← ( Page 72) |
![]() |
( Page 74) → |
The following discussion is closed. 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 2009. There are multiple statements and/or paragraphs that lack sources, and there is no Reception section. Many sources used are unreliable (IMDB, YouTube) or self-published. Needs a lot of work to maintain GA status. Spinixster (chat!) 08:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lots of uncited sections, bloating in the "Recent work" section and updates needed in "Family", "Charity", "Theater" and possibly "Recent work" sections. Z1720 ( talk) 02:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tagged with an "update needed" tag since 2017, the article seems to be missing information about its demolition and is therefore no longer considered comprehensive. Z1720 ( talk) 17:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 was kept as GAR in 2009, but GA standards have improved since then, I don't feel that the article is comprehensive enough to be a GA anymore. Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 16:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article is significantly out of date, with no statistics later than 2008 being cited. Recent reports are freely available online, but a complete overhaul of the article would be required to retain GA status. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A 2011 listing, this article has not been updated in more than a decade. The history and development section, along with the competitive history table and international history, need updates to meet GA criterion 3a). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 11:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 the last ItsLassieTime-related GAR, I promise. This is another situation where the primary author is a banned sockpuppet of the above and had a history of copyvios (see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime) but honestly I'd be sending this here even if that wasn't the case. The traditions and controversies sections almost feel like random picking and choosing and some of it feels a bit like undue weight. A lot of the sources are offline with no page numbers, which normally would not be only a minor issue, but because of the copyright concerns above it makes many of the refs impossible to verify. Wizardman 02:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 promoted in 2008 with this " review". the article contains many unsourced statements, many duly tagged with {{citation needed}}. ltbdl ( talk) 11:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Many uncited passages, not much information post-2015, and formatting concerns with lots of short paragraphs. Z1720 ( talk) 15:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails criteria 2, 3, and 4. The article needs more citations (preferably from secondary sources), it is tagged as needing updates, it goes into excessive detail significantly beyond what is appropriate for the article, and the commentary section uses a non-neutral structure. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 01:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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. The article uses several unreliable sources (IMDB) and some paragraphs aren't formatted correctly, and the Casting section contains unrelated information. I'm also concerned about the sourcing; the reception section is sourced to books that presumably quotes the original reviews instead of the original reviews, though I know it is probably not a good reason to delist. Spinixster (chat!) 08:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Many paragraphs lack references and some are only half-referenced. The subsection "Habit" and the section "Habitat" have no references at all. This is a violation of criterion 2b. The last GAR happened 13 years ago, see Talk:Drosera/GA1. Phlsph7 ( talk) 15:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm requesting reassessment to this GA article. The most pressing things to work out here appear to be removing dead links, addressing the maintenance tag, and modernizing the track map. Chess Eric 18:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Numerous uncited paragraphs, including most of the Notable people section and residences. Demographics section needs an update of the prose, and the history section needs an update of COVID-19 information (and I'd argue that it needs to be expanded to include many more significant events). Z1720 ( talk) 01:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Numerous uncited passages, including the entire "2014 and 2015 reform acts" section. Z1720 ( talk) 02:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails criteria 1, 3, and 4. The lead section is far too long for the article length and includes a random paragraph (with typos) about an alumni who was convicted of corruption in Malaysia. Additionally, the history section needs significant reorganization. It also appears that the article isn't up to date, as the last dated event in the article is hiring a new headmaster in 2019. Finally, there's a fair amount of PEACOCKing. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 02:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Only four sources in the whole article? Seems like a massive 3A/3B failure. Also it skips from antiquity to the 20th century without hinting much at the in-betweens. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 06:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
