← ( Page 69) | Good article reassessment (archive) | ( Page 71) → |
The following discussion is closed. 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 {{
GAR request}}
tag was added by
DannyMusicEditor, I believe because of poor referencing, reliance on unreliable sources, and significant uncited material, thus failing GA criterion 2.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk)
23:48, 8 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.
80% of authorship was by serial book copyright violator ItsLassieTime (under their sock Susanne2009NYC). I have presumptively reverted to the latest pre-ILT revision, which obviously wipes the majority of the content and puts it well beneath the standards expected at GA. Anyone seeking to rescue it would have to rewrite entirely from scratch, as nothing ILT inserted can be trusted. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:58, 16 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.
70% of authorship was by serial book copyright violator ItsLassieTime (under their sock Susanne2009NYC). I have presumptively reverted to the latest pre-ILT revision, which obviously wipes the majority of the content and puts it well beneath the standards expected at GA. Anyone seeking to rescue it would have to rewrite entirely from scratch, as nothing ILT inserted can be trusted. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:30, 16 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.
80% of authorship was by serial book copyright violator ItsLassieTime (under their sock Susanne2009NYC). I have presumptively reverted to the latest pre-ILT revision, which obviously wipes the majority of the content and puts it well beneath the standards expected at GA. Anyone seeking to rescue it would have to rewrite entirely from scratch, as nothing ILT inserted can be trusted. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:34, 16 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.
Violates #4 Neutral language. Examples just in the introduction:
"His family was considerably wealthy..."
"...and donating considerable time and money to charities."
"...a governmental attempt to exterminate the movement, Baha'u'llah narrowly escaped dealth..."
"...attracted the ire of Iranian authorities"
There are other parts of the article as well:
"...the execution of the Bab were tumultuous for Babis."
"...seeking to curry favor with the king..."
"...encourage and revive flagging spirits..."
"...imprison both Baba'u'llah and Mirza Yahya in far-flung outposts..."
The entire article reads like it was copied from a bibliography. The "good article" status was given in 2012 and obviously many edits have been made since then that I think makes this not be a "good article" anymore. There is a talk discussion about it too.
Unpicked6291 (
talk)
21:07, 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.
This article was fully written by User:ReverendLogos, a sockpuppet of the banned user User:ItsLassieTime. The main source used, It's a Wonderful Christmas: The Best of the Holidays 1940-1965., is a book that I am unable to acquire and google books/amazon/archive all came up empty for giving me any information to confirm or deny the validity of the article. As a result the article as it is is unsalvageable. I suggest a speedy delisting so I can redirect the article to Christmas as this is an unnecessary content fork even without the copyright issues. Wizardman 00:10, 17 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.
80% of authorship was by serial book copyright violator ItsLassieTime (under their sock Susanne2009NYC). I have presumptively reverted to the latest pre-ILT revision, which obviously wipes the majority of the content and puts it well beneath the standards expected at GA. Anyone seeking to rescue it would have to rewrite entirely from scratch, as nothing ILT inserted can be trusted. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:19, 16 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.
A GA from 2007. The Early Career section has been tagged for needing additional citations for almost 3 years now while the hollywood section looks like it needs some more too. Later films and Television are entirely unsourced. There's a lot of uncited material here that i likely haven't noticed yet because it's pretty bad. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:28, 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.
Seems wrong to immediately nominate this for GAR while it's on OTD but I have a problem with the article. Mainly, the article has not been updated at all. The article just ends at 2015 even though it's 2023 and a quick search shows that there's probably at least something mention post 2015. Also the personal bests table looks uncited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 01:07, 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.
Another GAR that's a necessity due to Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime. After cutting all the content from the article done by all the socks I'm left with less than half the prose, with a lot of significant content long gone. It would take a lot of work to bring it back to GA status. If you're still unconvinced, the GA review was done by a sock of a separate banned user so it's technically invalid anyway. Wizardman 23:52, 19 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.
A GA from 2007. There's some uncited material including
Considering the size of the article I feel that this is important to address. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:07, 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.
This is another GAR that is needed due to Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime, as pretty much all the important parts of the article were written by not one, not two, but three separate sockpuppets of the user, as well as the main account. While the Adaptations section is well sourced and the plot seems ok, it definitely fails comprehensiveness now and will require delisting. Wizardman 23:34, 18 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 is yet another GAR as a result of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime. User:Kathyrncelestewright, a sock of said user, wrote pretty much the whole article and I have removed the violations, but honestly this shouldn't have been a GA in the first place as over half the article was just quotations from copyrighted sources, as the banned user couldn't even bother to try writing it in their own words this time. Wizardman 16:35, 19 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.
Due to the CCI at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime, I had to remove about half the article. While I was able to salvage more than I have in other instances, much of the meat of the article, namely the composition and publication, is gone. While restoring it to GA is a bit more feasible than others that have been nominated, it still needs a large amount of work. Wizardman 15:52, 19 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 contains a few cn tags, a failed verification tag, and cites many sources flagged up as unrealible (most natable F-16.net). I think the aircrafts on display section is trivia, and removing that may bring the article closer to GA, but some more work is needed. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 12:17, 25 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 has changed near-completely since its listing as a Good Article nearly 15 years ago. It has grown in size significantly, but poor writing has accompanied this expansion. I have only recently attempted to remedy some of the typos and awkward wording littered throughout the article. The article also makes frequent use of long quotes from sources without effort to paraphrase. This is particularly notable in the "Reactions" section; I understand the purpose of the section, but Wikipedia is not a repository for entire paragraphs ripped from editorials. Speaking of editorial, some of the wording in this article would no longer be appropriate under Wikipedia's updated guidelines, such as "Securing Lal Masjid brought an end to nine days of high tension in Islamabad, normally a tranquil city that had been immune to the violence experienced in the tribal areas of Pakistan." Does this sentence have encyclopedic value? Also, the tenses of this article are also odd as most of the editing done to it followed the event itself. In a similar manner, a lot of the figures in this article are outdated, and attempts to update these numbers have led to a few inconsistencies in the article. Yue 🌙 08:21, 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.
This 2009 promotion now has significant amounts of unsourced material, and in general has not been properly maintained. The history section ends in the 1990s, and much of the sourcing is from the early to mid 2000s or earlier. I do not believe steamlocomotive.com is a reliable source, as well. The prose also needs improvement and is no longer up to our standards for GA. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 17:26, 15 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.
As part of
WP:DCGAR and as the original GA reviewer in 2018 I am placing this article nominated by
Doug Coldwell up for GAR to prevent it from being mass-delisted. The subject appears to be notable enough for an article as a Colonial American engraver/organ-builder/first historical print in the the American colonies, etc., etc. but I intend to pick apart the text for copyright issues/too-close paraphrasing & to burrow into all the sources as being reliable and backing up what they are supposed to back up etc. - all to figure out if there is enough meat left on the bones of this article after the Review to retain its GA status.
Shearonink (
talk)
18:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
I have already gone through all the refs etc on
Talk:Thomas Johnston (engraver) under the
Working through this article's refs per the individual GAR section as to whether (or not) the cited refs are available online so their claims can be easily verified.
Shearonink (
talk)
19:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Went through the lead - simplistic text, instituted various fixes. Also deleted Garraty refs as being offline and inaccessible. The former Garraty statements/refs are now backed up by Dunlap/1918 & WIlliams/1915. Shearonink ( talk) 20:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Just an aside...I had great hopes when I started this GAR but the refs are such a mess...for instance the Hitchings & Reps refs are the same thing and Reps shouldn't even be credited! Plus the "Hitchings" cites are to a Google Books with no preview and the Reps are to the actual content... I'll fix those and then am taking a break and reconsidering whether or not I want to continue. The issue for me is that Johnston is notable & I think deserves a GA but definitely not the DC version I started to review. Shearonink ( talk) 20:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted the errant/false claims re: "Mather portrait". See Page 6 of Murdock's The Portraits of Increase Mather: With Some Notes on Thomas Johnson, an English Mezzotinter where he specifically states this Thomas Johnston didn't do the portrait. Shearonink ( talk) 05:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Fixed issues with the Library of Congress publication cite (didn't have the pages in the URL, URL was to an incomplete cite, etc). Added ref for list of Johnston's engravings. Shearonink ( talk) 17:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted redundant and unneeded link to Green's "Blodget's Plan..." in External links section. The book is already used as a reference. An oddity is the "See also" section, linking to multiple articles about American Colonial organ builders/engravers/printers...I think that these 3 designations might be worthwhile Categories to be enacted. Shearonink ( talk) 18:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
If anyone wants to look over my progress, I'd appreciate it. I've torn apart and put back together almost all of the text, created a template of associated articles, replaced the See also section with that Template, deleted references, adjusted captions, etc. I just don't know if it's enough...there are only so many ways to say "the sky is blue". I am waiting on a printed source to see if I can add information on who Johnston was apprenticed to since that information is presently missing. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 06:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
This is typical of DC's writing; specifically, his quest for "first facts" and overstating those facts. He translates a qualified statement in the source to a statement of fact in Wikivoice. Unless there is another source calling this a Johnston first, the text should more carefully handle this content. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Here we see remnants of DC's too-close-paraphrasing, where he re-arranged and altered a few words. It's not just words; it's structure. This is an example of why it can be hard to fix DC content. He lifted structure from one article, and then later attached other citations to content. I've rewritten (see below). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
This is cited to Dunlap but I don't find it in Dunlap. This is a DC classic, whereby text is taken from one source but cited to another, and the wording of this sentence is suggestive of copyvio. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I stopped there, after looking at only a few paragraphs in one section. This is enough to show why I believe that blowing up any DC content and starting over is the fastest route to a proper article, and that work remains to prevent delisting. We can't just rephrase to avoid too-close paraphrasing; everything DC wrote is suspect, thorough research is needed on anything claimed as fact, and his content needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia CMD - The reference book I was waiting for (about Johnston's possible apprenticeship) just came in. I have adjusted the article text accordingly with its information and I think the re-writing/recrafting/deleting of text/deleting of inaccessible sources on this article is now done. Not sure what the next step in this particular mass-GA process is, but I think this article in its present state should retain its GA status. Some clean-up might possibly remain but the last Who Wrote This? is telling me that DC's edits are down to 38.8% of this article (and doesn't that include the references and the Bibliography?). Taking a break - Shearonink ( talk) 05:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
NOTICE
Thomas Johnston (engraver) is one of the many
WP:DCGAR articles. I am finished with its cleanup and am going to leave this GAR open for the next week, until Tuesday/March 7th. If there aren't any according-to-policy objections/statements, I will close the GAR at that time. Barring any unforeseen issues, I intend for the article to retain its present GA status.
