← ( Page 67) | Good article reassessment (archive) | ( Page 69) → |
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.
From a cursory glance, article suffers from sourcing, prose, and neutrality issues. Some texts are tagged as either unsourced or unverifiable, while others are unencyclopedic (I caught one usage of the idiom "taste of one's own medicine", which I have deleted). There could be many unsourced claims in the article due to lack of in-text attributions to RS. Some sources don't seem to be reliable, either; the use of IMDb, which WP:RS/IMDB deems unreliable, is a major red flag. I vote to delist. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy ( talk) 17:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
it was originally 52 minutes when broadcast on television, failing criteria 2b. In the music section, the paragraph opening with
The theme was later released on Goodall's album Choral Works...is also unsourced. There is additionally a valid cn tag and a valid failed verification tag. The Mr. Bean#In popular culture section might also fail criteria 3b, going into excessive trivia based on questionable sources ( 1, 2, and The Daily Mirror are not WP:RS. Therefore I am at weak delist. VickKiang (talk) 22:02, 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.
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. | see several pertinent edits I made in the lead section and elsewhere on 5 December 2022 between 06:38 and 08:27 (UTC) | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | same as above (1a) | |
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. | see edits I made (see 1a, above) for examples of unreliable sources | |
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). | same as above | |
2c. it contains no original research. | I removed some original research, but the article might contain even more | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | for a television series of 10 years and 17 seasons, the article is short - it seems to lack both breadth and depth of coverage (I have never watched the show, thus my use of the verb "seems") | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | I guess. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Maybe - I tried to remove opinions, but I could have easily missed something | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | I didn't notice any edit wars | |
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. | not even close to satisfying Good Article criteria |
I used the table above to explain my reasoning for listing this article for good article community reassessment. Please discuss here. Many thanks - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 09:13, 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.
Fails GA criterion 2b. Is lacking in inline citations. For example, the following paragraphs are completely uncited: first, fifth, and seventh paras in "Adulthood and professional work"; first para in "Gaudí and Modernisme"; fourth para in "Surpassing the Gothic"; all of "Urban spaces and landscaping"; first para of "Works"; last para of "University years"; etc. — PerfectSoundWhatever ( t; c) 16:30, 24 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.
Problems with this article include:
– Steelkamp ( talk) 09:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)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.
GAR from 2007, reassesed in 2008. Very important article in a poor state - almost half of the text in unsourced, f.e. half of Etymology, whole Evolution, half of Taxonomy, parts of Diversity, Anatomy and physiology, Muscular system, half of Reproductive system, etc.
Other problems - underdeveloped sections - f.e. Scales, Emotion, and Fishkeeping.
Tags present: dubious – discuss. Article is probably outdated: Conservation section starts with The 2006 IUCN Red List names 1,173 fish species that are threatened with extinction
- it's 17 years ago!
I don't usually edit biology articles, so will ping some users who are good in it (hope it's ok, no pressure of course, but would be great to know your opinion): @ LittleJerry:, @ Chiswick Chap:, @ Casliber:
Artem.G ( talk) 16:43, 11 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.
Made a GA in 2013. Numerous statements are unsourced that would need to be addressed if this article were to remain as a GA. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:31, 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.
A GA that was promoted in 2006 and last reassessed in 2013. The main problem I've noticed is the numerous uncited statements that makes the article fail criterion 2b. Haven't checked for other problems yet but the uncited stuff alone is worthy enough for reassessment. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 17:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Comments from Steelkamp
Definitely not meeting the criteria as it stands now. This article fails 1A, 1B and 2B at least.
Steelkamp ( talk) 07:32, 8 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.
Made into a GA in 2007. There are multiple uncited statements that need to be cited. I also don't feel if this article succeeds at broadness as many sections are too small for me to consider broad enough. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 05:07, 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 2008. There is some uncited material that needs to be addressed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:22, 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 2014. There is many unsourced material (such as the entirety of the culture: general section.) along with some supposedly needed updates and a better wording of
among many other things. If that can be addressed then this will not have to be delisted. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 03:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Sadly the main article writer Middayexpress was blocked in 2015. The article has degraded since 2014 through overediting. I don't know if Fsmatovu wants to take a look at it and see if he can source and improve it to retain GA status? I don't think it needs a lot of work, just to check there are no unsourced claims, removed what can't be sourced and avoid the short snappy sentences like those mentioned above.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:14, 8 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 2008. Some stuff is uncited while other stuff might need updates. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 23:43, 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.
Several unsourced sections and paragraphs, thus breaking criterion 2. Most citations are to Guibault, pp. 840–844; however, the book in question (Zouk: world music in the West Indies) has under 350 pages, unless I'm mistaken. Very troubling. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 23:54, 8 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 2008. There are is uncited material that needs to be cited. Also the lead is too small for my taste. 1 paragraph is not enough to summarize this article. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:03, 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.