@ WP:GAR coordinators: please close. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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. Article suffers from a lack of citations and a lack of expansion post-2007. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 23:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Many uncited statements, and questionable sources such as IMDB and history.com. Z1720 ( talk) 02:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Numerous uncited sections. I also think the amount and length of block quotes should be reduced. Z1720 ( talk) 15:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails 1a (concision) and 3b (unnecessary detail). This article has ballooned up to 19,000 words. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 07:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At over 14,000 words, this article can probably be trimmed. The "Personal life" section is excessively long, and the "History" section gives too much weight to more recent events. Some sources should be removed (IMDB, Gawker) while others should be reevaluated for inclusion. Z1720 ( talk) 01:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Several unsourced sections, including almost the entire "Components of a postal code" section. Z1720 ( talk) 21:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Uncited sections and use of unreliable sources like onlineworldofwrestling and Wrestle Zone. Z1720 ( talk) 00:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 reliant on unreliable sources, and with many citation needed tags, this 2008 listing violates GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 are many parts without sources or uses unreliable/primary sources. For instance, many claims in the Reception section are sourced to primary sources or none at all. I also see a lot of WP:CRUFT. Would need a lot of work to maintain GA status. Spinixster (chat!) 09:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Multiple uncited paragraphs, IMDB and Online World of Wrestling sources need to be replaced. Z1720 ( talk) 01:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Numerous uncited sections, including whole paragraphs. Fox News sources might need to be replaced with different, more reputable sources per WP:FOXNEWS. Z1720 ( talk) 01:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing has two problems:
There is currently a debate within the osteopathic community over the feasibility of maintaining osteopathic medicine as a distinct entity within US health caresourced to nine citations, none later than 2008;
The president of the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine commented on the current climate of crisis within the professionsourced to a 2009 source;
However, the proportion of osteopathic students choosing primary care fields, like that of their MD peers, is declining. Currently, only one in five osteopathic medical students enters a family medicine residency (the largest primary care field)sourced to two sources from 2005). The article also talks about how this change was very recent (in 2007):
In 2004, only 32% of osteopathic seniors planned careers in any primary care field; this percentage was down from a peak in 1996 of more than 50%.
The article says about 20% of DOs go into family medicine; if that is still true, then the article is accurate and neutral regardless of whether the little blue clicky number leads you to a source from ten years ago or ten hours ago.Sure. Is it true? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 08:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Personally, I would keep GA status. The needed revisions seems minor, but should be addressed. Rytyho usa ( talk) 16:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 uncited material, while the existing references are predominantly from 2011 or earlier; thus several sections are out of date, and GA criterion 3a is violated. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2010. The article still holds up quite well as a description of the state in 2010/2011 and events leading up to 2010. However, there have been only the most cursory updates since then. Recent developments (of which there were quite a few) are only covered briefly, which provides a marked contrast to the extensive (still good) descriptions of earlier parts. Therefore, the article no longer fulfils GA criterias 1 and 3 for its subject. GeorgR (de) ( talk) 15:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 (promoted nearly 15 years ago) is out of date and missing substantial information. For example, there are systematic reviews of the drugs' potential in asthma and arthritis both of which are barely mentioned in the article. None of the article's sources are more recent than 2015, while clinical trials of these drugs are ongoing as of 2023. ( t · c) buidhe 09:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Responding to a GAR request from buidhe on July 29, 2023. I see numerous uncited passages, multiple citation needed tags, inappropriate external links in the body. This is sufficient in my mind to justify listing for reassessment. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 22:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lots of uncited prose, including almost the entire "Worship and devotees" section. Z1720 ( talk) 02:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails criteria 2 and 3: the article needs more citations (preferably from secondary sources), and it goes into excessive detail significantly beyond what is appropriate for the article. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 01:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per multiple maintenance tags and other issues. Use of lists and tables may be excessive in some areas. The versions section resembles a WP:CHANGELOG at certain points. The applications section needs to be reorganized or rewritten. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 07:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
10:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Recommendation: Major revisions needed to retain GA status.
The topic
HDMI is certainly an important one. However, it appears that the article has grown somewhat haphazardly since it first passed the Good Article criteria in 2008 without paying enough attention to being useful to the non-technical reader. There are also some issues that were identified when it failed a Feature Article nomination in 2009 which have not been addressed. Further It has a few issues that editors have identified in the current version which have not been addressed such as information about FRL, Personal computers and one citation needed. There are also many statements which are not sourced, or use low-reputation sources.
A little history. The Good Article review was on 27 June 2008
here. At that time it was 51,666 bytes, ~3500 words, and 91 references The article was fairly tight and passed without any comments.
It was nominated as a Feature Article which was declined 28 November 2009,
this version. At that time it was 76,238 bytes, ~4500 words and 141 references.
