← ( Page 68) |
![]() |
( Page 70) → |
The following discussion is closed. 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's some uncited material such as
And more, along with an original research tag for
Also an update using the new census would be good. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 15:00, 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. There's some uncited statements that need to be cited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:23, 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 2010 listing which is heavily biased towards recent events, and which, lacking any general references since 2008, is considerably uncited. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 15:22, 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.
Lots of uncited material. Including
along with many more. These will all need to be cited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 15:46, 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.
Goodness this article is bad. There are entire sections that are unsourced such as.
And is this even written well? There's sections called
This article seems to have a lot of problems. This will take a lot of effort to fix. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:13, 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 seems to suffer from a lack of updates. There are two citation needed tags for
But that main problem is that the article is not updated after 2012. Sure, they haven't made a single album since then, but there's probably still more to talk about. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:35, 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.
Despite being passed as GA in 2022 it doesn't seem this article ever met the criteria; there is considerable unsourced content. ( t · c) buidhe 07:29, 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.
This article was last reviewed in 2009. Since then, it has not been fully maintained to GA standards. There are a number of areas lacking citations, and in general the article gives very little coverage post CP acquisition. There is clearly still history missing, as I found this from less than a year ago [3] and other sources are unused such as [4] [5] [6]. I am not satisfied this article meets the broadness criterion, and it certainly does not meet the verifiability criterion. The article does not make it clear which tense it wants to use for the railroad, either, mixing present and past tense. This would need a significant amount of work to maintain its GA status. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 18:21, 2 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 2007 listing of a still in-use programming language; no surprise that huge amounts of material is unsourced, violating GA criterion 2. I also feel that too much detail is being paid to the syntax of the language, possibly violating criterion 3b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:37, 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 2011 listing. There are no general references but a large amount of uncited material, failing GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 15:36, 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.
Parts of the article are unsourced, such as the promotion section (the one source there doesn't verify most of what comes before. Some questionable English too: "However, this mix leaked in the internet in November 2010. " —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 17:50, 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.
Article has not been maintained since its promotion that's for sure. Every tournament past 2015 is only given a 1 sentence paragraph with no summary of events while also not being cited along with the 2015 tournament. There's slight citation issues but the real problem is the lack of updates. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 05:03, 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 article is a GA from 2010. There are lots of uncited material which needs to be cited, and needs to be cleaned up (for example, the lead banner). I've gone ahead and added some {{Citation needed}} tags. 141 Pr 09:04, 4 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 2010. There are lots of uncited material which needs to be cited. I've gone ahead and added some {{Citation needed}} tags. 141 Pr 16:10, 3 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.
I believe the Mew article no longer meets the criteria for a Good Article. Much of the reception is either trivial coverage from listicles or content farm style articles, and standards have increased significantly from when it was first reviewed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 13:10, 3 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.
There is no information on when or how the road was constructed. There are no sources other than from the Michigan State Highway Department. I note that I found this article because it is currently the shortest good article on the English Wikipedia. Steelkamp ( talk) 06:43, 8 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.
Article is quite a bit out of date, has unsourced content, contains trivia about who was in its leadership when, and contains quite a few weird sentences:
I hate the Discrimination section. It gives a vague statement that there have been claims of discrimination within WMATA and then provides a table of gender and race as if readers are supposed to draw the implied conclusions on their own. Only after the table does it state what the nature of this discrimination is. I object to the Christine Townsend paragraph; it is so vague as to what the alleged sexual discrimination is. I also think a better source for that statement is. The advocacy advertising paragraph has an unfinished conclusion. Did the advocacy advertising ban hold up? Without a source linking the New York City Metropolitan Transportation Authority court challenge to the WMATA, I don't think that sentence even belongs in the article. The aforementioned problems of unsourced content and out of date information applies to this section as well. I think this article should be delisted. Steelkamp ( talk) 08:34, 6 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.
The article suffers from quite a few things: there are buzzwords in the lead(4), the investments are an extremely long list (1b), cn tags / occasional use of unreliable sources, many one-sentence paragraphs. Will need significant work to remain a GA. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 13:23, 4 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.
Article has 10 citation needed tags. Looks good overall, so should be relatively easy to save for somebody knowledgeable. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 20:00, 3 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.
The article is not meeting the GA criteria in a few ways:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Old GAR request. Article looks outdated, with latest info from 2008. It also doesn't look broad, with only 7 sources (most of them some news pieces, and one (hultengren.com) probably self-published). Artem.G ( talk) 17:33, 6 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.
Most of this article is good, but there are a few sections that need citations near the end. In particular, the "Records held" section has been tagged since March 2017. Steelkamp ( talk) 09:17, 6 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.
The article hasn't been maintained to GA standards and requires a bit of work to get back:
The following discussion is closed. 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 problems include uncited statements like
There are also some other problems such as
If these can fixed that would be great. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:42, 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.
The article is in need of work to meet the GA criteria again
The following discussion is closed. 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 nomination is a little more of an interesting one. When this became a GA I nominated it for DYK like I always do for most GAs. However, the nomination actually got rejected because of reliable sourcing concerns. There are reportedly unreliable sources such as youtube and a forum post while there's also a supposed overuse of primary sources. This is concerning considering i've never had a nomination rejected for unreliable sourcing and DYK is usually more relaxed than GA with its criteria. So, i'm nominating this for GAR to see if these concerns are valid and enough to be reassessed. For more information see the DYK nomination Template:Did you know nominations/GLaDOS Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
As the GA reviewer of this Article. I admit that more work should have been performed on my part. I apologize for this. I agree that a delist should be performed. This article does not meet all of the GA Criteria. Cheers. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The article is redeemable and probably close to GA. But there are a few sourcing issues that need to be resolved. I agree about a delist and I hope it encourages editors to work on it. Shooterwalker ( talk) 17:37, 9 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.