Another GAR nomination. This article was made a GA in 2013. However, this needs to be reassessed because it fails the broadness required for a GA. Andry is now president of Madagascar and has been for 4 years now. But, the article has rarely covered much of it in the presidency section. In order for this to remain a GA it must have Its presidency section updated and expanded. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:21, 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.
A GA from 2010. There's quite a lot of unsourced content in here that needs to be addressed for this to remain a GA. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 17:06, 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.
2016 listing which fails criterion 4 (neutrality). Article is overly promotional, especially in the services section, but also elsewhere. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:23, 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.
A GA from 2007. The biggest problem is the massive amount of unsourced material in the article that, if not taken care, will result in the article's delisting. Hopefully someone can work on this. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 03:04, 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 2008. There are multiple unsourced claims that need to be fixed for this article to remain a GA. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 04:55, 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 2016 this time. Many things are unsourced and would need to be fixed for this to remain a GA. Also the prose seems kind of bad with multiple 1 sentence paragraphs that look weird. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:45, 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.
This 2007-listed, level 4 vital article lacks significant numbers of citations. I have tagged over 30 locations, but more may still be there. Without significant improvement, the article should be delisted as failing GA criterion 2. As this is a vital article, with a huge number of reliable sources written about it, I do not think that it will be too much work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:10, 11 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.
pourtigul
a uou au ff.sdfhdfk
f fdsfghdfghdsfsdh
A GA made in 2012. Now has multiple unsourced claims that need to be addressed for this article to remain a GA. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 17:19, 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 2013. Some material is uncited and needs to be addressed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:01, 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.
Oldest Good Article Reassessment Request. The main problem is the citation needed tags that should have citations. Should be easy to fix with the right resources. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 20:02, 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 2012. Three reasons I'm nominating this. 1. Uncited material is strewn about the article and will need to be addressed. 2. I believe that the article needs to be updated as most of the article seems to end at 2012 max. 3. This might be a stretch but i'm not all too confident about the article's broadness. for a city with over 1 million people, the article kind of seems small. Especially since the history is only twice the size of the etymology section, a section about the city's name. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 03:07, 11 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.
The most obvious problem with this article is the large amount of unsourced content. ( t · c) buidhe 07:15, 17 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 are numerous sentences and paragraphs without citations. Steelkamp ( talk) 13:18, 22 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.
The article has 19 cn tags, at least one failed verification, and is in need of updating (a lot of the science uses 10-yr old sources). —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 19:21, 21 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.
Lack of citations in some areas. Honestly though it's not too much but I have noticed that all my indian place nominations always have the same problem of being alright in the first half delving in problems by the end. Though, even when I said the stuff is not too much, I would still like stuff like "Lassi (yogurt-based) and chaach (traditional buttermilk) are most favoured drink in Uttar Pradesh." to be cited as it's a pretty bold claim (also i'm sick so my brain might be but lagging but it feels like that sentence isn't grammatically correct also). Hopefully someone will fix this. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 01:12, 21 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.
GA from 2006, it was't reassessed. Half of the article is unsourced, with 'This article needs additional citations for verification.' on top, 5 'citation needed' tags and two 'This section does not cite any sources' templates (Female Peronist Party and women's suffrage and Honours), see also unsourced sections: Juan Perón's arrest, 1946 presidential election, European tour, Vice-presidential nomination, Re-election and Spiritual Leader of the Nation; and 19 'page needed' tags. Artem.G ( talk) 19:17, 16 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 a lot of unsourced content in this article. ( t · c) buidhe 07:23, 17 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 2010. There are some uncited paragraphs and sentences here and there that need to be addressed. Some areas might need updates though I'm not sure. Also, populations for manila's districts are cited to a permanent dead link. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 20:44, 11 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 2007. There's some uncited statements that should be addressed. The "Applications" section looks like it needs to be changed in some way Onegreatjoke ( talk) 20:19, 21 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.
GA from 2015. Main problem is some unsourced material here and there. Though I do feel that if someone puts their time and energy into this article then they could easily fix it. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 04:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Problems that I have spotted:
Steelkamp ( talk) 16:15, 20 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 2016. Minor amounts of uncited material though I am mainly worried about the entire transportation section being unsourced. Considering that section is important to have from a broadness standpoint, it should be addressed along with other uncited statements. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:03, 19 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.
Article has "This section needs to be updated" tags in five sections: Economy, Transport, Demographics, Education, Sports, and As of 2019, the Croatian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration employed 1,381[needs update]
. It also has "needs additional citations for verification" tag for Sports, and a 'citation needed' in Healthcare section. 'clarification needed' is in Independent Croatia (1991–present) section. With 6 big orange templates article needs work to remain a GA.