Shearonink (
talk)
21:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I have already stated I've checked everything and not that I think this next is completely necessary but since it seems to be perhaps necessary, here goes...
Below. When I state the Reference. When I state the a/b/c instances. That will unequivocally mean that ALL references and ALL the information they back up, have been checked, personally, by me.
And that will have to do.
Though, of course, if anyone wants to check my scholarship? Have at it.
CITATIONS
I'm sorry I'm not making myself clear; the problem is that DC's work is not often verifiable (and copyvio is hard to track down), because author names are wrong and book titles are wrong. I recognize that clean citations aren't part of WP:WIAGA, but in the case of DC's work, the citations are so bad that the content becomes unverifiable, and we should get it cleaned up. As an example, in the first three sources listed, two of the authors were wrong, and all three book titles were wrong. [2] That's a sample just to clean up those listed in sources using sfns, without even looking in the other citations in ref tags. What I'm pointing out in the other DC GARs is that leaving out author names and correct publishers often obscured non-reliable sources, so they should all be checked. Since three out of three that I checked were wrong, it seems this should be addressed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Finished citation cleanup; here's the cumulative diff. It baffles my mind how DC got so many GAs through when the sources were scarcely verifiable. Pride in authorship. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
There are still copyedit needs, samples only:
Engraved and printed in Boston by Thomas Johnston, Blodget’s Prospective Plan found a market in England where Thomas Jefferys, a skilled engraver and cartographic publisher, issued the map with a somewhat altered design.so it's even harder to understand what the sentence about printing (above) means. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia - Are there GAR Coordinators now? As the Reviewer (and "article rejuvenator" lol) I want to close this review with the article retaining its GA designation but am unsure as to the procedure especially since Thomas Johnston (engraver) was one of the DC bunch... Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 13:41, 17 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.
There's some uncited information being
And that's it. Should be relatively easy to fix unless other problems are noticed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:15, 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.
A GA from 2008. I can't exactly tell if the many paragraphs with no citations are actually uncited or if they have general references (aside from the better source needed and citation needed tag). I will say, however, that the sources cited do not label any page numbers what so ever which makes it quite impossible to verify. Also, I'm not sure if this article is broad enough at all. GA cleanup lists states "Unsourced passages need footnotes citation needed (July 2016), ... (October 2022)" Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:50, 19 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.
A GA from 2008. Lots of things in the article look unsourced like
and many more. Also, the article looks like it needs updating since it seems to end at 2017. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:19, 19 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 article that's reported to have "Potentially dated statements (2008), ... (December 2018), Unsourced passages need footnotes citation needed (July 2021)" on the good article cleanup listing page. Some uncited material looks to be
among others along with the legacy section reportedly needing updates. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 22:54, 18 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.
Same issue as the others from Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime where a sock wrote about 2/3 of the article including all the important stuff, it was passed without a real look at anything, and will require a lot of work to return to GA status. Wizardman 01:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Given the work done so far and the comments here as well as at the talk page I'm leaning towards withdrawing the GAR, though I'll try and read through the full article first before doing so to be on the safe side. It helps when multiple people who I trust more than many on the site are giving it a clean bill of health. Wizardman 00:15, 22 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 is another GAR as the result of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime. In this one almost the entire article was written by User:Kathryncelestewright, a sock of ILT. While I saved what I could the article after removing that content is nowhere close to a GA. I also checked to see if others had verified the sources after the fact and couldn't find anyone. Wizardman 23:23, 27 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.
It became a good article many years ago and is an important subject which could do with checking Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
As the closing tool does not work on Safari on my ipad ( /info/en/?search=User_talk:Novem_Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool#Not_appearing_on_my_ipad) perhaps someone else would like to close this Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:19, 28 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.
Although most of this article is good (i.e. the reception, composition, etc), I have several issues.
1. The page has suffered from an increasing amount of bloat since the original GA review in 2017; sometimes feels like sections have been copy and pasted around. And poor writing, no straight narrative (or chronology; you understand what I'm getting at); i.e.
"Kittie was formed in 1996 and got signed by NG Records after the band approached Jake Weiner, the record label's second-in-command. After seeing Kittie play live, Weiner signed the group to NG during the summer of 1999. NG was then acquired by Artemis Records toward the end of 1999 and Kittie recorded Spit at EMAC Studios in London, Ontario during the summer of 1999."
...among other really confusing repeats of stuff to do with NG's acquisition and whatnot, and influences. just hard to read
2. having done some extra research, page has several inaccuracies with dates or lack thereof (resolved those) which have created additional chronological difficulties. More sources are needed. Sources are still being found.
3. page lacks any details regarding things like "the legacy/reappraisal" of the album as one of the best of the nu metal genre; it, and some of its songs, have received accolades, with the most recent being a spot on Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Metal Songs of All Time list. (ask what citations, i'll give you them) The lack of acknowledgement makes the page feel unfinished to me (and yes, I will do something! I'm not asking for someone else to find them, so don't ask)
Notify: @ Tbhotch:, 2017 GA Reviewer, @ Statik N:, biggest contributor Chchcheckit ( talk) 16:35, 14 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.
Another day, another GA from the banned user via Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime. The good news is that there wasn't that much content I had to remove because it was almost completely rewritten in 2013-2014. The bad news is that the new content is... not very good. There's a lot of citation needed tags and unsourced statements, and it seems to veer into original research at times, with the misconceptions section feeling rather unnecessary even before my cuts. Wizardman 22:35, 28 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 article has been neglected for decades. Most of it written for Mr. X only (especially at reception sec) and the reception section is full of listicles only with short development/concept creation section with no additional information whatsoever. GlatorNator ( talk) 13:12, 22 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.
As part of WP:DCGAR and as the original GA reviewer in 2020, I am placing this article nominated by Doug Coldwell up for GAR in order to keep its status as a GA. During the original review I was involved in looking at some of DC's sources and shaping the focus of the article to give a more chronological treatment. Now prior to this DCGAR process, I have gone through the article again. Regarding copyvio issues, there was nothing egregious but there were a few borderline too-close paraphrasings, which I have now reworded. Regarding text-source correspondence, I've gone back and looked at all of DC's sources. There were some issues that got missed in the original review, but I have corrected them. So at this point, I believe the article corresponds to the GA criteria and its status should be kept.
P.S. The 'Fountain of Youth mural' image is up for deletion at Commons; during the original review, I tried to get DC to retake the photo to be truly de minimis, but alas he didn't quite understand what was needed. So I fear that image is doomed, which is a shame but should not affect the GA status. Wasted Time R ( talk) 11:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
WTF, to XOR'easter's and EEng's great frustration, DC's haphazard citation style (which I have taken to ignoring as it's so awful) has made copyvio checking even more difficult. As long as we're here, it may be worthwhile to get that sorted. I questioned you elsewhere about Cabot, which you had checked, but what about this mess:
Were you able to access that, and can anything done to make the citation style more consistent? I realize that may not be part of WIAGA, but what a mess throughout. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The citations were a mess (I believe I've cleaned them up now), and the writing still reeks of DYK word padding; could still use some tightening. Why is this DUE (that is, what secondary sources mention this)?