As per usual, there's uncited material. I'm not sure exactly how much since i'm not good with sciencey general references that the article has but I do know that
And many more. Also, i'm using the GAR script for the first time so their may be something wrong that happened with this nom. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:10, 7 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.
I am listing this article for GAR because of uncited paragraphs throughout the article. I listed this for an individual assessment in Oct. and the article went through subsequent improvements, although work seems to have stalled. There was disagreement in the individual GAR about if the article met the GA criteria, which is why I am seeking further comments with a community assessment. Z1720 ( talk) 14:46, 8 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.
The article hasn't been updated much since it's listing in 2008. Contains sentences like:
The following discussion is closed. 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 2008. There's some uncited information including
And many more. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:30, 7 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.
One of Doug Coldwell's noms (see WP:DCGAR), that I intend to run through GAR to preserve it from suffering from the mass delisting. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Notes:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:00, 13 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 controversial figure; difficult to write a GA about. Article has not been maintained to standards since 2007:
The following discussion is closed. 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 2014 listing is very out of date. Having now reached fourteen seasons in total, the storylines section only reaches the tenth, and is near-completely unsourced from the seventh onwards. GA criterion 3a not satisfied. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:43, 9 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.
Listed in 2007, this article is in need of updates to the main sections. On the other hand, the Events section possibly violates GA criterion 3b, as has WP:UNDUE detail on WP:RECENT conventions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:43, 9 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.
The main issue with this article is the lack of updates or citations in the aftermath section. The civil liability section can also use some more recent sources, to reduce the NEWS-like tone "On 17 March 2006 a High Court official, Senior Master Turner, adjourned a hearing on whether to permit the class action until October 2006.[18][needs update]". Finally, some of the links are bare, so that they are vulnerable to link rot. Femke (alt) ( talk) 08:47, 10 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.
Article has significant unsourced material including
And much more. This will need heavy work to bring back to a GA. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 14:38, 10 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 was not on the original list of 223 Doug Coldwell GAs as part of DCGAR, but 62% of the content is DCs, so I am submitting it for review per the Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment drive of all DC content. Talk page, reviewer and nominator already notified. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
To be resolved ( from this version):
The following discussion is closed. 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 was asked by an IP to nominate this at GAR for missing citations and a short reception section. I don't quite agree with the second point (I'm against inflation of the broadness criterion), but the article does need to be cited properly and merge / rewrite single sentence paragraphs. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 08:17, 11 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.
Ok so, while the article is cited, I think it fails the broadness category. There are multiple tornadoes in the confirmed tornadoes section that don't contain anything about the tornado. And it's the majority of tornadoes in that section. This is weird to me, especially about an article of a storm that killed 58 total and took place in 1975. I can understand a lack of information in maybe 1918. But 1975? There has to be more information you can use to talk about the storm. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 23:58, 7 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.
Article requires updating (8 tags) + referencing (8 tags) + clarifying. Examples/issues:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lacks citations for large parts of the article. For instance, the sections school layout, music, and performing arts are largely uncited. Also some updates needed (f.i. Currently, Garden City requires students to complete 26½ credits in order to graduate -> stil true 13 years later?). —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 11:57, 12 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.
As per usual, some uncited material including
And more. These will have to be cited in order to remain a GA. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 22:15, 7 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 is an old GA from 2010 that, unfortunately, has not been maintained over the years. This article has several outstanding maintenance tags, including numerous {{
citation needed}} tags, two {{
more citations needed section}} tags which have not been addressed for nearly a year, and several instances of failed verification. Thus, this article no longer meets
WP:GACR criterion 2, namely that the page is verifiable with no original research
.
Epicgenius (
talk)
15:24, 13 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.
Good lord what happened to this article. There is an entire 15 paragraph streak of uncited material in the article. For some of it, here's
I do not know if it got lost when it was split but something needs to change. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 17:40, 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.
As part of WP:DCGAR, I am placing this article nominated by Doug Coldwell up for GAR to prevent it from being mass-delisted. I have a concern that the article may not cover all major aspects of the subject. The building is over 130 years old but has only three paragraphs about its history; there is a huge gap from 1920 to 2010. It may be the case that this gap exists because the subject may not be notable, but either way, I do not think it is broad enough to meet the GA criteria. Epicgenius ( talk) 19:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Unless this can be accessed and looked at, chunks of content here may need to be deleted per WP:PDEL:
The problem I've seen in much of DC's work is that he sometimes lifted content from one source, but then cited it to another, so getting access to that source will matter. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time understanding dates for
Did we copy from them or they from us? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
As an example of the aforementioned issues, some of the content cited to https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/realestate/03scap.html does not seem to be in that source, raising the question of whether some of that content was lifted from elsewhere and then cited to the NYT. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
So, all the usual needs to be checked here; that is, a line-by-line check of source-to-text integrity and for copyvio is needed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:44, 13 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.
The article contains 35 cn tags, and will need quite a bit of work meet the GA standards again. Also tagged for using unreliable sources. Femke (alt) ( talk) 12:09, 10 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 was promoted back in 2007 upon its second nomination. Even then, the promotion was controversial because of perceived issues with the sourcing. Looking at this today, there are major sourcing issues, some of which I have highlighted by adding maintenance templates to the article. Large portions of the article are unsourced. Several references are to sources that do not appear to be reliable. Spotchecking sources reveals both material failing verification and plagiarism. The article consists to a large extent of
WP:Original research by way of editorial
WP:Synthesis, where sources are used to verify the underlying factual basis for the assertions made in the article (rather than verifying the assertions themselves) in a manner one would expect to find in an essay, rather than being cited in context and on topic
as
WP:NOR mandates.
TompaDompa (
talk)
23:23, 13 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.
Article is far away from meeting the GA criteria:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tagged for update needed, original research, failed verification. Overly long sections make it difficult to parse. Use of the word 'current' to mean 2011(?).. Needs significant work to get back to GA standards. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 18:08, 9 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.