Artem.G (
talk)
19:00, 16 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 2018. Lots of uncited material that needs to be addressed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:43, 19 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 2010. First problem, a small amount of uncited material that should be addressed. Second, and my main problem, which might be reaching, this article seems way too small. This is a place with over 500 thousand people living in it. Yet it's only 35000 bytes? With multiple sections that are just two-four sentences long? There are articles on towns with less than 1000 people living in them yet have significantly bigger articles than these. Because of that, I think fails the broadness category. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 01:04, 19 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.
The biggest issue with the article right now is a lack of citations for several sections. Other things include:
Steelkamp ( talk) 15:52, 20 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 2018. Pretty Recent. Anyways, the usual case of there being multiple cases of uncited content that must be addressed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 02:03, 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.
A GA from 2015. Uncited material here and there but honestly, it's really not much and could likely easily be fixed with a devoted editor. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:38, 19 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.
The article is quite a bit out of date, for instance giving 2004 natural gas reserves, but most data given for the years around 2010. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 21:13, 21 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 2007. There's uncited material that needs to be cited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 20:32, 21 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 2014. Some uncited material that needs to be cited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:16, 22 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 2013. The usual uncited material that's here and there and should be addressed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:46, 20 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 2013. Minor uncited text here and there that I would like addressed. This "kalasam of a temple tower","txt":"The gold plated image of kalasam of a temple tower"}]]}" id="mwAcw" data-ve-attributes="{"typeof":"mw:Image/Thumb mw:ExpandedAttrs","about":"#mwt806984473"}">Sivakasi Badhrakali Amman Temple" is just shoved in the culture section and needs to be cleaned up. Also, I may be picky here but the sports section seems really small for the article size. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:04, 20 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 2007. There is quite a lot of uncited material that needs to be cited along with being updated. Also the Summer Hill Rainbow Crossing section needs to be rewritten as there are so many external links that it's absurd. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 17:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Delist huge amounts of unsourced content; external links have gone overboard ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:33, 24 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 2009. Some uncited statements needs to be cited. The citations for notable residents section needs to be cleaned up as some are just brackets and not actual footnotes. The article needs to be updated as lots of things are source to the 2001 UK census. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:31, 22 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 2007. There's lots of uncited material that needs to be cited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 17:27, 22 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 2008 and last reassessed in 2013. Some uncited material that needs to be cited along with an orange tag being in there. Honestly, had there not been 2 peer reviews and a GAR the article likely would've looked much worse. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 23:48, 21 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 2011. There's a bad amount of uncited material that needs to be cited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 03:59, 22 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 Coldwell GA. This is somewhat my fault, as I missed a number of issues in my GA review in 2020 (which was the year I first was involved in the GA process). I've done a general rewrite, so copyvio isn't an issue anymore, but there were several instances of failed verification that need to be resolved yet. Much harder to fix will be weighting/comprehensiveness concerns I have - IMO the 1840s village stuff is disproportionately weighted, while the post-1950 NPS ownership needs additional information. I'm in a busy season with work and don't have the print sources that would be most useful in fixing the comprehensiveness issues. I'm genuinely sad to see this one probably go, but if this is going to be fixed, someone else is going to need to pitch in above the time I spent on this. Hog Farm Talk 02:03, 26 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 in 2011. My main concern with this article isn't a lack of sourcing (though there are two citation needed tags) but rather that it fails to be broad while also possibly needing updates. For broadness I'm specifically talking about the Jordanian Rule, Israeli Occupation, and Palestinian Autonomy sections. Each these sections consist solely of very short paragraphs, sometimes even being one sentence long, and it really feels as if more could be said here. The possibly needing update problem is how this article just seems to end at 2009. There is no mention of anything that after 2009. For example, the article mentions
But there is no follow up on this afterwards, making it seem like Bani Na'im has had this shortage for a while. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 05:51, 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 2007. There is uncited material that needs to be cited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 20:48, 21 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 2007. There's some uncited material that needs to be cited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:48, 22 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 2007. There's a good (or bad) amount of uncited material that should be addressed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 20:57, 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.
Some unsourced content. I have contacted the original nominator, and if they are willing, the article's GA status will be secure. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:29, 24 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.
Significant unsourced content without general references, thus failing GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 14:04, 24 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 2007. Last reassessed in 2014. Numerous citation issues including
And many more. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 19:45, 25 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 2007. Quite a lot of problems with this. First, uncited statements such as
Along with many other uncited statements. Along with that, the prose is just poorly written. The article is written so weirdly with so many 1 sentence paragraphs such as
And even then, i'm not sure if the article is broad enough as it feels like there's so much that could be talked about that isn't Onegreatjoke ( talk) 14:38, 26 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 2010. Some uncited statements such as
Fixing this would be great. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 22:37, 25 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 2009. Now the article is sourced correctly. The problem is, almost half the sources are permanent dead links with one non-permanent dead link. Personally, I feel as if that comprises 2b because of that. Though, this nomination is mainly a test to see if permanent dead links are a problem for GAs. Though, I do also have some qualms about the article's notability in general but that's not for GAR. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 03:39, 22 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 2011. There looks to be some uncited material needs to be cited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:43, 22 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 unsourced content. I have contacted the original nominator, and if they are willing, the article's GA status will be secure. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:29, 24 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.