I'm done all I can for now; can you find a way to lower the number of paras beginning with Rath? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
EEng do you have a moment to glance over this short article to see if any other absurdities stand out? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
success in the lumber business eventually made him a lumber baron, where lumber baron means someone really successful in the lumber business, and anyway redirects to business magnate, which is just another way of saying he was successful, which is where we started. E Eng 13:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Noting that a paraphrasing check is still needed, because although it was cited to a different source (Powers), this wording was taken directly from this source. This is a frequent feature of DC's work (text taken from one source but cited to another). It is insufficient to check individual sources relative to the text they cite; everything has to be evaluated versus the entire body of sources. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:42, 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.
Procedural GAR following AfD. CMD ( talk) 06:47, 31 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.
Article is a bit out of date, and can use a lick of paint meet the GA standards
Femke (alt) ( talk) 07:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
A few comments:
Thank you. Magnolia677 ( talk) 10:45, 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.
As part of WP:DCGAR and as the original GA reviewer in 2020, I am placing this article nominated by Doug Coldwell up for GAR in order to keep its status as a GA. During the original review I was involved questioning some of DC's claims, finding new sources, and shaping the focus of the article. Now prior to this DCGAR process, I have gone through the article again. Regarding copyvio issues, there was nothing egregious but there were a few borderline too-close paraphrasings, which I have now reworded. Regarding text-source correspondence, again there was nothing really bad but I have fixed it up in a couple of places. In sum, I believe the article corresponds to the GA criteria and its status should be kept. Wasted Time R ( talk) 11:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Summary, having looked now at scores of DC articles, it will be hard to convince me that any article that is still 80% DC content can be GA-worthy. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:20, 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.
A GA from 2008. There looks to be some uncited statements and sections. Along with that there may possibly be some areas that need updating. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 20:01, 23 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 appears to be poorly sourced with large chunks having no in line citation. First paragraph of Home media for example. Some sources are dead such as source [32].
Needs some love and attention. Lankyant ( talk) 03:15, 29 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 article has suffered over the last decade plus from WP:HALFLIFE and a lack of updates. Never fully fleshed out to begin with, the article's aftermath section was never properly expanded even after a notice was put up about it. Over the years there have been many journal articles published about the event, of which only one has been incorporated. There is an immense amount of work required to get this article up to par. At present there is no need for a thorough review of the article until published journals (primarily from the AMS) are incorporated and the aftermath section is written. If that is done I am open to continuing with a further review to ensure the article is up to GA standards. ~ Cyclonebiskit ( chat) 20:57, 28 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.
Plot summary too long, contravening WP:WAF. The cast section also needs sourcing, while there are instances of WP:WTW throughout. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 01:32, 28 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.
Extensive copyvios. Earwig reports substantial exact matches from http://www.veterantributes.org/ and https://www.tshaonline.org/. This was noted on the article talk page last May, and it looks like somebody did some "cleanup" which consisted of minor edits to change exact matches into close paraphrases, so the actual extent of the problem is far worse than a naive reading of the Earwig report would lead you to believe.
Talk:John A. Hilger/GA1 has no discussion of the copyvio issue, which leads me to wonder if it was examined at all. Either the review did not include a scan for copyvio problems, or it did and the level of problem found was considered acceptable. It is unclear which alternative is more disturbing. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.-- RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 16 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 don't see how we can consider this adequately sourced. A 90 year old source titled "Savage Resistance to the Advancing White Frontier" clearly isn't going to be a decent source on this topic, TexasIndians.com looks questionable, and stuff like He was saved because of the Comanche reverence for the mad, a reverence shared by most Native American cultures is poorly supported (I'm not seeing that in the source in that footnote, for instance). This needs substantive work throughout. Hog Farm Talk 20:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
@ WP:GAR coordinators: - given the situation here and the strong consensus, can this be closed earlier than the normal 7 days? Hog Farm Talk 14:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
a GA from 2021 interestingly enough. Main problem i've noticed is broadness, specifically a lack of updates. The sections on 2021 and 2022 are entirely empty. So unless those get filled in then this will fail broadness. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 20:37, 21 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 article has a copy edit template, which means that there are a lot of grammar mistakes in this article. The person who loves reading ( talk) 04:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A GA from 2010. Has been tagged for "This article or section appears to be slanted towards recent events. (May 2022) This article needs additional citations for verification. (May 2022)" for almost a year. GA cleanup reports "Unsourced passages need footnotes (May 2022), ... (May 2022), Unsourced passages need footnotes citation needed (May 2022), Link rot cleanup (June 2022)" Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:09, 19 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.
Main concern is sourcing and copy editing. Lots and lots of choppy prose (one-sentence paragraphs everywhere!) and a few random unsourced sections. Filmography table should probably be split, too. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 18:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
and
and failed verification (sample) are found:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Citation needed tags which have been there since August 2022. Steelkamp ( talk) 05:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Honestly, pretty good but there's uncited statements and problems here being
and that seems to be it. There may be more problems but I haven't identified them yet. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 22:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
{{
cn}}
tags are still remaining, but that's about it.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk)
12:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Work is ongoing, and might take some time.
First stage
|
---|
Article requires a bit of work to retain GA status:
Mainly for the benefit of me and anyone who wants to help me out
If we start running into source-text integrity issues, then I'll have to bow out of this. Of the sources listed in the 'references' section, I only have Bearss, Busey & Martin, Catton, Eicher, Foote, Glatthaar, McPherson, all three by Pfanz, Sears, Tagg, and Wert. I also lack the energy to do a top-to-bottom rewrite here. Hog Farm Talk 02:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
For what might be the first time in my editing career, I'm going to invoke WP:BLUE on something. I'm working on fixing one of the better source needed tags, and the source I'm using, Wert's "Gettysburg: Day Three" doesn't use the name "Pickett's Charge" directly at the point I'm using it for. I think " in what is known to history as "Pickett's Charge"" is something so obvious that it doesn't need to be cited, but will hunt down a ref if there's a belief that one is needed for the name Pickett's Charge. Hog Farm Talk 03:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
|
@ AirshipJungleman29; @ Hog Farm; @ TwoScars Although I should be working on real life things, I began to think that there was something not quite right about the explanations of the historians' inconsistencies in numbers of units and men included in Pickett's Charge and the casualty counts. I I am going to review the references again because those units took many casualties despite the fact that the main charge was over before they started and Wilcox, in particular, pulled back promptly. I'll try to get the revisions done quickly, maybe even tonight if I can get through a review the sources on these points. Donner60 ( talk) 02:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Some thoughts of mine:
@ Donner60 and TwoScars: - I think that's my primary concerns. Would personally trim the Grant vs. Lee section, but I think we're fairly close to GA status at this time. Hog Farm Talk 01:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Huge citation issues, including reliance on non-independent references, unreliable sources, and long plot. Fails GA criterion 1a and 2. Also originally nominated by a sockpuppeteer. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 11:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominating for GAR on behalf of The ed17 who put a notice for this back in march. There's citation needed tags that need to be dealt with for this to remain a GA. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 03:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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. The other languages and Fordham and Ogbu sections are unsourced and need citations. Might have other problem as seen on the talk page. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A GA from 2008. There are uncited areas like the entirety of the field design section and the last two paragraphs of the seating expansion. Also, the prose is very choppy in a lot a places with multiple 1-2 sentence paragraphs. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2007. The problem is the many uncited areas in the article. This includes a refimprove tag and many citation needed tags. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 22:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2013. The Important constituents section is unsourced while there are many citation needed tags throughout the article. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 14:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A GA from 2009. Some uncited material with labeled citation needed tags that need to be dealt with. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2007. Significant citation issues in the history section, members, and sales and legacy section while the awards section is unsourced. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2007. There's some uncited sections and a refimprove tag for roots of the the conflict section that needs to be cited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pro-forma GAR to delist following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astaroth (Soulcalibur). CMD ( talk) 08:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unsourced material (criterion 2), and an abundance of WP:WTW (criterion 1b). Also, quality of prose is poor (lots of one-line paragraphs), and the history section is pretty much reliant on one source (possibly violating criterion 4). I should note that I think the medicine WikiProject perfectly capable of overcoming these issues, should they wish to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 on a prominent 20th-century American female sculptor, which was reviewed and listed as GA on 10 October 2011:
I believe this article in its current form meets B-level at most and needs to be reassessed. Ppt91 talk 18:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.) There is a great deal of value in this article, but I am also quite certain that if it were to be nominated for GA now, it would have to undergo heavy editing to pass.
citing personal papers is not in any way WP:OR, in general, sure, but primary materials should also not be used so heavily as to constitute the second most cited source. Regarding
other books may contain extra information, I am not quite what you mean because I was referring to the article's scope and encyclopedic quality, rather than adding extraneous stuff. For a major American artist like Nevelson, where a lot of secondary literature is available, balancing the bibliography to reflect important art historical research will improve its scope (Harriet F. Senie, for example, who wrote extensively on Nevelson's public art, is not mentioned once; given that public sculpture was crucial to Nevelson's career writ large, that's far from
extrainformation). And while there are some excellent sources in this article, including journal articles, there are also some that hardly meet WP:RS (theartstory.org, artcyclopedia.com, artnet.com, philart.net) and the citation style is inconsistent. Moreover, prose could definitely be improved for language precision and clarity.
Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria.If you wish to change the section headings to include date ranges, there is nothing stopping you from doing so: I have just done so myself, and the article's organisation remains the same. Do you feel that the lack of sources such as Senie significantly compromises the article's broadness (criterion 3 of WP:GACR):
Broad in its coverage; addresses the main aspects of the topic (significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles, allowing for shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.)?
immediately. Frankly, I am often loath to use these "official" channels for improving articles because they can easily lead to charged exchanges and miscommunication. It feels like there is no in-between route for productive teamwork improvement; if I post at peer review or start a talk page thread, it might go unnoticed for weeks if it's picked up at all; if I go through the reassessment route, then it can easily turn into an extended back-and-forth regarding the article's merit (which I have not questioned once).
The following discussion is closed. 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 2009 promotion with sourcing issues (reliance on unreliable/out of date sources, significant unsourced material, lacking page numbers) and weird layout. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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. Has been tagged for needing additional citations for verification and an over reliance on primary sources. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 17:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2007. Has been tagged for needing additional citations since September 2022. Especially since sections like the first paragraph of defenses and aftermath have no sources cited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 17:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
With multiple CN tags and most of the sourcing before from the 1400s, I don't see how this meets the sourcing requirement of the modern GA standards. Primary author was indeffed in '07 for "Racism, hatespeech" so I don't think we're going to get any help from that front. Hog Farm Talk 21:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 old 2011 GA that is in drastic need of improving, from unreliable sources, poor prose, inconsistent sources, etc. It might be salvageable. – zmbro ( talk) ( cont) 20:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2007. There's some uncited material and the legacy section is a mess. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2006. Main problem is the lack of citations in many areas that have tagged with citation needed tags. Also has some page needed and full citation needed tags. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2017 interestingly enough. there's refimprove tags for NPA motif and ar/R selectivity filter sections, there's also some uncited areas and some other tags like who?, original research, and clarification needed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 14:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 that contains significant uncited text, including material such as " It has been posited that onion domes first appeared in Russia" and material attributed to specific writers that certainly need direct citations. Hog Farm Talk 14:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2007. Has been tagged for needing additional citations and for possibly using unreliable sources. Also, the article might need some updates. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 19:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 quite of unsourced material including the neighborhoods section having no sources while the article also needs quite a lot of updates. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 19:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2011 GA, with a drive-by pass for a review. Two citation needed tags for large portions of paragraphs lacking citations, and an additional paragraph also lacking sourcing. I've identified two more recent news articles that discuss the locomotive in detail which are not cited and should be considered [8] [9]. Overall, I think this article is salvageable, but it does need some work. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 03:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It has been 13 years since this article was listed as GA. It does not meet criterion 6 in particular. It also may not be current, and does not reflect her career since 2010. LibStar ( talk) 06:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Very bad sourcing from both a GA and BLP perspective. Neither of the sources in the death rumors section actually mentions rumors of Cook's death, there's uncited material, and large chunks of the article related to Cook's business dealings are sourced to primary sources from those organizations. Needs substantial work. Hog Farm Talk 18:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Massive citation issues (reliability of sources, lack of inline citations, reliance on one source). Fails criterion 2 any day. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 was flagged by @ Real4jyy: for reassessment on April 20, and from a quick readthrough GAR is definitely needed. This is a 2007 promotion [10] that was not thoroughly reviewed at the time. There are a copious amount of maintenance tags in this article: citations needed, failed verification, non-primary source needed, etc. I see some unsourced sentences that haven't been directly tagged as well. Significant work would be needed to save this GA. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 19:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Below points are taken from the note [11] I left on the reviewer's talk page (they have not been active since March) before I went ahead with reassessment. Their overall reviewing style is very concerning and the editor has virtually no experience in content creating (less than 500 edits overall, 68 edits in mainspace, and no single article created) yet they took on multiple GARs, all of which were hastily performed. One of them was recently delisted. They have not responded and this article is in clear need of reassessment:
The following discussion is closed. 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 WP:DCGAR, I am submitting this article for a reassessment so that it can be further scrutinised to avoid the automatic delisting. I originally did the GA review and have made a number of changes recently to reassess citations and explicitly verify that the prose is accurate, correct and not violating copyright (this remains ongoing). I have already replaced some unobtainable book citations, either with those I could verify or alternate online sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bungle ( talk • contribs) 17:46, February 16, 2023 (UTC)
He was the first person to make the application of elevating grain out of transporting ships using mechanical power and has since become the system for unloading freighters throughout the world. And it doesn't seem supported by the source. And, sourcing a statement about since throughout the world to 1879 is just wrong. So far, from what I'm seeing, this is a delist with the same problems as the others, and I haven't even started on copyvio checking other than the first Smith. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I think I can still do another read-over and possibly reword and reconsider a handful of parts here and there, but nothing substantial. I did have some concerns that the article was perhaps disproportionally representing the concept for which an article already exists, so I have tried to bring some focus back to the subject. Authorship stands at over 50% myself and 43.7% DC, although this should not be referred to as an indicator, particularly as I think this includes infobox, ref, cats etc for the latter. WWT shows in large parts my own amendments. Hence at this time i'd welcome feedback or expressions on anything that stands out as being particularly problematic, assuming it's not catastrophic. I am broadly hopeful that the article will largely be judged on the merits associated with one being judged "good", without excessive emphasis on its original primary contributor (understanding that the degree of scrutiny expected will no doubt be higher than a typical GAR). At the very least, I hope I have done enough to secure the article's safety from pre-emptive copyvio concern deletion. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 18:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Delist and send to
WP:CP.
I had intended to review further, but this is bad enough. This article has the usual source-to-text integrity problems found in DC work, copy-paste from non-reliable sources, and that's after looking at only two passages of text from two sources. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29 I am removing the collapses here as today's editing of this article has seen the very non-reliable sources discussed in the collapsed content being re-introduced. @ WP:GAR coordinators: I will put a separate note on that editor's talk page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2008 nominee with large amounts of unsourced content including uncited statistics.
Concerns have been raised since the day after the GA review in August 2008. The nominator is still active, however. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 01:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Large amounts of uncited text, including for quotes and statistics, thus failing GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 11:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 WP:DCGAR, although the nominator at GAN was not DC, rather Cleveland Todd, who is also blocked. I have two hours in to this article, have found one of all the usual (copy-paste, too close paraphrasing, content not supported by sources, "first" trivia, etc), and have no will to continue. I may have gotten all copyvio, but have not checked all the PD sources for paraphrasing. I doubt the article is still broad in its coverage, and I don't know what remains to be done to keep the article at GA standard. Trainsandotherthings have you any interest? Else, @ WP:GAR coordinators: as to where this goes next. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Initial discussion
|
---|
I can't really shirk a Philadelphia-area railroad magnate, if he is such a thing. I admit my preference in such cases would be to rewrite from the ground up. Can I get a day or three to see what kind of modern sourcing might be available? Mackensen (talk) 11:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Like SandyGeorgia, I've spent a few hours on this. I've consulted a mix of academic sources that deal with the late 19th century banking scene (focusing on Drexel and Morgan), and a few sources dealing with the railroads that Wright was associated with through his position as a partner in Drexel, Morgan & Co. Wright is notable, definitely, though the apparent lack of even a biographical sketch, let along a full biography, is troublesome. [a] I don't think the article is salvageable. It's rife with sourcing issues and practically plagiarized from The National Cyclopaedia and the obituary notices in the New York Times and Delaware Gazette and State Journal. The overuse of contemporary 19th-century newspaper accounts in general is a significant problem; as anyone who has ever written an obituary knows, relying on a brief obituary for claims of someone's accomplishments over a century later isn't acceptable. I'm willing to write a new article to replace this one, though I'd feel more comfortable having actually read those academic sources, just to feel more comfortable with late 19th century banking. I usually work with the operational side of railroading. Who around here is our amateur expert in this area? Mackensen (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Notes References
|
Image discussion
|
---|
Hog Farm, as I don't do images, might you look at whether this image needs to be deleted? That does appear to be the GWB in the background, and it is unclear where DC got the 1890 date, so this image might not be public domain and might need to be deleted. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 08:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It looks like there's some uncited text and other problems including
and possibly more. Though some of these could have been general referenced and I missed it. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
This review was put on hold for two months to relieve pressure on topic editors at GAR. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Significant unsourced material, including for statistics ( GA criterion 2). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 11:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another GA from 2017. This has two problems. First, there's citation issues as the music and filming sections have no sources. Second, this also seems to fail broadness because there's absolutely nothing in the critical reception section. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 17:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Significant citation issues, including uncited statistics and BLP content. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 20:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I forgot about this, dang. Wish someone would have contacted my talk page. AaronY ( talk) 09:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
← ( Page 69) | Good article reassessment (archive) | ( Page 71) → |
The following discussion is closed. 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 {{
GAR request}}
tag was added by
DannyMusicEditor, I believe because of poor referencing, reliance on unreliable sources, and significant uncited material, thus failing GA criterion 2.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk)
23:48, 8 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.