Not bad but there's some uncited material being
It looks like there's more but those could likely be general references. Anyways, these will have to be fixed regardless. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:20, 7 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.
Article has been tagged as an advertisement since 2021. I share concerns about neutrality. There are elements that are too positive, but the article also has a controversy section,( WP:CSECTION).
The following discussion is closed. 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 clearly does not fulfill the GA criteria. It's lede is not a well-written summary and includes text which is not introduced in anyway in the body and one paragraph is unsourced. This article used peacock terms in recent revisions, which I have now removed. This article shouldn't have been promoted to GA class in the first place. Furthermore, it has original research and was written like an advertisement, more like a portfolio page, which I've fixed to some extent. There's original research on this article and many citations are unreliable. I've revamped this article over the last couple of days, but it doesn't deserve GA yet. Now, I'd have done an individual reassessment but there was a full-scale row at ANI over this article and I think a second opinion would genuinely help. Thank you. -- QEDK ( T ❄ C) 13:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Requesting delisting per comments above. -- QEDK ( T ❄ C) 13:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 cannot see how a completely outdated biography can still have Good Article status. It seems that it has not been updated for nearly four years! -- RJFF ( talk) 15:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 believe that the review at Talk:Secret Truths/GA1 was, to say the least, cursory and am asking for community reassessment of this article's status. Jezhotwells ( talk) 10:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Points:
The following discussion is closed. 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 is more of a test than anything. I'm nominating this because there are lots of [non-primary source needed] tags that I feel are important to address. Though, if that's not a problem with GA criteria then feel free to vote keep. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:24, 16 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.
Difficult article to keep up-to-date. This 2015 GA needs a bit of work to meet standards again
The following discussion is closed. 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 looks pretty bad. There seems to be numerous uncited material such as
Then there's the fact that this article is mostly empty and likely fails broadness. There are three tables that are completely empty, 2 tables that are incomplete and other tables who may not be cited. There needs to be some fixing here. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 15:34, 17 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.
Odd one this. Was originally listed in 2007 and delisted in 2016. Somehow, it passed GAN in 2021 despite being very low on detail for Milner's time at Liverpool.
This not only verges on violating GA criterion 3 (covering the major aspects of the topic), but also calls criterion 4 (neutrality) into question, as the article is thus biased in length and in detail towards his early career.
Eager to hear people's thoughts on this one. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 18:18, 15 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. I have two problems. One is the citation issues being
and that's it. However, I also have problems with broadness. First of all, the philosophy section is a single sentence paragraph. Along with that, the article just seems small in general for 30 year long american terrorist organization. A quick google search shows that there are possibly some sources you could possibly use to expand it. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:02, 16 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 was not on the original list of 223 Doug Coldwell GAs as part of DCGAR, but a third of the content is DCs, so I am submitting it for review per the Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment drive of all DC content. Talk page, reviewer and nominator already notified.
DC was not the nominator, but they created the article (with
copyright issues in the first version), and have
still about a third of the content. The article has the usual mix of problems associated with DC editing: citations are not attached to the content they intend to verify, resulting in source-to-text integrity problems, there is failed verification and uncited text, and one of the main sources is an incomplete citation (when searching for "American Machinist" by the generic McGraw-Hill for checking copyvio, there are over 3,000 entries at archive.org; the citation gives no volume, etc. And it is unclear what makes
http://www.twainquotes.com/ColonelSellers.html reliable. Without having a lead on the "McGraw-Hill" source, it can't be easily determined to what extent
presumptive deletion applies.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
03:39, 17 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 was not on the original list of 223 Doug Coldwell GAs as part of DCGAR, but the main editor is community banned and DC is a significant contributor and DC claims it as a GA on his user page, so I am submitting it for review per the Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment drive of all DC content. Talk page already notified. Because most of the sources are offline, copyright issues on DC content cannot be accessed, and the extent to apply presumptive deletion cannot be determined. DC's significant contributions were: [11], [12] and [13]. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:55, 17 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 2009. My main problem for this isn't sourcing (though there is the occasional uncited sentence) but rather it's lack of updates. Most sections, aside from history, end off at 2010 max, making some of the article outdated in way. The history section also has some weird sentences like
This could probably be easily fixed however. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 17:50, 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.
The original article covered the historic product, and nothing more. In the recent month it was loaded with poorly formatted unrelated content and outright spam. It's an unmanageable mess. Retired electrician ( talk) 21:03, 20 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.
The article in question was redirected in 2014. This GAR has been created pro-forma to provide a technical moment of GA delisting. CMD ( talk) 11:56, 1 March 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.
Because of an overload of chemistry articles at GAR, if delisting, do not close before 2 March.
There's lots of uncited material including
And more. These will all need to be cited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:08, 9 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.
Because of an overload of chemistry articles at GAR, if delisting, do not close before 2 March.
Some uncited material including three citation needed tags and
It's honestly not much and could be fixed with enough effort. Though, i'm not exactly sure that the history section is written well. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:26, 9 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.
Because of an overload of chemistry articles at GAR, if delisting, do not close before 2 March.
Quite a lot of uncited material including
and many more. These will need to be cited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 22:12, 9 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 2005 and last reassessed in 2007. This article has an orange tag and some uncited material that needs to be cited. -- Nucleus hydro elemon ( talk) 08:11, 27 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.
After checking this article's sources, I removed many of them for being unreliable, and I believe the article fails criterion two. The coverage is also poorly weighted, with very little information on the history but significant coverage of globalization that leans into coatracking, suggesting issues with criteria three and four. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 04:05, 23 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.
Previous GAR was open for 14 years due to technical errors; as it stands, the article needs citations and updates, as the brigade was reactivated in 2018. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 23:07, 23 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.