No general references, but extensive uncited material, meaning
criterion 2 is not met.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk)
19:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
A GA from 2015. Has been orange tagged for
and also has some uncited statements which seemingly include
and more. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 20:05, 25 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 are a bunch of sentences without citations. It's not on the good article criteria, but there are sandwiching issues with the images as well. Steelkamp ( talk) 10:45, 26 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 2020 surprisingly enough. Still, there is a lot of uncited material that needs to be addressed. There was some even during it's passing which I don't why that was let go. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:52, 19 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.
Lots of issues with choppy prose (tons of one-sentence paragraphs). A lot of the "early life" section is unsourced, as are a lot of the details throughout the article. This one needs a major overhaul if it's going to avoid the Whammy. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 04:47, 28 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.
This 2010 listing features substantial amounts of unsourced content, thus failing GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:03, 29 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 2021. Not much work needed, just two main problems. One, Some areas lack citations here and there, would like some fixing. Two, and my main problem, article needs to be updated as many parts of the article are sourced to the 2011 and 2016 census. Also a table for the 2022 federal election needs to be added. Though, since Steelkamp is active I feel as if he can fix this with enough effort. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 01:35, 21 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.
This article is a GA from 2012. There are lots of uncited material which needs to be cited. I've gone head and added some {{Citation needed}} tags. 141 Pr 19:41, 1 February 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.
This article is a GA from 2012. There are lots of uncited material which needs to be cited. I've gone head and added some {{Citation needed}} tags. 141 Pr 20:00, 1 February 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 2007. There's some uncited material such as
And many more that need to be addressed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 17:51, 30 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.
The article needs an update; the situation will have changed after Brexit: farmers no longer benefit from the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 21:12, 1 February 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.
Possible reassessment requested since March last year. The article contains some uncited text, and doesn't have an update after ~2006. Is DNR still "developing the area with nature trails and other improvements"? —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 14:58, 29 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.
The article hasn't been maintained to standards after the 2010 GA, and does not meet the broadness criterion for his career afterwards. Has been marked for possible reassessment since 2021. Not quite a GA issue, but the article is full of WP:Proseline. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 12:36, 29 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.
This article is currently a way off meeting the GA criterion of verifiability. It has had a verification needed tag since December 2021, and there are nine citation needed tags throughout the page. Since the article was promoted to GA status in 2010, instances of the existing material being demonstrably incorrect have also come to light on talk that call into question both the article's accuracy and neutrality. This has caused at least one other editor to also question the article's GA status. The article also no longer covers the main aspects of the topic properly. There is a dearth of information post-1979, and there has seemingly been not a single update since 2013, making the content grossly outdated. The page also irrelevantly recounts the emigration of Zoroastrians to India, yet, despite the sizeable population there, and the huge tensions between different minorities, it makes no mention of the state of persecution, or lack therein, in India. Despite having sections on both persecution by other Zoroastrians as well as Christians, the lead does not mention this but slants the subject from the single-minded POV of Muslim persecution of Zoroastrians. The page is meanwhile organized in terms of persecution by Muslims first, other forms later, despite this being anachronous, since the other types of persecution date to Sassanian and Roman times and should simply be included at the beginning of the chronological history of persecution. Not great in all. Iskandar323 ( talk) 14:34, 31 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.
So this might just be me reaching too far for something. The article uses general references so there doesn't seem to be much citation issues (though "Beer was not only consumed for its flavor and alcohol content, but because it was safer to drink than water, which often harbored disease-causing microorganisms. Even children drank small beer." needs to be cited). However, my main problem is the prose. There's so many choppy 1-2 sentence paragraphs that make this feel cluttered and I feel as if that's a problem that could be fixed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:30, 30 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.
The main GA criteria not met is the 3b (summary style). At over 15,000 words, the article contains many details of matches. There is significant text either uncited or cited to unreliable sources such as "Online World of Wrestling". —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 19:17, 30 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.
GA from 2015. I do not think that this article is broad enough. It has been eight years since the battle took place. Yet, there's no aftermath section, a seemingly small background, and pretty small article in general. Considering how long it's been, it can probably be expanded on with scholarly sources. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 20:28, 30 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.
The article is out of date in quite a few places (f.i. "The stadium will have wi-fi and 4G LTE in all its sectors", with 2013 source). Will need a lick of paint to meet GA criteria again. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 18:12, 31 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 uncited information being.
These will have to be cited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:31, 1 February 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.
Oldest GA i've seen yet. 2006. Kind of crazy. Anywho, there's lots of uncited material including
and many more. Will need to be fixed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
← ( Page 67) | Good article reassessment (archive) | ( Page 69) → |
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.