A key comment at that time was “The main problem is that it is overfull of facts and doesn't explain (to the general reader) how and why…I think the article needs a fairly radical overhaul to make it an engaging read and focus more on getting the point across rather than bare facts.“
The current version as of October 2nd 2023 is 180,638 bytes, ~12,000 words with 225 references.
It appears that nothing has been done to remedy the issue identified in 2009. There is a clear issue with too much detail
WP:NOTEVERYTHING,
WP:NOTGUIDE could also be relevant, and too much detail about updates
WP:NOTCHANGELOG. As noted in the earlier FA review, it fails the GA Well-written criteria as it is too technical and needs at least an introduction for a non-technical audience
WP:TECHNICAL. There are many cases it seems to go into unnecessary detail
WP:SS.
What appears to have happened is that more sections have been added, with no significant rethinking of this as an encyclopedic article. Many sections read as a depository of technical information which should be elsewhere. Examples of this include
HDMI#Cables. There are also many sections which have lengthy descriptions which are poorly sourced and whose utility is unclear. For instance in the Blue Ray section the paragraph that starts with “Blu-ray permits” makes many statements without citations whose relevance is unclear.
When I do a quick Google Scholar search I find many refereed articles. However, I do not find many refereed high reputation sources in this article. For certain Press Releases and Blogs are not high reputation and should not be used. A non-exhaustive list of marginal sources is:
A few specifics:
Ldm1954 ( talk) 12:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Similarly to Quatermass (TV serial), this 2010 addition has some major sourcing and prose problems. Casting section contains unrelated and badly sourced information, there are two (!) production sections, some parts are not sourced or badly sourced. Spinixster (chat!) 06:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tagged with an "update needed" banner for five years, more recent information needs to be added. Z1720 ( talk) 18:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 missing post-2013 information. Z1720 ( talk) 18:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails 1a (concision) and 3b (unnecessary detail). At nearly 15,000 words, this article likely needs to be reduced in size by as much as 50% before it can be reasonably expected to meet the GA criteria. Though this is not a GA requirement, WP:INDISCRIMINATE is also relevant. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 07:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
The first paragraph of every match summary is a previewno it's not. The organisational changes section is quite concise for what it covers. It is also comprehensive in the sense that it covers virtually all departures and arrivals of coaches and staff. Just because a coach is red linked that does not make him non-notable. I would agree that a table could complement the arrival and departures section, but this is not a necessity for GAs. I've cut down the draft section but have left the commentary as I think it's relevant. Willbb234 16:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Multiple cases of missing citations/unsourced content and need for greater comprehensiveness on topic (particularly in certain sections). May also need some updating (neither the History nor Health sections talk about the COVID-19 pandemic, which I think should be mentioned and definitely has RS on). General cleanup and miscellaneous work is also needed in many sections. Dan the Animator 07:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm responding to the request made by User:Catfurball back in September. [2] The current version has unsourced material and sources that can't be traced back, either because the reference information is entirely wrong or something else. This is true for Adventist Review, which the freely available archives do not support by the date, volume, title, or issue listed, so there are issues with the referencing. Viriditas ( talk) 01:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am seriously surprised that this article passed GA review. It has two major issues. First, the article is frequently far too vague, just saying that things exist without providing any further information on them or even naming examples. Second, the article has a severe bias towards the US. This goes far beyond the examples for things nearly always being American - very frequently the article presents US-specific information as though it applied worldwide. I can go through the article point by point with my criticisms if necessary. Eldomtom2 ( talk) 16:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Here's a list of some of the issues the article has that I could find from a quick scan. This is not an exhaustive list by any stretch of the imagination.