As per Doug Caldwell CCI investigation. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 14:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Besides the normal issues, the single quotes around the types of apples is a big MOS problem -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 14:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
First copyvio fixed (every source needs to be reviewed). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
First example of source-to-text integrity (entire article needs checking). DC was quite fond of "firsts":
Source doesn't support "first", and says "will be" sold in the fall ... how do we know it was ? And that's an old source; when did it become available actually? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
First example of failed verification (extending a general statement made in the source to the Sweetango):
Entire article needs to be checked for same, which is characteristic of problems found in other articles.
These are samples only. My suggestion is to delist, patch up the article, and re-submit to GA. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:10, 2 March 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 is significantly out of date. There are no sources from the 2010s onwards, and the demographics section relies entirely on the 2001 census (there have been two since then). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 16:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Žirmūnai is the most populous administrative division ( elderate) in Vilnius. It is also a neighbourhood in the Lithuanian capital city Vilnius, encompassing the city district of the same name. Artem.G ( talk) 15:53, 3 March 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.
Because of an overload of chemistry articles at GAR, if delisting, do not close before 1 March.
Looks like there's some amounts of uncited material including
Most of side chains looks uncited but I think citation 6 is supposed to be one large general reference. Though I'm not sure. Either way, the things above will need to be cited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 22:15, 8 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.
GA from 2015 that have multiple problems. I posted this comments 20 days ago, but it seems that nobody is willing to update that article and thus GAR is required.
The article is not bad, but currently lacks citations is several sections. Chronology and the Big Bang is mostly unsourced, with cn and clarification needed tags. Physical properties uses really strange source ("Antimatter". Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council", see citation 44). Age and expansion ends with a strange sentence This acceleration does not, however, imply that the Hubble parameter is currently increasing; see deceleration parameter for details.
Spacetime has unsourced sentences. Support of life is just a few sentences with really strange sourcing: "Isaak, Mark, ed. (2005). "CI301: The Anthropic Principle". Index to Creationist Claims." (see citation 78). Halfs of Dark energy and Ordinary matter are unsourced. Same for Hadrons.
Historical conceptions are also problematic. Half is unsourced, and the sourced parts are often built on really old sources: see "Stcherbatsky, F. Th. (1930, 1962)" (citation 152), citation 13 lacks year and page, cit 150 lacks year. Astronomical concepts is either unsourced or sourced to "Aristotle; Forster, E. S.; Dobson, J. F. (1914)"; the article abruptly ends with The modern era of physical cosmology began in 1917, when Albert Einstein first applied his general theory of relativity to model the structure and dynamics of the universe.
with nothing about modern era.
There is also a question on talk page about the audio version being outdated (13 June 2012 (!)) - maybe it should simply be removed? Artem.G ( talk) 17:39, 6 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.
Way WP:TOOLONG, needs to be split into multiple articles - car chasm ( talk) 02:55, 19 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 is a missed WP:DCGAR that needs to be manually delisted. The message used on the en masse delistings was:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Last review by Mr rnddude. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:32, 5 March 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.
I worked on this article along with DC and was the GA Nominator. I am opening a GAR to see if its present GA status can be salvaged. Or not. My preliminary work on the references can be seen on the article's talk page at Working through this article's refs per the individual GAR. Shearonink ( talk) 16:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Problematic phrase in the lead says - "considered one of the best opera houses"...is not what the source states at all. The present-day source - History of Ramsdell Theatre (online/website) states "The Theatre was comparable to the best opera and vaudeville houses at the time of its construction" and also, that is what is stated in the body of the article. Have adjusted lead. Shearonink ( talk) 16:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
The description paragraph that starts with "The theatre features a double balcony" is problematic. "Double balcony" is from what source. "Hipped roof" is from what source. "Closely spaced teeth-like block modillion cornice" is problematic. And so on and so on. I am trying to find a source for all these specific statements because it sure ain't all from the source at the end of the paragraph... Shearonink ( talk) 17:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
I've run into a problem just now running "Who Wrote That?" It isn't picking up large chunks of the article, some of the article text is greyed-out when I hover my cursor over it. Shearonink ( talk) 21:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Have continued working my way through the article's prose/statements and refs - think it is much improved at this point. If anyone wants to look in and give some feedback would appreciate comments/thoughts/whatever. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 17:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia plus anyone else following along at WP:DCGAR - Just ran "Who Wrote That?" on this article. My contributions are now at 51.1%, DC's contributions are at 39.4% (which includes the references/wikicode/etc.) Page history has my contributions at 51.7% & DC's at 39%. Nothing's perfect but I think/(hope?) that the close-paraphrasing/copyvios/errant referencing have all been taken care of at this point. Feel free to take a look under the hood, taking a break for a while. Shearonink ( talk) 18:25, 5 March 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.
See t/p. TrangaBellam ( talk) 16:04, 12 March 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.
Been a while since a GAR nom. I have some problems with this article.
That's it. Would take some work to hopefully bring this back to status. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:42, 24 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.
I believe this article is no longer up to Good Article standards if it was to begin with. While I am not sure what the standards were 10 years ago, the reviewed version would currently be a quick-fail due to a lack of significant coverage. Reception is almost entirely sourced to trivial lists. Even if its notability can be salvaged, it would need a full reassessment. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 12:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
On the other hand, the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention." The lists in question generally present about a paragraph's worth of content in each. It then goes on to say "
Critical commentary from reputable professional reviewers and prestigious awards are examples of short but significant (i.e. nontrivial) mentions that have been used to establish notability and are useful to write Reception sections...", which I believe qualifies here for the lists in question. The Gamespot citations do worry me a bit but that only reflects 2 sources. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 22:21, 3 March 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 older GA, this one hasn't been maintained as well, with under-developed post-2010 content (for instance, Unstoppable God isn't mentioned in the prose, and "touring" includes nothing post-2013). The later sections also are under-cited. Hog Farm Talk 02:14, 7 March 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 requires some work to meet GA criteria again.