From a cursory glance, article suffers from sourcing, prose, and neutrality issues. Some texts are tagged as either unsourced or unverifiable, while others are unencyclopedic (I caught one usage of the idiom "taste of one's own medicine", which I have deleted). There could be many unsourced claims in the article due to lack of in-text attributions to RS. Some sources don't seem to be reliable, either; the use of IMDb, which WP:RS/IMDB deems unreliable, is a major red flag. I vote to delist. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy ( talk) 17:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
it was originally 52 minutes when broadcast on television, failing criteria 2b. In the music section, the paragraph opening with
The theme was later released on Goodall's album Choral Works...is also unsourced. There is additionally a valid cn tag and a valid failed verification tag. The Mr. Bean#In popular culture section might also fail criteria 3b, going into excessive trivia based on questionable sources ( 1, 2, and The Daily Mirror are not WP:RS. Therefore I am at weak delist. VickKiang (talk) 22:02, 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.
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. | see several pertinent edits I made in the lead section and elsewhere on 5 December 2022 between 06:38 and 08:27 (UTC) | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | same as above (1a) | |
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. | see edits I made (see 1a, above) for examples of unreliable sources | |
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). | same as above | |
2c. it contains no original research. | I removed some original research, but the article might contain even more | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | for a television series of 10 years and 17 seasons, the article is short - it seems to lack both breadth and depth of coverage (I have never watched the show, thus my use of the verb "seems") | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | I guess. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Maybe - I tried to remove opinions, but I could have easily missed something | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | I didn't notice any edit wars | |
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. | not even close to satisfying Good Article criteria |
I used the table above to explain my reasoning for listing this article for good article community reassessment. Please discuss here. Many thanks - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 09:13, 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.
Fails GA criterion 2b. Is lacking in inline citations. For example, the following paragraphs are completely uncited: first, fifth, and seventh paras in "Adulthood and professional work"; first para in "Gaudí and Modernisme"; fourth para in "Surpassing the Gothic"; all of "Urban spaces and landscaping"; first para of "Works"; last para of "University years"; etc. — PerfectSoundWhatever ( t; c) 16:30, 24 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.
Problems with this article include:
– Steelkamp ( talk) 09:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)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.
GAR from 2007, reassesed in 2008. Very important article in a poor state - almost half of the text in unsourced, f.e. half of Etymology, whole Evolution, half of Taxonomy, parts of Diversity, Anatomy and physiology, Muscular system, half of Reproductive system, etc.
Other problems - underdeveloped sections - f.e. Scales, Emotion, and Fishkeeping.
Tags present: dubious – discuss. Article is probably outdated: Conservation section starts with The 2006 IUCN Red List names 1,173 fish species that are threatened with extinction
- it's 17 years ago!
I don't usually edit biology articles, so will ping some users who are good in it (hope it's ok, no pressure of course, but would be great to know your opinion): @ LittleJerry:, @ Chiswick Chap:, @ Casliber:
Artem.G ( talk) 16:43, 11 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.
Made a GA in 2013. Numerous statements are unsourced that would need to be addressed if this article were to remain as a GA. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:31, 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.
A GA that was promoted in 2006 and last reassessed in 2013. The main problem I've noticed is the numerous uncited statements that makes the article fail criterion 2b. Haven't checked for other problems yet but the uncited stuff alone is worthy enough for reassessment. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 17:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Comments from Steelkamp
Definitely not meeting the criteria as it stands now. This article fails 1A, 1B and 2B at least.
Steelkamp ( talk) 07:32, 8 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.
Made into a GA in 2007. There are multiple uncited statements that need to be cited. I also don't feel if this article succeeds at broadness as many sections are too small for me to consider broad enough. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 05:07, 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 2008. There is some uncited material that needs to be addressed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:22, 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 2014. There is many unsourced material (such as the entirety of the culture: general section.) along with some supposedly needed updates and a better wording of
among many other things. If that can be addressed then this will not have to be delisted. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 03:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Sadly the main article writer Middayexpress was blocked in 2015. The article has degraded since 2014 through overediting. I don't know if Fsmatovu wants to take a look at it and see if he can source and improve it to retain GA status? I don't think it needs a lot of work, just to check there are no unsourced claims, removed what can't be sourced and avoid the short snappy sentences like those mentioned above.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:14, 8 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 2008. Some stuff is uncited while other stuff might need updates. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 23:43, 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.
Several unsourced sections and paragraphs, thus breaking criterion 2. Most citations are to Guibault, pp. 840–844; however, the book in question (Zouk: world music in the West Indies) has under 350 pages, unless I'm mistaken. Very troubling. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 23:54, 8 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 2008. There are is uncited material that needs to be cited. Also the lead is too small for my taste. 1 paragraph is not enough to summarize this article. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:03, 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.