80% of authorship was by serial book copyright violator ItsLassieTime (under their sock Susanne2009NYC). I have presumptively reverted to the latest pre-ILT revision, which obviously wipes the majority of the content and puts it well beneath the standards expected at GA. Anyone seeking to rescue it would have to rewrite entirely from scratch, as nothing ILT inserted can be trusted. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:58, 16 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.
70% of authorship was by serial book copyright violator ItsLassieTime (under their sock Susanne2009NYC). I have presumptively reverted to the latest pre-ILT revision, which obviously wipes the majority of the content and puts it well beneath the standards expected at GA. Anyone seeking to rescue it would have to rewrite entirely from scratch, as nothing ILT inserted can be trusted. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:30, 16 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.
80% of authorship was by serial book copyright violator ItsLassieTime (under their sock Susanne2009NYC). I have presumptively reverted to the latest pre-ILT revision, which obviously wipes the majority of the content and puts it well beneath the standards expected at GA. Anyone seeking to rescue it would have to rewrite entirely from scratch, as nothing ILT inserted can be trusted. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:34, 16 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.
Violates #4 Neutral language. Examples just in the introduction:
"His family was considerably wealthy..."
"...and donating considerable time and money to charities."
"...a governmental attempt to exterminate the movement, Baha'u'llah narrowly escaped dealth..."
"...attracted the ire of Iranian authorities"
There are other parts of the article as well:
"...the execution of the Bab were tumultuous for Babis."
"...seeking to curry favor with the king..."
"...encourage and revive flagging spirits..."
"...imprison both Baba'u'llah and Mirza Yahya in far-flung outposts..."
The entire article reads like it was copied from a bibliography. The "good article" status was given in 2012 and obviously many edits have been made since then that I think makes this not be a "good article" anymore. There is a talk discussion about it too.
Unpicked6291 (
talk)
21:07, 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.
This article was fully written by User:ReverendLogos, a sockpuppet of the banned user User:ItsLassieTime. The main source used, It's a Wonderful Christmas: The Best of the Holidays 1940-1965., is a book that I am unable to acquire and google books/amazon/archive all came up empty for giving me any information to confirm or deny the validity of the article. As a result the article as it is is unsalvageable. I suggest a speedy delisting so I can redirect the article to Christmas as this is an unnecessary content fork even without the copyright issues. Wizardman 00:10, 17 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.
80% of authorship was by serial book copyright violator ItsLassieTime (under their sock Susanne2009NYC). I have presumptively reverted to the latest pre-ILT revision, which obviously wipes the majority of the content and puts it well beneath the standards expected at GA. Anyone seeking to rescue it would have to rewrite entirely from scratch, as nothing ILT inserted can be trusted. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:19, 16 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.
A GA from 2007. The Early Career section has been tagged for needing additional citations for almost 3 years now while the hollywood section looks like it needs some more too. Later films and Television are entirely unsourced. There's a lot of uncited material here that i likely haven't noticed yet because it's pretty bad. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:28, 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.
Seems wrong to immediately nominate this for GAR while it's on OTD but I have a problem with the article. Mainly, the article has not been updated at all. The article just ends at 2015 even though it's 2023 and a quick search shows that there's probably at least something mention post 2015. Also the personal bests table looks uncited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 01:07, 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.
Another GAR that's a necessity due to Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime. After cutting all the content from the article done by all the socks I'm left with less than half the prose, with a lot of significant content long gone. It would take a lot of work to bring it back to GA status. If you're still unconvinced, the GA review was done by a sock of a separate banned user so it's technically invalid anyway. Wizardman 23:52, 19 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.
A GA from 2007. There's some uncited material including
Considering the size of the article I feel that this is important to address. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:07, 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.
This is another GAR that is needed due to Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime, as pretty much all the important parts of the article were written by not one, not two, but three separate sockpuppets of the user, as well as the main account. While the Adaptations section is well sourced and the plot seems ok, it definitely fails comprehensiveness now and will require delisting. Wizardman 23:34, 18 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 is yet another GAR as a result of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime. User:Kathyrncelestewright, a sock of said user, wrote pretty much the whole article and I have removed the violations, but honestly this shouldn't have been a GA in the first place as over half the article was just quotations from copyrighted sources, as the banned user couldn't even bother to try writing it in their own words this time. Wizardman 16:35, 19 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.
Due to the CCI at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime, I had to remove about half the article. While I was able to salvage more than I have in other instances, much of the meat of the article, namely the composition and publication, is gone. While restoring it to GA is a bit more feasible than others that have been nominated, it still needs a large amount of work. Wizardman 15:52, 19 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 contains a few cn tags, a failed verification tag, and cites many sources flagged up as unrealible (most natable F-16.net). I think the aircrafts on display section is trivia, and removing that may bring the article closer to GA, but some more work is needed. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 12:17, 25 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 has changed near-completely since its listing as a Good Article nearly 15 years ago. It has grown in size significantly, but poor writing has accompanied this expansion. I have only recently attempted to remedy some of the typos and awkward wording littered throughout the article. The article also makes frequent use of long quotes from sources without effort to paraphrase. This is particularly notable in the "Reactions" section; I understand the purpose of the section, but Wikipedia is not a repository for entire paragraphs ripped from editorials. Speaking of editorial, some of the wording in this article would no longer be appropriate under Wikipedia's updated guidelines, such as "Securing Lal Masjid brought an end to nine days of high tension in Islamabad, normally a tranquil city that had been immune to the violence experienced in the tribal areas of Pakistan." Does this sentence have encyclopedic value? Also, the tenses of this article are also odd as most of the editing done to it followed the event itself. In a similar manner, a lot of the figures in this article are outdated, and attempts to update these numbers have led to a few inconsistencies in the article. Yue 🌙 08:21, 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.
This 2009 promotion now has significant amounts of unsourced material, and in general has not been properly maintained. The history section ends in the 1990s, and much of the sourcing is from the early to mid 2000s or earlier. I do not believe steamlocomotive.com is a reliable source, as well. The prose also needs improvement and is no longer up to our standards for GA. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 17:26, 15 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.
As part of
WP:DCGAR and as the original GA reviewer in 2018 I am placing this article nominated by
Doug Coldwell up for GAR to prevent it from being mass-delisted. The subject appears to be notable enough for an article as a Colonial American engraver/organ-builder/first historical print in the the American colonies, etc., etc. but I intend to pick apart the text for copyright issues/too-close paraphrasing & to burrow into all the sources as being reliable and backing up what they are supposed to back up etc. - all to figure out if there is enough meat left on the bones of this article after the Review to retain its GA status.
Shearonink (
talk)
18:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
I have already gone through all the refs etc on
Talk:Thomas Johnston (engraver) under the
Working through this article's refs per the individual GAR section as to whether (or not) the cited refs are available online so their claims can be easily verified.
Shearonink (
talk)
19:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Went through the lead - simplistic text, instituted various fixes. Also deleted Garraty refs as being offline and inaccessible. The former Garraty statements/refs are now backed up by Dunlap/1918 & WIlliams/1915. Shearonink ( talk) 20:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Just an aside...I had great hopes when I started this GAR but the refs are such a mess...for instance the Hitchings & Reps refs are the same thing and Reps shouldn't even be credited! Plus the "Hitchings" cites are to a Google Books with no preview and the Reps are to the actual content... I'll fix those and then am taking a break and reconsidering whether or not I want to continue. The issue for me is that Johnston is notable & I think deserves a GA but definitely not the DC version I started to review. Shearonink ( talk) 20:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted the errant/false claims re: "Mather portrait". See Page 6 of Murdock's The Portraits of Increase Mather: With Some Notes on Thomas Johnson, an English Mezzotinter where he specifically states this Thomas Johnston didn't do the portrait. Shearonink ( talk) 05:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Fixed issues with the Library of Congress publication cite (didn't have the pages in the URL, URL was to an incomplete cite, etc). Added ref for list of Johnston's engravings. Shearonink ( talk) 17:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted redundant and unneeded link to Green's "Blodget's Plan..." in External links section. The book is already used as a reference. An oddity is the "See also" section, linking to multiple articles about American Colonial organ builders/engravers/printers...I think that these 3 designations might be worthwhile Categories to be enacted. Shearonink ( talk) 18:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
If anyone wants to look over my progress, I'd appreciate it. I've torn apart and put back together almost all of the text, created a template of associated articles, replaced the See also section with that Template, deleted references, adjusted captions, etc. I just don't know if it's enough...there are only so many ways to say "the sky is blue". I am waiting on a printed source to see if I can add information on who Johnston was apprenticed to since that information is presently missing. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 06:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
This is typical of DC's writing; specifically, his quest for "first facts" and overstating those facts. He translates a qualified statement in the source to a statement of fact in Wikivoice. Unless there is another source calling this a Johnston first, the text should more carefully handle this content. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Here we see remnants of DC's too-close-paraphrasing, where he re-arranged and altered a few words. It's not just words; it's structure. This is an example of why it can be hard to fix DC content. He lifted structure from one article, and then later attached other citations to content. I've rewritten (see below). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
This is cited to Dunlap but I don't find it in Dunlap. This is a DC classic, whereby text is taken from one source but cited to another, and the wording of this sentence is suggestive of copyvio. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I stopped there, after looking at only a few paragraphs in one section. This is enough to show why I believe that blowing up any DC content and starting over is the fastest route to a proper article, and that work remains to prevent delisting. We can't just rephrase to avoid too-close paraphrasing; everything DC wrote is suspect, thorough research is needed on anything claimed as fact, and his content needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia CMD - The reference book I was waiting for (about Johnston's possible apprenticeship) just came in. I have adjusted the article text accordingly with its information and I think the re-writing/recrafting/deleting of text/deleting of inaccessible sources on this article is now done. Not sure what the next step in this particular mass-GA process is, but I think this article in its present state should retain its GA status. Some clean-up might possibly remain but the last Who Wrote This? is telling me that DC's edits are down to 38.8% of this article (and doesn't that include the references and the Bibliography?). Taking a break - Shearonink ( talk) 05:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
NOTICE
Thomas Johnston (engraver) is one of the many
WP:DCGAR articles. I am finished with its cleanup and am going to leave this GAR open for the next week, until Tuesday/March 7th. If there aren't any according-to-policy objections/statements, I will close the GAR at that time. Barring any unforeseen issues, I intend for the article to retain its present GA status.