← ( Page 68) |
![]() |
( Page 70) → |
The following discussion is closed. 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's some uncited material such as
And more, along with an original research tag for
Also an update using the new census would be good. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 15:00, 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. There's some uncited statements that need to be cited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:23, 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 2010 listing which is heavily biased towards recent events, and which, lacking any general references since 2008, is considerably uncited. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 15:22, 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.
Lots of uncited material. Including
along with many more. These will all need to be cited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 15:46, 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.
Goodness this article is bad. There are entire sections that are unsourced such as.
And is this even written well? There's sections called
This article seems to have a lot of problems. This will take a lot of effort to fix. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:13, 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 seems to suffer from a lack of updates. There are two citation needed tags for
But that main problem is that the article is not updated after 2012. Sure, they haven't made a single album since then, but there's probably still more to talk about. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:35, 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.
Despite being passed as GA in 2022 it doesn't seem this article ever met the criteria; there is considerable unsourced content. ( t · c) buidhe 07:29, 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.
This article was last reviewed in 2009. Since then, it has not been fully maintained to GA standards. There are a number of areas lacking citations, and in general the article gives very little coverage post CP acquisition. There is clearly still history missing, as I found this from less than a year ago [3] and other sources are unused such as [4] [5] [6]. I am not satisfied this article meets the broadness criterion, and it certainly does not meet the verifiability criterion. The article does not make it clear which tense it wants to use for the railroad, either, mixing present and past tense. This would need a significant amount of work to maintain its GA status. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 18:21, 2 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 2007 listing of a still in-use programming language; no surprise that huge amounts of material is unsourced, violating GA criterion 2. I also feel that too much detail is being paid to the syntax of the language, possibly violating criterion 3b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:37, 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 2011 listing. There are no general references but a large amount of uncited material, failing GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 15:36, 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.
Parts of the article are unsourced, such as the promotion section (the one source there doesn't verify most of what comes before. Some questionable English too: "However, this mix leaked in the internet in November 2010. " —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 17:50, 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.
Article has not been maintained since its promotion that's for sure. Every tournament past 2015 is only given a 1 sentence paragraph with no summary of events while also not being cited along with the 2015 tournament. There's slight citation issues but the real problem is the lack of updates. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 05:03, 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 article is a GA from 2010. There are lots of uncited material which needs to be cited, and needs to be cleaned up (for example, the lead banner). I've gone ahead and added some {{Citation needed}} tags. 141 Pr 09:04, 4 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 2010. There are lots of uncited material which needs to be cited. I've gone ahead and added some {{Citation needed}} tags. 141 Pr 16:10, 3 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.
I believe the Mew article no longer meets the criteria for a Good Article. Much of the reception is either trivial coverage from listicles or content farm style articles, and standards have increased significantly from when it was first reviewed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 13:10, 3 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.
There is no information on when or how the road was constructed. There are no sources other than from the Michigan State Highway Department. I note that I found this article because it is currently the shortest good article on the English Wikipedia. Steelkamp ( talk) 06:43, 8 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.
Article is quite a bit out of date, has unsourced content, contains trivia about who was in its leadership when, and contains quite a few weird sentences:
I hate the Discrimination section. It gives a vague statement that there have been claims of discrimination within WMATA and then provides a table of gender and race as if readers are supposed to draw the implied conclusions on their own. Only after the table does it state what the nature of this discrimination is. I object to the Christine Townsend paragraph; it is so vague as to what the alleged sexual discrimination is. I also think a better source for that statement is. The advocacy advertising paragraph has an unfinished conclusion. Did the advocacy advertising ban hold up? Without a source linking the New York City Metropolitan Transportation Authority court challenge to the WMATA, I don't think that sentence even belongs in the article. The aforementioned problems of unsourced content and out of date information applies to this section as well. I think this article should be delisted. Steelkamp ( talk) 08:34, 6 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.
The article suffers from quite a few things: there are buzzwords in the lead(4), the investments are an extremely long list (1b), cn tags / occasional use of unreliable sources, many one-sentence paragraphs. Will need significant work to remain a GA. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 13:23, 4 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.
Article has 10 citation needed tags. Looks good overall, so should be relatively easy to save for somebody knowledgeable. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 20:00, 3 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.
The article is not meeting the GA criteria in a few ways:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Old GAR request. Article looks outdated, with latest info from 2008. It also doesn't look broad, with only 7 sources (most of them some news pieces, and one (hultengren.com) probably self-published). Artem.G ( talk) 17:33, 6 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.
Most of this article is good, but there are a few sections that need citations near the end. In particular, the "Records held" section has been tagged since March 2017. Steelkamp ( talk) 09:17, 6 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.
The article hasn't been maintained to GA standards and requires a bit of work to get back:
The following discussion is closed. 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 problems include uncited statements like
There are also some other problems such as
If these can fixed that would be great. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:42, 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.
The article is in need of work to meet the GA criteria again
The following discussion is closed. 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 nomination is a little more of an interesting one. When this became a GA I nominated it for DYK like I always do for most GAs. However, the nomination actually got rejected because of reliable sourcing concerns. There are reportedly unreliable sources such as youtube and a forum post while there's also a supposed overuse of primary sources. This is concerning considering i've never had a nomination rejected for unreliable sourcing and DYK is usually more relaxed than GA with its criteria. So, i'm nominating this for GAR to see if these concerns are valid and enough to be reassessed. For more information see the DYK nomination Template:Did you know nominations/GLaDOS Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
As the GA reviewer of this Article. I admit that more work should have been performed on my part. I apologize for this. I agree that a delist should be performed. This article does not meet all of the GA Criteria. Cheers. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The article is redeemable and probably close to GA. But there are a few sourcing issues that need to be resolved. I agree about a delist and I hope it encourages editors to work on it. Shooterwalker ( talk) 17:37, 9 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.