"Since the 1970s, governments, environmentalists, and train advocates have promoted increased use of trains due to their greater fuel efficiency and lower greenhouse gas emissions compared to other modes of land transport." - not keen on this sentence because it implies that the 1970s onwards saw a sudden surge of support for rail transport, which isn't the case
"Another German inventor, Rudolf Diesel, constructed the first diesel engine in the 1890s, though the potential of his invention to power trains was not realized until decades later" - the first diesel locomotives were built in the early 1910s, so this phrasing is misleading
"Intermodal freight trains, carrying double-stack shipping containers, have since the 1970s generated significant business for railroads and gained market share from trucks." - Significant US bias. Double-stack freight trains are nearly exclusive to America and India and intermodal freight trains do not require the use of double-stacked containers
"Increased use of commuter rail has also been promoted as a means of fighting traffic congestion on highways in urban areas" - I'm fairly certain a lot of people who support increased use of commuter rail want to reduce the usage of cars even when there isn't much congestion
"Trains can be sorted into types based on whether they haul passengers or freight (though mixed trains which haul both exist), by their weight (heavy rail for regular trains, light rail for lighter rapid transit systems), by their speed, and by what form of track they use. Conventional trains operate on two rails, but several other types of track systems are also in use around the world." -this entire paragraph is just a mess that says pretty much nothing
"The railway terminology that is used to describe a train varies between countries. The two primary systems of terminology are International Union of Railways terms in much of the world, and Association of American Railroads terms in North America." - as noted this failed verification, and has obvious issues on its face - what terms are used in East Asia, for instance?
"Early trains could only be stopped by manually applied hand brakes, requiring workers to ride on top of the cars and apply the brakes when the train went downhill" - First, this is inaccurate - steam trains can also be stopped by going into reverse and thus making steam push against the pistons and slow them down. Second, this is another example of severe US bias - many countries had different methods of controlling unbraked trains that did not involve workers riding on the top of the train and applying the handbrakes.
"Train vehicles are linked to one another by various systems of coupling. In much of Europe, India, and South America, trains primarily use buffers and chain couplers. In the rest of the world, Janney couplers are the most popular, with a few local variations persisting (such as Wilson couplers in the former Soviet Union).[31]" - More US bias. It would be better if the article didn't mention Janney couplers at all and just talked about automatic couplers generally.
"but the predominant braking system for trains globally is air brakes, invented in 1869 by George Westinghouse.[failed verification] Air brakes are applied at once to the entire train using air hoses.[32]" - no mention of vacuum brakes, which while never as widespread as air brakes were common enough to deserve a mention
"To prevent collisions or other accidents, trains are often scheduled, and almost always are under the control of train dispatchers.[38] Historically, trains operated based on timetables; most trains (including nearly all passenger trains), continue to operate based on fixed schedules, though freight trains may instead run on an as-needed basis, or when enough freight cars are available to justify running a train.[39]" - only citations are US sources and thus reflects a US idea of freight trains
"Train drivers, also known as engineers, are responsible for operating trains.[43] Conductors are in charge of trains and their cargo, and help passengers on passenger trains.[43] Brakeman, also known as trainmen, were historically responsible for manually applying brakes, though the term is used today to refer to crew members who perform tasks such as operating switches, coupling and uncoupling train cars, and setting handbrakes on equipment.[43] Steam locomotives require a fireman who is responsible for fueling and regulating the locomotive's fire and boiler.[43] On passenger trains, other crew members assist passengers, such as chefs to prepare food, and service attendants to provide food and drinks to passengers. Other passenger train specific duties include passenger car attendants, who assist passengers with boarding and alighting from trains, answer questions, and keep train cars clean, and sleeping car attendants, who perform similar duties in sleeping cars.[43]" - this entire paragraph uses a single US source and is therefore heavily US-biased - for starters, many trains do not have conductors and thus the driver/engieer is "in charge" of the train.