Another GAR nomination. This article was made a GA in 2013. However, this needs to be reassessed because it fails the broadness required for a GA. Andry is now president of Madagascar and has been for 4 years now. But, the article has rarely covered much of it in the presidency section. In order for this to remain a GA it must have Its presidency section updated and expanded. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:21, 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.
A GA from 2010. There's quite a lot of unsourced content in here that needs to be addressed for this to remain a GA. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 17:06, 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.
2016 listing which fails criterion 4 (neutrality). Article is overly promotional, especially in the services section, but also elsewhere. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:23, 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.
A GA from 2007. The biggest problem is the massive amount of unsourced material in the article that, if not taken care, will result in the article's delisting. Hopefully someone can work on this. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 03:04, 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 2008. There are multiple unsourced claims that need to be fixed for this article to remain a GA. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 04:55, 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 2016 this time. Many things are unsourced and would need to be fixed for this to remain a GA. Also the prose seems kind of bad with multiple 1 sentence paragraphs that look weird. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:45, 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.
This 2007-listed, level 4 vital article lacks significant numbers of citations. I have tagged over 30 locations, but more may still be there. Without significant improvement, the article should be delisted as failing GA criterion 2. As this is a vital article, with a huge number of reliable sources written about it, I do not think that it will be too much work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:10, 11 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.
pourtigul
a uou au ff.sdfhdfk
f fdsfghdfghdsfsdh
A GA made in 2012. Now has multiple unsourced claims that need to be addressed for this article to remain a GA. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 17:19, 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 2013. Some material is uncited and needs to be addressed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:01, 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.
Oldest Good Article Reassessment Request. The main problem is the citation needed tags that should have citations. Should be easy to fix with the right resources. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 20:02, 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 2012. Three reasons I'm nominating this. 1. Uncited material is strewn about the article and will need to be addressed. 2. I believe that the article needs to be updated as most of the article seems to end at 2012 max. 3. This might be a stretch but i'm not all too confident about the article's broadness. for a city with over 1 million people, the article kind of seems small. Especially since the history is only twice the size of the etymology section, a section about the city's name. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 03:07, 11 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.
The most obvious problem with this article is the large amount of unsourced content. ( t · c) buidhe 07:15, 17 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 are numerous sentences and paragraphs without citations. Steelkamp ( talk) 13:18, 22 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.
The article has 19 cn tags, at least one failed verification, and is in need of updating (a lot of the science uses 10-yr old sources). —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 19:21, 21 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.
Lack of citations in some areas. Honestly though it's not too much but I have noticed that all my indian place nominations always have the same problem of being alright in the first half delving in problems by the end. Though, even when I said the stuff is not too much, I would still like stuff like "Lassi (yogurt-based) and chaach (traditional buttermilk) are most favoured drink in Uttar Pradesh." to be cited as it's a pretty bold claim (also i'm sick so my brain might be but lagging but it feels like that sentence isn't grammatically correct also). Hopefully someone will fix this. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 01:12, 21 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.
GA from 2006, it was't reassessed. Half of the article is unsourced, with 'This article needs additional citations for verification.' on top, 5 'citation needed' tags and two 'This section does not cite any sources' templates (Female Peronist Party and women's suffrage and Honours), see also unsourced sections: Juan Perón's arrest, 1946 presidential election, European tour, Vice-presidential nomination, Re-election and Spiritual Leader of the Nation; and 19 'page needed' tags. Artem.G ( talk) 19:17, 16 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 a lot of unsourced content in this article. ( t · c) buidhe 07:23, 17 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 2010. There are some uncited paragraphs and sentences here and there that need to be addressed. Some areas might need updates though I'm not sure. Also, populations for manila's districts are cited to a permanent dead link. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 20:44, 11 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 2007. There's some uncited statements that should be addressed. The "Applications" section looks like it needs to be changed in some way Onegreatjoke ( talk) 20:19, 21 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.
GA from 2015. Main problem is some unsourced material here and there. Though I do feel that if someone puts their time and energy into this article then they could easily fix it. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 04:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Problems that I have spotted:
Steelkamp ( talk) 16:15, 20 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 2016. Minor amounts of uncited material though I am mainly worried about the entire transportation section being unsourced. Considering that section is important to have from a broadness standpoint, it should be addressed along with other uncited statements. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:03, 19 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.
Article has "This section needs to be updated" tags in five sections: Economy, Transport, Demographics, Education, Sports, and As of 2019, the Croatian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration employed 1,381[needs update]
. It also has "needs additional citations for verification" tag for Sports, and a 'citation needed' in Healthcare section. 'clarification needed' is in Independent Croatia (1991–present) section. With 6 big orange templates article needs work to remain a GA.
