there yet.
I will be posting a message about this GAR on the Railways Wikiproject. Gusfriend ( talk) 08:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Elon Musk is considered to be very influential to many, as he has contributed a lot to technological advancement in spaceflight and technology, most notably electric vehicles and near-future enhancements. Musk is without a doubt a respectable individual in these fields, but his recent actions and past comments on various social issues and perceived problems has generated a good amount of warranted controversy. A good article is meant to document various things that are well-received on Wikipedia and elsewhere, but by allowing him to have a good article status does not reason under our current social climate
Musk is known to have spread misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic. If Wikipedia aims to document individuals who are professorial in science, then including a denier of vaccines and lock downs as a "good example" is pretty strange. We have a zero-tolerance policy on fringe science and conspiracies, so why must we include a proponent of hoaxes as a "good article"?
Elon recently acquired Twitter, and fired an employee responsible from preventing a coup by Donald Trump. If Wikipedia aims to be a place to get accurate information on extremely sensitive events such as the attempted coup at the capitol, then why do we wish to promote someone who advocates the restoration of a major proponent of de-democratization in the United States? Makes absolutely no sense to me.
Elon has made continuous references to far-right politics. Far-right politics in the United States have been recently responsible for many mass shootings and huge political disinformation, such as QAnon and Trumpism. If we aim to be a neutral space that presents individuals at their best, then why must we include a " meme lord" as a good article? It just shows how out of touch we are.
Musk no longer deserves a good article due to his behaviour and actions, which will unfortunately account for the restoration of Donald Trump on the biggest micrblogging website, which will be a direct threat to democracy. We need to reassess this article for the betterment of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alohaidled ( talk • contribs) 01:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are currently three unsolved issues with the article's sourcing as shown at the top of the article inside the {{ Multiple issues}} template. Because of this, I believe that the article could no longer remain a good article. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 04:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is quite a short article, and there are no images on the page, therefore failing the 6th GA criterion. 141 Pr 08:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Simply put, the reception section of the article is overflowing with the often hated listicles ( word defined here on Merriam-Webster). While they do come from reliable sources, they are generally poorly written and say little of the character. The reception section in general also gives undue weight towards her physical appearance and body. Outside of the reception section, a lot of the sources are WP:PRIMARY. Due to these factors, I believe it fails criteria 2b at its current state. Also, as a minor point, File:Tifa Lockhart art.png and File:Tifa Lockhart.png could have better fair-use rationale. (Oinkers42) ( talk) 02:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Rearranged some parts of the reception and added commentary from Advent Children and Remake. I hope it helps. Tintor2 ( talk) 18:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
@ ProtoDrake: Sorry. I won't edit it. Tintor2 ( talk) 21:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I rearranged it a bit more like Aya Brea to separate the sex appeal from other themes related with the character. Now the first paragraph of critical response explores her character in general, the second her relationship with Cloud and the last one her role in the movie and Remake. Tintor2 ( talk) 04:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I've done a copyedit of the whole article at Tintor's request. I think his recent reorganization of the Reception section is really nice and de-emphasizes the listicles that motivated this GAR to begin with. Are there additional issues people have identified or is it time to make a final decision on the GAR? Axem Titanium ( talk) 22:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Axem Titanium: Thanks for the quick help. Tintor2 ( talk) 18:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The page no longer meets Good Article criteria in my opinion, reception section in particular is almost empty besides the reviews of the game being listed in a box. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 06:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Stumbled across this GA while looking for examples of tournament articles to use as inspiration for another project. I was shocked to find a complete lack of a prose summary, goalscorer information, and most statistics. As such, I believe this article (and some other CECAFA Cup entries) fails criteria 3a, as it does not address the main aspects of the topic. Sounder Bruce 06:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Doug Coldwell GA. I approved it in January, but it has sourcing issues. I have attempted a partial rewrite (which included two SIGCOV sources unavailable to Doug), but this is not my field, and I'm a bit out of my depth here after having seen this page too much. I'm hoping that the rest of the article can be improved—it has great images and concerns a now-defunct operation—but I can't take this much further than I already have. I only approved two Coldwell GAs of six I reviewed; the other one was delisted here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi all. I came across this page reading through the engineering and technology GA pages, and think it still may need some work.
To me, the page feels like it would fit B-class. Would be great to get some community insight. SerAntoniDeMiloni ( talk) 21:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My 2nd ever GA, I'm now taking it to GAR myself. When I wrote this at the beginning of my content-writing career, I was too naive/stupid to realize the source I used the most was user-generated. Those refs have since been removed and replaced with CN tags. As I don't have the time/energy to fix this myself, I think it needs delisted unless someone else is willing to pick it up. Hog Farm Talk 00:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I nominated Mamie Eisenhower for GA, but it was quick-passed. The subsequent discussion was unhelpful, so I feel it should be reassessed to confirm that it meets the standards or so I know what to fix if it does not. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 08:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not doubting the quality of this article, but it was reviewed by a new user who did not give an in-depth assessment. I only would like to ensure that it receives this. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Large portions of this page are uncited. There are also parts that are poorly written. Steelkamp ( talk) 07:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Specific problems are as follows:
alternatives to larger efforts to create or expand the high-speed rail networks.
Though the definition of higher-speed rail varies from country to country, most countries refer to rail services operating at speeds up to 200 km/h (125 mph).Should not be in its own paragraph
but usually falling short on the intended speeds.Why the "usually". Surely if it fulfilled intended speeds, then it would become true high speed rail.
the speed range for India's higher-speed rail will be between 160 and 200 km/h (100 and 125 mph).What's with the "will be"?