Shearonink (
talk)
21:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I have already stated I've checked everything and not that I think this next is completely necessary but since it seems to be perhaps necessary, here goes...
Below. When I state the Reference. When I state the a/b/c instances. That will unequivocally mean that ALL references and ALL the information they back up, have been checked, personally, by me.
And that will have to do.
Though, of course, if anyone wants to check my scholarship? Have at it.
CITATIONS
I'm sorry I'm not making myself clear; the problem is that DC's work is not often verifiable (and copyvio is hard to track down), because author names are wrong and book titles are wrong. I recognize that clean citations aren't part of WP:WIAGA, but in the case of DC's work, the citations are so bad that the content becomes unverifiable, and we should get it cleaned up. As an example, in the first three sources listed, two of the authors were wrong, and all three book titles were wrong. [2] That's a sample just to clean up those listed in sources using sfns, without even looking in the other citations in ref tags. What I'm pointing out in the other DC GARs is that leaving out author names and correct publishers often obscured non-reliable sources, so they should all be checked. Since three out of three that I checked were wrong, it seems this should be addressed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Finished citation cleanup; here's the cumulative diff. It baffles my mind how DC got so many GAs through when the sources were scarcely verifiable. Pride in authorship. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
There are still copyedit needs, samples only:
Engraved and printed in Boston by Thomas Johnston, Blodget’s Prospective Plan found a market in England where Thomas Jefferys, a skilled engraver and cartographic publisher, issued the map with a somewhat altered design.so it's even harder to understand what the sentence about printing (above) means. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia - Are there GAR Coordinators now? As the Reviewer (and "article rejuvenator" lol) I want to close this review with the article retaining its GA designation but am unsure as to the procedure especially since Thomas Johnston (engraver) was one of the DC bunch... Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 13:41, 17 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.
There's some uncited information being
And that's it. Should be relatively easy to fix unless other problems are noticed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:15, 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.
A GA from 2008. I can't exactly tell if the many paragraphs with no citations are actually uncited or if they have general references (aside from the better source needed and citation needed tag). I will say, however, that the sources cited do not label any page numbers what so ever which makes it quite impossible to verify. Also, I'm not sure if this article is broad enough at all. GA cleanup lists states "Unsourced passages need footnotes citation needed (July 2016), ... (October 2022)" Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:50, 19 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.
A GA from 2008. Lots of things in the article look unsourced like
and many more. Also, the article looks like it needs updating since it seems to end at 2017. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:19, 19 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 article that's reported to have "Potentially dated statements (2008), ... (December 2018), Unsourced passages need footnotes citation needed (July 2021)" on the good article cleanup listing page. Some uncited material looks to be
among others along with the legacy section reportedly needing updates. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 22:54, 18 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.
Same issue as the others from Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime where a sock wrote about 2/3 of the article including all the important stuff, it was passed without a real look at anything, and will require a lot of work to return to GA status. Wizardman 01:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Given the work done so far and the comments here as well as at the talk page I'm leaning towards withdrawing the GAR, though I'll try and read through the full article first before doing so to be on the safe side. It helps when multiple people who I trust more than many on the site are giving it a clean bill of health. Wizardman 00:15, 22 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 is another GAR as the result of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime. In this one almost the entire article was written by User:Kathryncelestewright, a sock of ILT. While I saved what I could the article after removing that content is nowhere close to a GA. I also checked to see if others had verified the sources after the fact and couldn't find anyone. Wizardman 23:23, 27 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.
It became a good article many years ago and is an important subject which could do with checking Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
As the closing tool does not work on Safari on my ipad ( /info/en/?search=User_talk:Novem_Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool#Not_appearing_on_my_ipad) perhaps someone else would like to close this Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:19, 28 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.
Although most of this article is good (i.e. the reception, composition, etc), I have several issues.
1. The page has suffered from an increasing amount of bloat since the original GA review in 2017; sometimes feels like sections have been copy and pasted around. And poor writing, no straight narrative (or chronology; you understand what I'm getting at); i.e.
"Kittie was formed in 1996 and got signed by NG Records after the band approached Jake Weiner, the record label's second-in-command. After seeing Kittie play live, Weiner signed the group to NG during the summer of 1999. NG was then acquired by Artemis Records toward the end of 1999 and Kittie recorded Spit at EMAC Studios in London, Ontario during the summer of 1999."
...among other really confusing repeats of stuff to do with NG's acquisition and whatnot, and influences. just hard to read
2. having done some extra research, page has several inaccuracies with dates or lack thereof (resolved those) which have created additional chronological difficulties. More sources are needed. Sources are still being found.
3. page lacks any details regarding things like "the legacy/reappraisal" of the album as one of the best of the nu metal genre; it, and some of its songs, have received accolades, with the most recent being a spot on Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Metal Songs of All Time list. (ask what citations, i'll give you them) The lack of acknowledgement makes the page feel unfinished to me (and yes, I will do something! I'm not asking for someone else to find them, so don't ask)
Notify: @ Tbhotch:, 2017 GA Reviewer, @ Statik N:, biggest contributor Chchcheckit ( talk) 16:35, 14 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.
Another day, another GA from the banned user via Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime. The good news is that there wasn't that much content I had to remove because it was almost completely rewritten in 2013-2014. The bad news is that the new content is... not very good. There's a lot of citation needed tags and unsourced statements, and it seems to veer into original research at times, with the misconceptions section feeling rather unnecessary even before my cuts. Wizardman 22:35, 28 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 article has been neglected for decades. Most of it written for Mr. X only (especially at reception sec) and the reception section is full of listicles only with short development/concept creation section with no additional information whatsoever. GlatorNator ( talk) 13:12, 22 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.
As part of WP:DCGAR and as the original GA reviewer in 2020, I am placing this article nominated by Doug Coldwell up for GAR in order to keep its status as a GA. During the original review I was involved in looking at some of DC's sources and shaping the focus of the article to give a more chronological treatment. Now prior to this DCGAR process, I have gone through the article again. Regarding copyvio issues, there was nothing egregious but there were a few borderline too-close paraphrasings, which I have now reworded. Regarding text-source correspondence, I've gone back and looked at all of DC's sources. There were some issues that got missed in the original review, but I have corrected them. So at this point, I believe the article corresponds to the GA criteria and its status should be kept.
P.S. The 'Fountain of Youth mural' image is up for deletion at Commons; during the original review, I tried to get DC to retake the photo to be truly de minimis, but alas he didn't quite understand what was needed. So I fear that image is doomed, which is a shame but should not affect the GA status. Wasted Time R ( talk) 11:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
WTF, to XOR'easter's and EEng's great frustration, DC's haphazard citation style (which I have taken to ignoring as it's so awful) has made copyvio checking even more difficult. As long as we're here, it may be worthwhile to get that sorted. I questioned you elsewhere about Cabot, which you had checked, but what about this mess:
Were you able to access that, and can anything done to make the citation style more consistent? I realize that may not be part of WIAGA, but what a mess throughout. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The citations were a mess (I believe I've cleaned them up now), and the writing still reeks of DYK word padding; could still use some tightening. Why is this DUE (that is, what secondary sources mention this)?