As per usual, there's uncited material. I'm not sure exactly how much since i'm not good with sciencey general references that the article has but I do know that
And many more. Also, i'm using the GAR script for the first time so their may be something wrong that happened with this nom. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:10, 7 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.
I am listing this article for GAR because of uncited paragraphs throughout the article. I listed this for an individual assessment in Oct. and the article went through subsequent improvements, although work seems to have stalled. There was disagreement in the individual GAR about if the article met the GA criteria, which is why I am seeking further comments with a community assessment. Z1720 ( talk) 14:46, 8 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.
The article hasn't been updated much since it's listing in 2008. Contains sentences like:
The following discussion is closed. 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 2008. There's some uncited information including
And many more. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:30, 7 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.
One of Doug Coldwell's noms (see WP:DCGAR), that I intend to run through GAR to preserve it from suffering from the mass delisting. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Notes:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:00, 13 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 controversial figure; difficult to write a GA about. Article has not been maintained to standards since 2007:
The following discussion is closed. 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 2014 listing is very out of date. Having now reached fourteen seasons in total, the storylines section only reaches the tenth, and is near-completely unsourced from the seventh onwards. GA criterion 3a not satisfied. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:43, 9 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.
Listed in 2007, this article is in need of updates to the main sections. On the other hand, the Events section possibly violates GA criterion 3b, as has WP:UNDUE detail on WP:RECENT conventions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:43, 9 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.
The main issue with this article is the lack of updates or citations in the aftermath section. The civil liability section can also use some more recent sources, to reduce the NEWS-like tone "On 17 March 2006 a High Court official, Senior Master Turner, adjourned a hearing on whether to permit the class action until October 2006.[18][needs update]". Finally, some of the links are bare, so that they are vulnerable to link rot. Femke (alt) ( talk) 08:47, 10 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.
Article has significant unsourced material including
And much more. This will need heavy work to bring back to a GA. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 14:38, 10 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 was not on the original list of 223 Doug Coldwell GAs as part of DCGAR, but 62% of the content is DCs, so I am submitting it for review per the Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment drive of all DC content. Talk page, reviewer and nominator already notified. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
To be resolved ( from this version):
The following discussion is closed. 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 was asked by an IP to nominate this at GAR for missing citations and a short reception section. I don't quite agree with the second point (I'm against inflation of the broadness criterion), but the article does need to be cited properly and merge / rewrite single sentence paragraphs. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 08:17, 11 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.
Ok so, while the article is cited, I think it fails the broadness category. There are multiple tornadoes in the confirmed tornadoes section that don't contain anything about the tornado. And it's the majority of tornadoes in that section. This is weird to me, especially about an article of a storm that killed 58 total and took place in 1975. I can understand a lack of information in maybe 1918. But 1975? There has to be more information you can use to talk about the storm. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 23:58, 7 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.
Article requires updating (8 tags) + referencing (8 tags) + clarifying. Examples/issues:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lacks citations for large parts of the article. For instance, the sections school layout, music, and performing arts are largely uncited. Also some updates needed (f.i. Currently, Garden City requires students to complete 26½ credits in order to graduate -> stil true 13 years later?). —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 11:57, 12 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.
As per usual, some uncited material including
And more. These will have to be cited in order to remain a GA. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 22:15, 7 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 is an old GA from 2010 that, unfortunately, has not been maintained over the years. This article has several outstanding maintenance tags, including numerous {{
citation needed}} tags, two {{
more citations needed section}} tags which have not been addressed for nearly a year, and several instances of failed verification. Thus, this article no longer meets
WP:GACR criterion 2, namely that the page is verifiable with no original research
.
Epicgenius (
talk)
15:24, 13 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.
Good lord what happened to this article. There is an entire 15 paragraph streak of uncited material in the article. For some of it, here's
I do not know if it got lost when it was split but something needs to change. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 17:40, 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.
As part of WP:DCGAR, I am placing this article nominated by Doug Coldwell up for GAR to prevent it from being mass-delisted. I have a concern that the article may not cover all major aspects of the subject. The building is over 130 years old but has only three paragraphs about its history; there is a huge gap from 1920 to 2010. It may be the case that this gap exists because the subject may not be notable, but either way, I do not think it is broad enough to meet the GA criteria. Epicgenius ( talk) 19:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Unless this can be accessed and looked at, chunks of content here may need to be deleted per WP:PDEL:
The problem I've seen in much of DC's work is that he sometimes lifted content from one source, but then cited it to another, so getting access to that source will matter. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time understanding dates for
Did we copy from them or they from us? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
As an example of the aforementioned issues, some of the content cited to https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/realestate/03scap.html does not seem to be in that source, raising the question of whether some of that content was lifted from elsewhere and then cited to the NYT. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
So, all the usual needs to be checked here; that is, a line-by-line check of source-to-text integrity and for copyvio is needed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:44, 13 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.
The article contains 35 cn tags, and will need quite a bit of work meet the GA standards again. Also tagged for using unreliable sources. Femke (alt) ( talk) 12:09, 10 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 was promoted back in 2007 upon its second nomination. Even then, the promotion was controversial because of perceived issues with the sourcing. Looking at this today, there are major sourcing issues, some of which I have highlighted by adding maintenance templates to the article. Large portions of the article are unsourced. Several references are to sources that do not appear to be reliable. Spotchecking sources reveals both material failing verification and plagiarism. The article consists to a large extent of
WP:Original research by way of editorial
WP:Synthesis, where sources are used to verify the underlying factual basis for the assertions made in the article (rather than verifying the assertions themselves) in a manner one would expect to find in an essay, rather than being cited in context and on topic
as
WP:NOR mandates.
TompaDompa (
talk)
23:23, 13 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.
Article is far away from meeting the GA criteria:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tagged for update needed, original research, failed verification. Overly long sections make it difficult to parse. Use of the word 'current' to mean 2011(?).. Needs significant work to get back to GA standards. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 18:08, 9 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.