"Trains also need to fit within the loading gauge profile to avoid fouling bridges and lineside infrastructure with this being a potential limiting factor on loads such as intermodal container types that may be carried." - doesn't explicitly explain what loading gauge is
"Modern trains have a very good safety record overall, comparable with air travel.[49]" - source only discusses US
"The vast majority of train-related fatalities, over 90 percent, are due to trespassing on railroad tracks, or collisions with road vehicles at level crossings.[52] Organizations such as Operation Lifesaver have been formed to improve safety awareness at railroad crossings, and governments have also launched ad campaigns. Trains cannot stop quickly when at speed; even an emergency brake application may still require more than a mile of stopping distance. As such, emphasis is on educating motorists to yield to trains at crossings and avoid trespassing.[53]" - First, the figure given for the majority of train fatalities being trespass-related is a US one and thus the figure only applies to the US. Second, this gives the false impression that educational campaigns are the only way to reduce crossing fatalities and does not give any attention to methods such as grade separation
"Diesel locomotives are powered with a diesel engine, which generates electricity to drive traction motors. This is known as a diesel–electric transmission, and is used on almost all diesels" - no mention of other transmissions - diesel-mechanical and diesel-hydraulic transmissions are common enough to deserve a mention
"Train cars, also known as wagons, are unpowered rail vehicles which are typically pulled by locomotives. Many different types exist, specialized to handle various types of cargo. Some common types include boxcars (also known as covered goods wagons) that carry a wide variety of cargo, flatcars (also known as flat wagons) which have flat tops to hold cargo, hopper cars which carry bulk commodities, and tank cars which carry liquids and gases. Examples of more specialized types of train cars include bottle cars which hold molten steel,[63] Schnabel cars which handle very heavy loads, and refrigerator cars which carry perishable goods.[64][65]" - for some reason the "Train car" section solely talks about freight cars
"Long distance passenger trains travel over hundreds or even thousands of miles between cities. The longest passenger train service in the world is Russia's Trans-Siberian Railway between Moscow and Vladivostok, a distance of 9,289 kilometers (5,772 mi).[67] In general, long distance trains may take days to complete their journeys, and stop at dozens of stations along their routes. For many rural communities, they are the only form of public transportation available.[68] Short distance or regional passenger trains have travel times measured in hours or even minutes, as opposed to days. They run more frequently than long distance trains, and are often used by commuters. Short distance passenger trains specifically designed for commuters are known as commuter rail.[69]" - The article completely ignores the existence of trains that cover long distances but have travel times measured in hours - i.e. what is generally called "intercity" rail
""Metro" may also refer to rapid transit that operates at ground level." - this is just a nonsense sentence. The article should just say that "metro" and "rapid transit" mean pretty much the same thing
"Light rail is a catchall term for a variety of systems, which may include characteristics of trams, passenger trains, and rapid transit systems." - another example of the article being so vague as to say absolutely nothing
"Longer freight trains typically operate between classification yards, while local trains provide freight service between yards and individual loading and unloading points along railroad lines.[87]" - US centric again - in some countries unit trains are the sole type of freight train operating-- Eldomtom2 ( talk) 18:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Eldomtom2 was good enough to notify me of this GAR and furthermore I am aware of WP:AGF and fully support this guideline. Nevertheless, I am sure everyone will understand that I feel the need to make a comment on the quality of the review I conducted. Even on a cursory level I would argue that it can easily be seen that I interrogated and analysed the article in a high level of detail in comparison to some Good Article Reviews which are almost nodded through. Secondly, some of the issues being discussed above were discussed as part of that review; for example the issue of it being US-centric. On that point - some of the examples above are not a reason for removing GA status. For example "First, the figure given for the majority of train fatalities being trespass-related is a US one and thus the figure only applies to the US" is a bit disigenious; would a reference and example from another part of the world be preferable? Of course. But that doesn't negate the data completely and it gives an indication that is useful for the topic of the paragraph.
For some of the comments above, I would draw your attention to criteria 3b which states that the article must "stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." Some of the comments (for me as a non-expert) are getting into minutiae on the subject. But I am not interested in getting into a debate on that as I have admitted that I am not an expert on the subject.
Having said all that, I will of course check back in on the final result of this discussion and take whatever learnings I can for GA reviews. Mark83 ( talk) 12:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 a readable prose size of ~23500, not counting 9,000+ words of notes, image captions, quotes, and tables, this article clearly violates criterion 3b) of the GACR. To remain a GA, this article needs to undergo a large amount of cleanup, with a particular emphasis on summary style. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 13:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadingsin the
{{
Very long}}
template literally.