In Canada, the assumption about grade crossing is that operating higher-speed rail services between 160 and 200 km/h (99 and 124 mph) would require "improved levels of protection in acceptable areas".This is a nebulous statement.
In developing higher-speed rail services, one of those safety systems must be used.This seems to be original research.
which regulates the speed limits of trains with Class 5, Class 6, Class 7 and Class 8Is this grammatically correct?
In the United States, railroad tracks are largely used for freight with at-grade crossings.Is that meant to link to level crossing rather than At-grade intersection?
Steelkamp ( talk) 07:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
There has been no improvement to this article in the last month. I suggest to any uninvolved users passing by that you close this GAR as delist. Steelkamp ( talk) 05:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is the "context" template at the top of the article, saying that it provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject
. So, I believe that the article now fails the GA criteria.
GeoffreyT2000 (
talk)
15:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a maintenance template at the top of the article that says that the article contains self-published sources. Because of this, I believe that the article could no longer remain a good article. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 05:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
By way of improving the article I noticed that the Glen Royall Mill Village Historic District PDF reeference includes the statement Along the high ground on the west boundary runs Wake Forest's North Main Street (U.S. Highway lA), a historic ridge road connecting the town to communities to the north and in the early twentieth century North Carolina's principal "national highway" connection to the North. which would be a useful addition to the page. Also have there been articles in local news about roadworks or other changes? Even information about where it meets US 1? Gusfriend ( talk) 09:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I am concerned that this GAR will be used as some sort of precedent-setting political weapon to say that all road GAs are deficient in some way - that is not the case. There is nothing wrong with citing a map just because it is a map. That being said, I do agree with Gusfriend and the first part of Indy beetle's comments and think that this article falls below even the standards set by WP:MAPCITE. (As far as the routing issue, the proper use is to either say by 1916 or point to a map the same edition from a year earlier.) The use of maps in this article is sloppy. -- Rs chen 7754 15:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article covers a controversial topic which has been in the news regularly in the United States over the past month. It was made a GA in 2008. The article is considerably different now. I would appreciate multiple members of the community to take a look at it. I don't really have any interest in the subject, but I think it is important to make sure this article is reassessed. Thriley ( talk) 03:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Severely US-biased, confuses railway-operated hospitals with doctors paid by railway companies to represent them in legal cases involving medical matters, contains blatantly false statements like "in Europe, the majority of injuries were due to collisions, hence passengers rather than employees formed the bulk of the injured" that because of the way the article is written are very hard to remove without major rewrites or massive excisions. -- Eldomtom2 ( talk) 16:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
In Europe, the majority of injuries were due to collisions, hence passengers rather than employees formed the bulk of the injured. For instance, in Britain, accidents on the line such as crushing between wagons and being struck by trains (accidents suffered mostly by railway staff) were far fewer than passenger injuries through collisions in 1887.
accidents belonging to the first class enormously preponderate. The "first class" is contusions and shocks resulting from slight collisions; the source does not say that the victims are mostly passengers. Nor does it say whether this enormous preponderance applies to Britain, or to Europe as a whole (which is it?) Nor does it say that it is referring to 1887. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 22:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My reasons for nomination can be seen at Talk:Madagascar women's national football team/GA2, an individual reassessment that I performed. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 16:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is so bad it's actually embarrassing. Most of the article is an unsourced mess that I doubt can even be fixed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 20:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An article made a GA back in 2007. Though this was nominated for GAR request by an IP, after checking through the article, the numerous uncited statements are bad enough for me to open this GAR. The main problem i've noticed is the uncited statements that should be addressed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Even before official adoption of the label, Frank Zappa...- unsourced
Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Made a GA in 2010 and last assessed back in 2013. This article has major sourcing problems with massive amounts of uncited material. This will need to be addressed for this article to remain a GA. Also its lead is way too long. MOS:LEAD dictates that a lead should be four paragraphs. This has seven. So that will also need to change. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 03:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I concur that this article does not meet the good article criteria. In addition to the things said above, there are many instances of poor writing and short paragraphs. Steelkamp ( talk) 04:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A GA from 2015. There's quite a lot of unsourced material that needs to be addressed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 17:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Some of the issues raised are fixable but I am not sure if all of them are without significant effort.
Note: This is a Doug Coldwell article.
Gusfriend (
talk)
11:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Here.
"James L. Buie, 68; Scientist, Inventor". Los Angeles Times. L.A. TIMES ARCHIVES. September 28, 1988. Buie, who retired in 1983, was a graduate of USC. He was elected a fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers in 1973.
7&6=thirteen (
☎)
05:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I think the article's claim in the lead that "The integrated circuit industry came into existence as a result" of Buie's work is far overstated. The integrated circuit industry was well underway in the late 1950s with the work of Kilby and Noyce. Buie's invention of TTL is very important, and our integrated circuit article writes that "TTL became the dominant integrated circuit technology during the 1970s to early 1980s.", I think accurately. But it did not create an industry. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2007 listing not up to standard, with many unsourced paragraphs, possibly verging on OR. On a related note, the university has many sub-articles which may fail WP:NFACULTY. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
house 1,100 studentsthat are unsourced, this section similar has problematic unsourced statistics, including
which has won 16 NCAA National Championships; the women's soccer team, which was rated as the top first-year women's program in the country in 1998. The Notable people section is additionally deficiently sourced and clearly fails criteria 2b, additionally, the article also has three valid citation needed tags. IMO this is somewhat difficult to salvage but if anyone addresses these concerns please ping me. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My reasons for nomination can be seen at Talk:Cambodia women's national football team/GA2, an individual reassessment that I performed. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 16:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)