Not bad but there's some uncited material being
It looks like there's more but those could likely be general references. Anyways, these will have to be fixed regardless. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:20, 7 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.
Article has been tagged as an advertisement since 2021. I share concerns about neutrality. There are elements that are too positive, but the article also has a controversy section,( WP:CSECTION).
The following discussion is closed. 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 clearly does not fulfill the GA criteria. It's lede is not a well-written summary and includes text which is not introduced in anyway in the body and one paragraph is unsourced. This article used peacock terms in recent revisions, which I have now removed. This article shouldn't have been promoted to GA class in the first place. Furthermore, it has original research and was written like an advertisement, more like a portfolio page, which I've fixed to some extent. There's original research on this article and many citations are unreliable. I've revamped this article over the last couple of days, but it doesn't deserve GA yet. Now, I'd have done an individual reassessment but there was a full-scale row at ANI over this article and I think a second opinion would genuinely help. Thank you. -- QEDK ( T ❄ C) 13:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Requesting delisting per comments above. -- QEDK ( T ❄ C) 13:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 cannot see how a completely outdated biography can still have Good Article status. It seems that it has not been updated for nearly four years! -- RJFF ( talk) 15:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 believe that the review at Talk:Secret Truths/GA1 was, to say the least, cursory and am asking for community reassessment of this article's status. Jezhotwells ( talk) 10:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Points:
The following discussion is closed. 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 is more of a test than anything. I'm nominating this because there are lots of [non-primary source needed] tags that I feel are important to address. Though, if that's not a problem with GA criteria then feel free to vote keep. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:24, 16 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.
Difficult article to keep up-to-date. This 2015 GA needs a bit of work to meet standards again
The following discussion is closed. 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 looks pretty bad. There seems to be numerous uncited material such as
Then there's the fact that this article is mostly empty and likely fails broadness. There are three tables that are completely empty, 2 tables that are incomplete and other tables who may not be cited. There needs to be some fixing here. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 15:34, 17 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.
Odd one this. Was originally listed in 2007 and delisted in 2016. Somehow, it passed GAN in 2021 despite being very low on detail for Milner's time at Liverpool.
This not only verges on violating GA criterion 3 (covering the major aspects of the topic), but also calls criterion 4 (neutrality) into question, as the article is thus biased in length and in detail towards his early career.
Eager to hear people's thoughts on this one. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 18:18, 15 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. I have two problems. One is the citation issues being
and that's it. However, I also have problems with broadness. First of all, the philosophy section is a single sentence paragraph. Along with that, the article just seems small in general for 30 year long american terrorist organization. A quick google search shows that there are possibly some sources you could possibly use to expand it. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:02, 16 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 was not on the original list of 223 Doug Coldwell GAs as part of DCGAR, but a third of the content is DCs, so I am submitting it for review per the Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment drive of all DC content. Talk page, reviewer and nominator already notified.
DC was not the nominator, but they created the article (with
copyright issues in the first version), and have
still about a third of the content. The article has the usual mix of problems associated with DC editing: citations are not attached to the content they intend to verify, resulting in source-to-text integrity problems, there is failed verification and uncited text, and one of the main sources is an incomplete citation (when searching for "American Machinist" by the generic McGraw-Hill for checking copyvio, there are over 3,000 entries at archive.org; the citation gives no volume, etc. And it is unclear what makes
http://www.twainquotes.com/ColonelSellers.html reliable. Without having a lead on the "McGraw-Hill" source, it can't be easily determined to what extent
presumptive deletion applies.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
03:39, 17 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 was not on the original list of 223 Doug Coldwell GAs as part of DCGAR, but the main editor is community banned and DC is a significant contributor and DC claims it as a GA on his user page, so I am submitting it for review per the Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment drive of all DC content. Talk page already notified. Because most of the sources are offline, copyright issues on DC content cannot be accessed, and the extent to apply presumptive deletion cannot be determined. DC's significant contributions were: [11], [12] and [13]. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:55, 17 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 2009. My main problem for this isn't sourcing (though there is the occasional uncited sentence) but rather it's lack of updates. Most sections, aside from history, end off at 2010 max, making some of the article outdated in way. The history section also has some weird sentences like
This could probably be easily fixed however. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 17:50, 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.
The original article covered the historic product, and nothing more. In the recent month it was loaded with poorly formatted unrelated content and outright spam. It's an unmanageable mess. Retired electrician ( talk) 21:03, 20 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.
The article in question was redirected in 2014. This GAR has been created pro-forma to provide a technical moment of GA delisting. CMD ( talk) 11:56, 1 March 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.
Because of an overload of chemistry articles at GAR, if delisting, do not close before 2 March.
There's lots of uncited material including
And more. These will all need to be cited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:08, 9 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.
Because of an overload of chemistry articles at GAR, if delisting, do not close before 2 March.
Some uncited material including three citation needed tags and
It's honestly not much and could be fixed with enough effort. Though, i'm not exactly sure that the history section is written well. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:26, 9 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.
Because of an overload of chemistry articles at GAR, if delisting, do not close before 2 March.
Quite a lot of uncited material including
and many more. These will need to be cited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 22:12, 9 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 2005 and last reassessed in 2007. This article has an orange tag and some uncited material that needs to be cited. -- Nucleus hydro elemon ( talk) 08:11, 27 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.
After checking this article's sources, I removed many of them for being unreliable, and I believe the article fails criterion two. The coverage is also poorly weighted, with very little information on the history but significant coverage of globalization that leans into coatracking, suggesting issues with criteria three and four. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 04:05, 23 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.
Previous GAR was open for 14 years due to technical errors; as it stands, the article needs citations and updates, as the brigade was reactivated in 2018. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 23:07, 23 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.