Artem.G (
talk)
19:00, 16 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 2018. Lots of uncited material that needs to be addressed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:43, 19 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 2010. First problem, a small amount of uncited material that should be addressed. Second, and my main problem, which might be reaching, this article seems way too small. This is a place with over 500 thousand people living in it. Yet it's only 35000 bytes? With multiple sections that are just two-four sentences long? There are articles on towns with less than 1000 people living in them yet have significantly bigger articles than these. Because of that, I think fails the broadness category. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 01:04, 19 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.
The biggest issue with the article right now is a lack of citations for several sections. Other things include:
Steelkamp ( talk) 15:52, 20 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 2018. Pretty Recent. Anyways, the usual case of there being multiple cases of uncited content that must be addressed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 02:03, 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.
A GA from 2015. Uncited material here and there but honestly, it's really not much and could likely easily be fixed with a devoted editor. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:38, 19 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.
The article is quite a bit out of date, for instance giving 2004 natural gas reserves, but most data given for the years around 2010. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 21:13, 21 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 2007. There's uncited material that needs to be cited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 20:32, 21 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 2014. Some uncited material that needs to be cited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:16, 22 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 2013. The usual uncited material that's here and there and should be addressed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:46, 20 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 2013. Minor uncited text here and there that I would like addressed. This "kalasam of a temple tower","txt":"The gold plated image of kalasam of a temple tower"}]]}" id="mwAcw" data-ve-attributes="{"typeof":"mw:Image/Thumb mw:ExpandedAttrs","about":"#mwt806984473"}">Sivakasi Badhrakali Amman Temple" is just shoved in the culture section and needs to be cleaned up. Also, I may be picky here but the sports section seems really small for the article size. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:04, 20 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 2007. There is quite a lot of uncited material that needs to be cited along with being updated. Also the Summer Hill Rainbow Crossing section needs to be rewritten as there are so many external links that it's absurd. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 17:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Delist huge amounts of unsourced content; external links have gone overboard ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:33, 24 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 2009. Some uncited statements needs to be cited. The citations for notable residents section needs to be cleaned up as some are just brackets and not actual footnotes. The article needs to be updated as lots of things are source to the 2001 UK census. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:31, 22 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 2007. There's lots of uncited material that needs to be cited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 17:27, 22 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 2008 and last reassessed in 2013. Some uncited material that needs to be cited along with an orange tag being in there. Honestly, had there not been 2 peer reviews and a GAR the article likely would've looked much worse. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 23:48, 21 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 2011. There's a bad amount of uncited material that needs to be cited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 03:59, 22 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 Coldwell GA. This is somewhat my fault, as I missed a number of issues in my GA review in 2020 (which was the year I first was involved in the GA process). I've done a general rewrite, so copyvio isn't an issue anymore, but there were several instances of failed verification that need to be resolved yet. Much harder to fix will be weighting/comprehensiveness concerns I have - IMO the 1840s village stuff is disproportionately weighted, while the post-1950 NPS ownership needs additional information. I'm in a busy season with work and don't have the print sources that would be most useful in fixing the comprehensiveness issues. I'm genuinely sad to see this one probably go, but if this is going to be fixed, someone else is going to need to pitch in above the time I spent on this. Hog Farm Talk 02:03, 26 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 in 2011. My main concern with this article isn't a lack of sourcing (though there are two citation needed tags) but rather that it fails to be broad while also possibly needing updates. For broadness I'm specifically talking about the Jordanian Rule, Israeli Occupation, and Palestinian Autonomy sections. Each these sections consist solely of very short paragraphs, sometimes even being one sentence long, and it really feels as if more could be said here. The possibly needing update problem is how this article just seems to end at 2009. There is no mention of anything that after 2009. For example, the article mentions
But there is no follow up on this afterwards, making it seem like Bani Na'im has had this shortage for a while. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 05:51, 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 2007. There is uncited material that needs to be cited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 20:48, 21 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 2007. There's some uncited material that needs to be cited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:48, 22 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 2007. There's a good (or bad) amount of uncited material that should be addressed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 20:57, 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.
Some unsourced content. I have contacted the original nominator, and if they are willing, the article's GA status will be secure. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:29, 24 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.
Significant unsourced content without general references, thus failing GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 14:04, 24 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 2007. Last reassessed in 2014. Numerous citation issues including
And many more. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 19:45, 25 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 2007. Quite a lot of problems with this. First, uncited statements such as
Along with many other uncited statements. Along with that, the prose is just poorly written. The article is written so weirdly with so many 1 sentence paragraphs such as
And even then, i'm not sure if the article is broad enough as it feels like there's so much that could be talked about that isn't Onegreatjoke ( talk) 14:38, 26 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 2010. Some uncited statements such as
Fixing this would be great. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 22:37, 25 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 2009. Now the article is sourced correctly. The problem is, almost half the sources are permanent dead links with one non-permanent dead link. Personally, I feel as if that comprises 2b because of that. Though, this nomination is mainly a test to see if permanent dead links are a problem for GAs. Though, I do also have some qualms about the article's notability in general but that's not for GAR. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 03:39, 22 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 2011. There looks to be some uncited material needs to be cited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:43, 22 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 unsourced content. I have contacted the original nominator, and if they are willing, the article's GA status will be secure. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:29, 24 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.