I'm done all I can for now; can you find a way to lower the number of paras beginning with Rath? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
EEng do you have a moment to glance over this short article to see if any other absurdities stand out? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
success in the lumber business eventually made him a lumber baron, where lumber baron means someone really successful in the lumber business, and anyway redirects to business magnate, which is just another way of saying he was successful, which is where we started. E Eng 13:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Noting that a paraphrasing check is still needed, because although it was cited to a different source (Powers), this wording was taken directly from this source. This is a frequent feature of DC's work (text taken from one source but cited to another). It is insufficient to check individual sources relative to the text they cite; everything has to be evaluated versus the entire body of sources. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:42, 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.
Procedural GAR following AfD. CMD ( talk) 06:47, 31 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.
Article is a bit out of date, and can use a lick of paint meet the GA standards
Femke (alt) ( talk) 07:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
A few comments:
Thank you. Magnolia677 ( talk) 10:45, 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.
As part of WP:DCGAR and as the original GA reviewer in 2020, I am placing this article nominated by Doug Coldwell up for GAR in order to keep its status as a GA. During the original review I was involved questioning some of DC's claims, finding new sources, and shaping the focus of the article. Now prior to this DCGAR process, I have gone through the article again. Regarding copyvio issues, there was nothing egregious but there were a few borderline too-close paraphrasings, which I have now reworded. Regarding text-source correspondence, again there was nothing really bad but I have fixed it up in a couple of places. In sum, I believe the article corresponds to the GA criteria and its status should be kept. Wasted Time R ( talk) 11:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Summary, having looked now at scores of DC articles, it will be hard to convince me that any article that is still 80% DC content can be GA-worthy. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:20, 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.
A GA from 2008. There looks to be some uncited statements and sections. Along with that there may possibly be some areas that need updating. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 20:01, 23 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 appears to be poorly sourced with large chunks having no in line citation. First paragraph of Home media for example. Some sources are dead such as source [32].
Needs some love and attention. Lankyant ( talk) 03:15, 29 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 article has suffered over the last decade plus from WP:HALFLIFE and a lack of updates. Never fully fleshed out to begin with, the article's aftermath section was never properly expanded even after a notice was put up about it. Over the years there have been many journal articles published about the event, of which only one has been incorporated. There is an immense amount of work required to get this article up to par. At present there is no need for a thorough review of the article until published journals (primarily from the AMS) are incorporated and the aftermath section is written. If that is done I am open to continuing with a further review to ensure the article is up to GA standards. ~ Cyclonebiskit ( chat) 20:57, 28 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.
Plot summary too long, contravening WP:WAF. The cast section also needs sourcing, while there are instances of WP:WTW throughout. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 01:32, 28 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.
Extensive copyvios. Earwig reports substantial exact matches from http://www.veterantributes.org/ and https://www.tshaonline.org/. This was noted on the article talk page last May, and it looks like somebody did some "cleanup" which consisted of minor edits to change exact matches into close paraphrases, so the actual extent of the problem is far worse than a naive reading of the Earwig report would lead you to believe.
Talk:John A. Hilger/GA1 has no discussion of the copyvio issue, which leads me to wonder if it was examined at all. Either the review did not include a scan for copyvio problems, or it did and the level of problem found was considered acceptable. It is unclear which alternative is more disturbing. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.-- RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 16 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 don't see how we can consider this adequately sourced. A 90 year old source titled "Savage Resistance to the Advancing White Frontier" clearly isn't going to be a decent source on this topic, TexasIndians.com looks questionable, and stuff like He was saved because of the Comanche reverence for the mad, a reverence shared by most Native American cultures is poorly supported (I'm not seeing that in the source in that footnote, for instance). This needs substantive work throughout. Hog Farm Talk 20:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
@ WP:GAR coordinators: - given the situation here and the strong consensus, can this be closed earlier than the normal 7 days? Hog Farm Talk 14:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
a GA from 2021 interestingly enough. Main problem i've noticed is broadness, specifically a lack of updates. The sections on 2021 and 2022 are entirely empty. So unless those get filled in then this will fail broadness. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 20:37, 21 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 article has a copy edit template, which means that there are a lot of grammar mistakes in this article. The person who loves reading ( talk) 04:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A GA from 2010. Has been tagged for "This article or section appears to be slanted towards recent events. (May 2022) This article needs additional citations for verification. (May 2022)" for almost a year. GA cleanup reports "Unsourced passages need footnotes (May 2022), ... (May 2022), Unsourced passages need footnotes citation needed (May 2022), Link rot cleanup (June 2022)" Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:09, 19 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.
Main concern is sourcing and copy editing. Lots and lots of choppy prose (one-sentence paragraphs everywhere!) and a few random unsourced sections. Filmography table should probably be split, too. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 18:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
and
and failed verification (sample) are found:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Citation needed tags which have been there since August 2022. Steelkamp ( talk) 05:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Honestly, pretty good but there's uncited statements and problems here being
and that seems to be it. There may be more problems but I haven't identified them yet. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 22:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
{{
cn}}
tags are still remaining, but that's about it.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk)
12:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Work is ongoing, and might take some time.
First stage
|
---|
Article requires a bit of work to retain GA status:
Mainly for the benefit of me and anyone who wants to help me out
If we start running into source-text integrity issues, then I'll have to bow out of this. Of the sources listed in the 'references' section, I only have Bearss, Busey & Martin, Catton, Eicher, Foote, Glatthaar, McPherson, all three by Pfanz, Sears, Tagg, and Wert. I also lack the energy to do a top-to-bottom rewrite here. Hog Farm Talk 02:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
For what might be the first time in my editing career, I'm going to invoke WP:BLUE on something. I'm working on fixing one of the better source needed tags, and the source I'm using, Wert's "Gettysburg: Day Three" doesn't use the name "Pickett's Charge" directly at the point I'm using it for. I think " in what is known to history as "Pickett's Charge"" is something so obvious that it doesn't need to be cited, but will hunt down a ref if there's a belief that one is needed for the name Pickett's Charge. Hog Farm Talk 03:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
|
@ AirshipJungleman29; @ Hog Farm; @ TwoScars Although I should be working on real life things, I began to think that there was something not quite right about the explanations of the historians' inconsistencies in numbers of units and men included in Pickett's Charge and the casualty counts. I I am going to review the references again because those units took many casualties despite the fact that the main charge was over before they started and Wilcox, in particular, pulled back promptly. I'll try to get the revisions done quickly, maybe even tonight if I can get through a review the sources on these points. Donner60 ( talk) 02:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Some thoughts of mine:
@ Donner60 and TwoScars: - I think that's my primary concerns. Would personally trim the Grant vs. Lee section, but I think we're fairly close to GA status at this time. Hog Farm Talk 01:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Huge citation issues, including reliance on non-independent references, unreliable sources, and long plot. Fails GA criterion 1a and 2. Also originally nominated by a sockpuppeteer. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 11:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominating for GAR on behalf of The ed17 who put a notice for this back in march. There's citation needed tags that need to be dealt with for this to remain a GA. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 03:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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. The other languages and Fordham and Ogbu sections are unsourced and need citations. Might have other problem as seen on the talk page. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A GA from 2008. There are uncited areas like the entirety of the field design section and the last two paragraphs of the seating expansion. Also, the prose is very choppy in a lot a places with multiple 1-2 sentence paragraphs. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2007. The problem is the many uncited areas in the article. This includes a refimprove tag and many citation needed tags. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 22:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2013. The Important constituents section is unsourced while there are many citation needed tags throughout the article. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 14:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A GA from 2009. Some uncited material with labeled citation needed tags that need to be dealt with. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2007. Significant citation issues in the history section, members, and sales and legacy section while the awards section is unsourced. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2007. There's some uncited sections and a refimprove tag for roots of the the conflict section that needs to be cited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pro-forma GAR to delist following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astaroth (Soulcalibur). CMD ( talk) 08:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unsourced material (criterion 2), and an abundance of WP:WTW (criterion 1b). Also, quality of prose is poor (lots of one-line paragraphs), and the history section is pretty much reliant on one source (possibly violating criterion 4). I should note that I think the medicine WikiProject perfectly capable of overcoming these issues, should they wish to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 on a prominent 20th-century American female sculptor, which was reviewed and listed as GA on 10 October 2011:
I believe this article in its current form meets B-level at most and needs to be reassessed. Ppt91 talk 18:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.) There is a great deal of value in this article, but I am also quite certain that if it were to be nominated for GA now, it would have to undergo heavy editing to pass.
citing personal papers is not in any way WP:OR, in general, sure, but primary materials should also not be used so heavily as to constitute the second most cited source. Regarding
other books may contain extra information, I am not quite what you mean because I was referring to the article's scope and encyclopedic quality, rather than adding extraneous stuff. For a major American artist like Nevelson, where a lot of secondary literature is available, balancing the bibliography to reflect important art historical research will improve its scope (Harriet F. Senie, for example, who wrote extensively on Nevelson's public art, is not mentioned once; given that public sculpture was crucial to Nevelson's career writ large, that's far from
extrainformation). And while there are some excellent sources in this article, including journal articles, there are also some that hardly meet WP:RS (theartstory.org, artcyclopedia.com, artnet.com, philart.net) and the citation style is inconsistent. Moreover, prose could definitely be improved for language precision and clarity.
Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria.If you wish to change the section headings to include date ranges, there is nothing stopping you from doing so: I have just done so myself, and the article's organisation remains the same. Do you feel that the lack of sources such as Senie significantly compromises the article's broadness (criterion 3 of WP:GACR):
Broad in its coverage; addresses the main aspects of the topic (significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles, allowing for shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.)?
immediately. Frankly, I am often loath to use these "official" channels for improving articles because they can easily lead to charged exchanges and miscommunication. It feels like there is no in-between route for productive teamwork improvement; if I post at peer review or start a talk page thread, it might go unnoticed for weeks if it's picked up at all; if I go through the reassessment route, then it can easily turn into an extended back-and-forth regarding the article's merit (which I have not questioned once).
The following discussion is closed. 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 2009 promotion with sourcing issues (reliance on unreliable/out of date sources, significant unsourced material, lacking page numbers) and weird layout. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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. Has been tagged for needing additional citations for verification and an over reliance on primary sources. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 17:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2007. Has been tagged for needing additional citations since September 2022. Especially since sections like the first paragraph of defenses and aftermath have no sources cited. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 17:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
With multiple CN tags and most of the sourcing before from the 1400s, I don't see how this meets the sourcing requirement of the modern GA standards. Primary author was indeffed in '07 for "Racism, hatespeech" so I don't think we're going to get any help from that front. Hog Farm Talk 21:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 old 2011 GA that is in drastic need of improving, from unreliable sources, poor prose, inconsistent sources, etc. It might be salvageable. – zmbro ( talk) ( cont) 20:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2007. There's some uncited material and the legacy section is a mess. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2006. Main problem is the lack of citations in many areas that have tagged with citation needed tags. Also has some page needed and full citation needed tags. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2017 interestingly enough. there's refimprove tags for NPA motif and ar/R selectivity filter sections, there's also some uncited areas and some other tags like who?, original research, and clarification needed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 14:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 that contains significant uncited text, including material such as " It has been posited that onion domes first appeared in Russia" and material attributed to specific writers that certainly need direct citations. Hog Farm Talk 14:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2007. Has been tagged for needing additional citations and for possibly using unreliable sources. Also, the article might need some updates. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 19:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 quite of unsourced material including the neighborhoods section having no sources while the article also needs quite a lot of updates. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 19:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2011 GA, with a drive-by pass for a review. Two citation needed tags for large portions of paragraphs lacking citations, and an additional paragraph also lacking sourcing. I've identified two more recent news articles that discuss the locomotive in detail which are not cited and should be considered [8] [9]. Overall, I think this article is salvageable, but it does need some work. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 03:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It has been 13 years since this article was listed as GA. It does not meet criterion 6 in particular. It also may not be current, and does not reflect her career since 2010. LibStar ( talk) 06:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Very bad sourcing from both a GA and BLP perspective. Neither of the sources in the death rumors section actually mentions rumors of Cook's death, there's uncited material, and large chunks of the article related to Cook's business dealings are sourced to primary sources from those organizations. Needs substantial work. Hog Farm Talk 18:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Massive citation issues (reliability of sources, lack of inline citations, reliance on one source). Fails criterion 2 any day. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 was flagged by @ Real4jyy: for reassessment on April 20, and from a quick readthrough GAR is definitely needed. This is a 2007 promotion [10] that was not thoroughly reviewed at the time. There are a copious amount of maintenance tags in this article: citations needed, failed verification, non-primary source needed, etc. I see some unsourced sentences that haven't been directly tagged as well. Significant work would be needed to save this GA. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 19:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Below points are taken from the note [11] I left on the reviewer's talk page (they have not been active since March) before I went ahead with reassessment. Their overall reviewing style is very concerning and the editor has virtually no experience in content creating (less than 500 edits overall, 68 edits in mainspace, and no single article created) yet they took on multiple GARs, all of which were hastily performed. One of them was recently delisted. They have not responded and this article is in clear need of reassessment:
The following discussion is closed. 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 WP:DCGAR, I am submitting this article for a reassessment so that it can be further scrutinised to avoid the automatic delisting. I originally did the GA review and have made a number of changes recently to reassess citations and explicitly verify that the prose is accurate, correct and not violating copyright (this remains ongoing). I have already replaced some unobtainable book citations, either with those I could verify or alternate online sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bungle ( talk • contribs) 17:46, February 16, 2023 (UTC)
He was the first person to make the application of elevating grain out of transporting ships using mechanical power and has since become the system for unloading freighters throughout the world. And it doesn't seem supported by the source. And, sourcing a statement about since throughout the world to 1879 is just wrong. So far, from what I'm seeing, this is a delist with the same problems as the others, and I haven't even started on copyvio checking other than the first Smith. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I think I can still do another read-over and possibly reword and reconsider a handful of parts here and there, but nothing substantial. I did have some concerns that the article was perhaps disproportionally representing the concept for which an article already exists, so I have tried to bring some focus back to the subject. Authorship stands at over 50% myself and 43.7% DC, although this should not be referred to as an indicator, particularly as I think this includes infobox, ref, cats etc for the latter. WWT shows in large parts my own amendments. Hence at this time i'd welcome feedback or expressions on anything that stands out as being particularly problematic, assuming it's not catastrophic. I am broadly hopeful that the article will largely be judged on the merits associated with one being judged "good", without excessive emphasis on its original primary contributor (understanding that the degree of scrutiny expected will no doubt be higher than a typical GAR). At the very least, I hope I have done enough to secure the article's safety from pre-emptive copyvio concern deletion. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 18:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Delist and send to
WP:CP.
I had intended to review further, but this is bad enough. This article has the usual source-to-text integrity problems found in DC work, copy-paste from non-reliable sources, and that's after looking at only two passages of text from two sources. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29 I am removing the collapses here as today's editing of this article has seen the very non-reliable sources discussed in the collapsed content being re-introduced. @ WP:GAR coordinators: I will put a separate note on that editor's talk page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2008 nominee with large amounts of unsourced content including uncited statistics.
Concerns have been raised since the day after the GA review in August 2008. The nominator is still active, however. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 01:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Large amounts of uncited text, including for quotes and statistics, thus failing GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 11:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 WP:DCGAR, although the nominator at GAN was not DC, rather Cleveland Todd, who is also blocked. I have two hours in to this article, have found one of all the usual (copy-paste, too close paraphrasing, content not supported by sources, "first" trivia, etc), and have no will to continue. I may have gotten all copyvio, but have not checked all the PD sources for paraphrasing. I doubt the article is still broad in its coverage, and I don't know what remains to be done to keep the article at GA standard. Trainsandotherthings have you any interest? Else, @ WP:GAR coordinators: as to where this goes next. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Initial discussion
|
---|
I can't really shirk a Philadelphia-area railroad magnate, if he is such a thing. I admit my preference in such cases would be to rewrite from the ground up. Can I get a day or three to see what kind of modern sourcing might be available? Mackensen (talk) 11:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Like SandyGeorgia, I've spent a few hours on this. I've consulted a mix of academic sources that deal with the late 19th century banking scene (focusing on Drexel and Morgan), and a few sources dealing with the railroads that Wright was associated with through his position as a partner in Drexel, Morgan & Co. Wright is notable, definitely, though the apparent lack of even a biographical sketch, let along a full biography, is troublesome. [a] I don't think the article is salvageable. It's rife with sourcing issues and practically plagiarized from The National Cyclopaedia and the obituary notices in the New York Times and Delaware Gazette and State Journal. The overuse of contemporary 19th-century newspaper accounts in general is a significant problem; as anyone who has ever written an obituary knows, relying on a brief obituary for claims of someone's accomplishments over a century later isn't acceptable. I'm willing to write a new article to replace this one, though I'd feel more comfortable having actually read those academic sources, just to feel more comfortable with late 19th century banking. I usually work with the operational side of railroading. Who around here is our amateur expert in this area? Mackensen (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Notes References
|
Image discussion
|
---|
Hog Farm, as I don't do images, might you look at whether this image needs to be deleted? That does appear to be the GWB in the background, and it is unclear where DC got the 1890 date, so this image might not be public domain and might need to be deleted. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 08:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It looks like there's some uncited text and other problems including
and possibly more. Though some of these could have been general referenced and I missed it. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
This review was put on hold for two months to relieve pressure on topic editors at GAR. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Significant unsourced material, including for statistics ( GA criterion 2). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 11:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another GA from 2017. This has two problems. First, there's citation issues as the music and filming sections have no sources. Second, this also seems to fail broadness because there's absolutely nothing in the critical reception section. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 17:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Significant citation issues, including uncited statistics and BLP content. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 20:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I forgot about this, dang. Wish someone would have contacted my talk page. AaronY ( talk) 09:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)