As per Doug Caldwell CCI investigation. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 14:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Besides the normal issues, the single quotes around the types of apples is a big MOS problem -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 14:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
First copyvio fixed (every source needs to be reviewed). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
First example of source-to-text integrity (entire article needs checking). DC was quite fond of "firsts":
Source doesn't support "first", and says "will be" sold in the fall ... how do we know it was ? And that's an old source; when did it become available actually? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
First example of failed verification (extending a general statement made in the source to the Sweetango):
Entire article needs to be checked for same, which is characteristic of problems found in other articles.
These are samples only. My suggestion is to delist, patch up the article, and re-submit to GA. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:10, 2 March 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 is significantly out of date. There are no sources from the 2010s onwards, and the demographics section relies entirely on the 2001 census (there have been two since then). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 16:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Žirmūnai is the most populous administrative division ( elderate) in Vilnius. It is also a neighbourhood in the Lithuanian capital city Vilnius, encompassing the city district of the same name. Artem.G ( talk) 15:53, 3 March 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.
Because of an overload of chemistry articles at GAR, if delisting, do not close before 1 March.
Looks like there's some amounts of uncited material including
Most of side chains looks uncited but I think citation 6 is supposed to be one large general reference. Though I'm not sure. Either way, the things above will need to be cited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 22:15, 8 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.
GA from 2015 that have multiple problems. I posted this comments 20 days ago, but it seems that nobody is willing to update that article and thus GAR is required.
The article is not bad, but currently lacks citations is several sections. Chronology and the Big Bang is mostly unsourced, with cn and clarification needed tags. Physical properties uses really strange source ("Antimatter". Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council", see citation 44). Age and expansion ends with a strange sentence This acceleration does not, however, imply that the Hubble parameter is currently increasing; see deceleration parameter for details.
Spacetime has unsourced sentences. Support of life is just a few sentences with really strange sourcing: "Isaak, Mark, ed. (2005). "CI301: The Anthropic Principle". Index to Creationist Claims." (see citation 78). Halfs of Dark energy and Ordinary matter are unsourced. Same for Hadrons.
Historical conceptions are also problematic. Half is unsourced, and the sourced parts are often built on really old sources: see "Stcherbatsky, F. Th. (1930, 1962)" (citation 152), citation 13 lacks year and page, cit 150 lacks year. Astronomical concepts is either unsourced or sourced to "Aristotle; Forster, E. S.; Dobson, J. F. (1914)"; the article abruptly ends with The modern era of physical cosmology began in 1917, when Albert Einstein first applied his general theory of relativity to model the structure and dynamics of the universe.
with nothing about modern era.
There is also a question on talk page about the audio version being outdated (13 June 2012 (!)) - maybe it should simply be removed? Artem.G ( talk) 17:39, 6 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.
Way WP:TOOLONG, needs to be split into multiple articles - car chasm ( talk) 02:55, 19 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 is a missed WP:DCGAR that needs to be manually delisted. The message used on the en masse delistings was:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Last review by Mr rnddude. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:32, 5 March 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.
I worked on this article along with DC and was the GA Nominator. I am opening a GAR to see if its present GA status can be salvaged. Or not. My preliminary work on the references can be seen on the article's talk page at Working through this article's refs per the individual GAR. Shearonink ( talk) 16:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Problematic phrase in the lead says - "considered one of the best opera houses"...is not what the source states at all. The present-day source - History of Ramsdell Theatre (online/website) states "The Theatre was comparable to the best opera and vaudeville houses at the time of its construction" and also, that is what is stated in the body of the article. Have adjusted lead. Shearonink ( talk) 16:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
The description paragraph that starts with "The theatre features a double balcony" is problematic. "Double balcony" is from what source. "Hipped roof" is from what source. "Closely spaced teeth-like block modillion cornice" is problematic. And so on and so on. I am trying to find a source for all these specific statements because it sure ain't all from the source at the end of the paragraph... Shearonink ( talk) 17:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
I've run into a problem just now running "Who Wrote That?" It isn't picking up large chunks of the article, some of the article text is greyed-out when I hover my cursor over it. Shearonink ( talk) 21:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Have continued working my way through the article's prose/statements and refs - think it is much improved at this point. If anyone wants to look in and give some feedback would appreciate comments/thoughts/whatever. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 17:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia plus anyone else following along at WP:DCGAR - Just ran "Who Wrote That?" on this article. My contributions are now at 51.1%, DC's contributions are at 39.4% (which includes the references/wikicode/etc.) Page history has my contributions at 51.7% & DC's at 39%. Nothing's perfect but I think/(hope?) that the close-paraphrasing/copyvios/errant referencing have all been taken care of at this point. Feel free to take a look under the hood, taking a break for a while. Shearonink ( talk) 18:25, 5 March 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.
See t/p. TrangaBellam ( talk) 16:04, 12 March 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.
Been a while since a GAR nom. I have some problems with this article.
That's it. Would take some work to hopefully bring this back to status. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:42, 24 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.
I believe this article is no longer up to Good Article standards if it was to begin with. While I am not sure what the standards were 10 years ago, the reviewed version would currently be a quick-fail due to a lack of significant coverage. Reception is almost entirely sourced to trivial lists. Even if its notability can be salvaged, it would need a full reassessment. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 12:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
On the other hand, the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention." The lists in question generally present about a paragraph's worth of content in each. It then goes on to say "
Critical commentary from reputable professional reviewers and prestigious awards are examples of short but significant (i.e. nontrivial) mentions that have been used to establish notability and are useful to write Reception sections...", which I believe qualifies here for the lists in question. The Gamespot citations do worry me a bit but that only reflects 2 sources. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 22:21, 3 March 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 older GA, this one hasn't been maintained as well, with under-developed post-2010 content (for instance, Unstoppable God isn't mentioned in the prose, and "touring" includes nothing post-2013). The later sections also are under-cited. Hog Farm Talk 02:14, 7 March 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 requires some work to meet GA criteria again.