No general references, but extensive uncited material, meaning
criterion 2 is not met.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk)
19:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
A GA from 2015. Has been orange tagged for
and also has some uncited statements which seemingly include
and more. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 20:05, 25 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 are a bunch of sentences without citations. It's not on the good article criteria, but there are sandwiching issues with the images as well. Steelkamp ( talk) 10:45, 26 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 2020 surprisingly enough. Still, there is a lot of uncited material that needs to be addressed. There was some even during it's passing which I don't why that was let go. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:52, 19 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.
Lots of issues with choppy prose (tons of one-sentence paragraphs). A lot of the "early life" section is unsourced, as are a lot of the details throughout the article. This one needs a major overhaul if it's going to avoid the Whammy. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 04:47, 28 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.
This 2010 listing features substantial amounts of unsourced content, thus failing GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:03, 29 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 2021. Not much work needed, just two main problems. One, Some areas lack citations here and there, would like some fixing. Two, and my main problem, article needs to be updated as many parts of the article are sourced to the 2011 and 2016 census. Also a table for the 2022 federal election needs to be added. Though, since Steelkamp is active I feel as if he can fix this with enough effort. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 01:35, 21 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.
This article is a GA from 2012. There are lots of uncited material which needs to be cited. I've gone head and added some {{Citation needed}} tags. 141 Pr 19:41, 1 February 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.
This article is a GA from 2012. There are lots of uncited material which needs to be cited. I've gone head and added some {{Citation needed}} tags. 141 Pr 20:00, 1 February 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 2007. There's some uncited material such as
And many more that need to be addressed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 17:51, 30 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.
The article needs an update; the situation will have changed after Brexit: farmers no longer benefit from the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 21:12, 1 February 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.
Possible reassessment requested since March last year. The article contains some uncited text, and doesn't have an update after ~2006. Is DNR still "developing the area with nature trails and other improvements"? —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 14:58, 29 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.
The article hasn't been maintained to standards after the 2010 GA, and does not meet the broadness criterion for his career afterwards. Has been marked for possible reassessment since 2021. Not quite a GA issue, but the article is full of WP:Proseline. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 12:36, 29 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.
This article is currently a way off meeting the GA criterion of verifiability. It has had a verification needed tag since December 2021, and there are nine citation needed tags throughout the page. Since the article was promoted to GA status in 2010, instances of the existing material being demonstrably incorrect have also come to light on talk that call into question both the article's accuracy and neutrality. This has caused at least one other editor to also question the article's GA status. The article also no longer covers the main aspects of the topic properly. There is a dearth of information post-1979, and there has seemingly been not a single update since 2013, making the content grossly outdated. The page also irrelevantly recounts the emigration of Zoroastrians to India, yet, despite the sizeable population there, and the huge tensions between different minorities, it makes no mention of the state of persecution, or lack therein, in India. Despite having sections on both persecution by other Zoroastrians as well as Christians, the lead does not mention this but slants the subject from the single-minded POV of Muslim persecution of Zoroastrians. The page is meanwhile organized in terms of persecution by Muslims first, other forms later, despite this being anachronous, since the other types of persecution date to Sassanian and Roman times and should simply be included at the beginning of the chronological history of persecution. Not great in all. Iskandar323 ( talk) 14:34, 31 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.
So this might just be me reaching too far for something. The article uses general references so there doesn't seem to be much citation issues (though "Beer was not only consumed for its flavor and alcohol content, but because it was safer to drink than water, which often harbored disease-causing microorganisms. Even children drank small beer." needs to be cited). However, my main problem is the prose. There's so many choppy 1-2 sentence paragraphs that make this feel cluttered and I feel as if that's a problem that could be fixed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:30, 30 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.
The main GA criteria not met is the 3b (summary style). At over 15,000 words, the article contains many details of matches. There is significant text either uncited or cited to unreliable sources such as "Online World of Wrestling". —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 19:17, 30 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.
GA from 2015. I do not think that this article is broad enough. It has been eight years since the battle took place. Yet, there's no aftermath section, a seemingly small background, and pretty small article in general. Considering how long it's been, it can probably be expanded on with scholarly sources. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 20:28, 30 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.
The article is out of date in quite a few places (f.i. "The stadium will have wi-fi and 4G LTE in all its sectors", with 2013 source). Will need a lick of paint to meet GA criteria again. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 18:12, 31 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 uncited information being.
These will have to be cited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:31, 1 February 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.
Oldest GA i've seen yet. 2006. Kind of crazy. Anywho, there's lots of uncited material including
and many more. Will need to be fixed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)