Charcoal feather (
talk)
19:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article. Charcoal feather ( talk) 14:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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's information is supported by three cited sources. Whilst the article is well-written and three sources is sufficient for general notability, the fairly large sourcing limitations make it difficult to assess that the article is capable of providing broad coverage or giving appropriate weight to its sources. VRXCES ( talk) 06:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Much like the case of Quatermass and the Pit (film), this 2009 addition has some major sourcing and prose problems. Casting section contains unrelated information, many parts, such as the first two paragraphs of the Production section, are not sourced or badly sourced. Spinixster (chat!) 01:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 addition has several unsourced paragraphs, especially in the Broadcast format section, which would fail criteria 2 of the GACR. Spinixster (chat!) 09:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Last year, I nominated this article for GA and it was rightfully quickfailed. After another (albeit small) revision, it passed another review in May of this year. I have since become a much more experienced editor, and after re-reading through this upon an inquiry on the talk page, I do not believe this aligns with the GA criteria. There's a lack of page numbers on many sources in the history section, there's little independent coverage of the subjects discussed under arts and culture, and the reliability of numerous sources is questionable (e.g. RateBeer.com, Encyclopedia of Alabama, Tennessee Valley Civil War Round Table, etc). This article fails criteria points 2b and 3a. MyCatIsAChonk ( talk) ( not me) ( also not me) ( still no) 14:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 sourcing here is terrible, a definite compromise to the article's quality:
This article was promoted in 2012 and clearly shows it due to a lack of maintenance, poor source choices, and linkrot.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 addition has unsourced or badly sourced information (IMDB, Getty Images, etc) which fails criteria 2 of the GACR. Spinixster (chat!) 13:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Numerous uncited sections, 17th-century section tagged with "additional citations needed" banner since 2020, post-2018 information needs to be added, and 21st-century information needs to be expanded. Z1720 ( talk) 02:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 was listed as GA in 2014. It is well written, but the structure of the article does not conform to the MOS. This diverts a clearer focus on information about the gameplay and reception of the title. VRXCES ( talk) 06:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 uses IMDB numerous times as a source for biographical information: these will need to be verified by another source and replaced. Z1720 ( talk) 22:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 that no longer meets the criteria. Significant amounts of text are uncited, and the more recent season sections with the exception of 2015 are quite under-developed. Hog Farm Talk 03:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 NPOV issues and changes since article was reviewed 13yrs ago. // Timothy :: talk 23:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails criteria 1a (concision) and 3b (excessive detail). It appears that this article attempts to compile everything ever written about the man, and it may be one of the longest articles on Wikipedia by word count. A few hundred more words, and this article will be longer than The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway. Significant trimming and summarization are required. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 07:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
compile everything ever written about the man– This is either a joke or you have no idea how much has been written about Von Neumann. This article seems excellent and it would be a crying shame to dramatically chop it apart just for the sake of jumping through artificial bureaucratic hoops. The biographical section is of appropriate length, and the technical sections are an extremely compressed summary of Von Neumann's work.... it's just that the man single handedly invented like 10 different brand new fields of study and his work output was incredible by the standards of ordinary humans. It's wonderful that Wikipedia dives into at least a tiny bit of detail about these instead of hand waving them away. Let the bureaucrats take away the little green badge if they must, but if any busybodies try "significant trimming and summarization" on this basis without first getting complete support from whichever dedicated authors originally wrote this article, I would recommend vigorously fighting such changes. (Disclaimer: I have never tried to look at this article before today, but am a big fan of Von Neumann.) – jacobolus (t) 07:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
either get to work on the problems ... or raise them on the article talk page. I've put the second disjunct in italics to help you focus. Read more attentively next time. E Eng 17:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
unfortunately radical cuts are needed– I would urge you to abandon this as your starting point; as a fundamental criterion it is vanishihngly unlikely to lead to the best outcome, not only because it leads you to read the article in a motivated rather than dispassionate way while editing, but also because it frames any discussion about the changes as an unavoidable conflict rather than a truth- and consensus-seeking conversation. To make this more concretely productive, rather than "perform sufficiently radical cuts", some alternative goals might be: "the organization should be clear to readers without miscellaneous topics mashed together incoherently", "the same material should not be split apart and repeated several times", "the article should fairly characterize the subject's prowess without fawning over him", "the level of detail in each section should be reasonably consistent with the topic's importance to the subject's life and impact", "the article should try to show readers through concrete claims rather than telling them what to think", etc. Some of these goals might lead to cutting, combining, or reorganizing sections; summarizing material and leaving detailed discussion to the cited sources; replacing quotations with paraphrases, or the like. But the goals should be structured with reader benefit in mind, rather than just some absolute word count target. – jacobolus (t) 07:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
It can be very helpful to think in terms of radical cuts ("what content can be moved to a subarticle?", "how can I condense this by a factor of three?") to force yourself to actually perform the re-organisation you suggest.Maybe this has helped someone, but I have never in decades of scientific writing found the pursuit of an arbitrary ratio to be useful. Killing darlings just for the sake of it is merely being bloodthirsty. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
bogged down with detailanyway. My point is that this all just sounds like cutting for the sake of cutting, before any informed judgments are made. But if that's what green checkmarks and gold stars are really about, well, OK: no more GAR's or FA saves for me. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
A page of about 10,000 words takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is close to the attention span of most readers. Understanding of standard texts at average reading speed is around 65%. At 10,000 words it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style. Articles are not exempt from editing guidelines because we think they're really really important. And if you think that your interpretation of "comprehensive" in regard to FA is correct, then I implore you to go over there and start challenging featured article candidates that don't meet it. I guarantee you that none of them will. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 17:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
occasional exceptions may apply, just like for any other guideline. So, yes, being
really really importantcan be a valid reason for an article to be longer. Honestly, I think this article is about in the range that would be considered "comprehensive" for FA purposes. It's a bit rambly and redundant in places, but nothing it covers should be omitted completely. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
a percentage of everything that's been written on the guy? I don't think that has been anyone's position in this whole fracas. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
There is no need for haste in splitting an article when it starts getting large. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage. If uncertain, or with high-profile articles, start a discussion on the talkpage regarding the overall topic structure.Moreover, there is already an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article size, and Jacobolus's position has considerable support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
the person, not every single thing [Euler] wrote– You are not at all following my basic point. Describing every single thing Euler wrote would be its own multi-volume encyclopedia, and nobody is coming close to suggesting that here. What I'm talking about is significant areas of research with 10+ papers written through his life, which later spawned centuries of follow-up research but are completely unmentioned or barely mentioned in our current article, but should instead merit at least a paragraph or two.
No person in this world (this is not hyperbole) is going to read a two hour long Wikipedia article ... discourages casual readers– First, this is false on its face: I can guarantee you that somebody is going to not only read an article multiple times any of the lengths we are talking about but will even follow up by examining many of the cited sources for further detail. But even if we grant that nobody would read an article of this length in its entirety, that's besides the point and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how people read Wikipedia and what its purpose is. Someone interested in operator algebras could skip over the part about the atomic bomb. Someone interested in quantum mechanics could skip over the part about game theory. A layperson interested in the general human experience and the concept of "polymaths" might skip all of the specific detail about every aspect of Von Neumann's work. Etc. That is to be expected and entirely fine. Articles should not be written with the expectation of someone reading them straight through in one sitting; that is setting them up for failure before you even start writing. – jacobolus (t) 16:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Once this article is in a somewhat settled state, can we compile a "graveyard" of all of the removed sentences, quotations, and paragraphs someplace? (If so, where would be a good place?) I feel like some of the removed material (including friends' anecdotes, von Neumann's quoted opinions, biographical and technical details, background context, etc.) is encyclopedic, of general interest to people reading about von Neumann, and worth retaining or at least discussing concretely, but it's going to be somewhat tricky for passers-by to manually diff the initial and end versions. – jacobolus (t) 22:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
The discussion has become polarized, so perhaps an alternative take on the question might be in order. The article is certainly long by Wikipedia standards. Biographies do not need to go into great detail on the technical aspects of a subject's work, indeed it's not desirable and we generally don't do it.
I suggest that rather than attempt to copy-edit the article down piecemeal - difficult and time-consuming, and quite likely to create a bad result - we should simply create a set of five (quite long) subsidiary articles, namely John Von Neumann's mathematics achievements (or similar wording), John Von Neumann's physics achievements, John Von Neumann's economics achievements, John Von Neumann's computer science achievements, and John Von Neumann's defense achievements. Each one will contain the whole of the current chapter on its topic, and will be replaced by a brief summary (like an article lead section) with a "main" link to the subsidiary article. This will shorten the parent article very considerably, while not "throwing away" large amounts of text. If colleagues would like this, I'm happy to do the splitting and summarizing. If the answer is yes, please ping me. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail, with SS as an advisory rather than a hard requirement. Moreover the guideline itself cautions that
opinions vary as to what counts as an ideal length; judging the appropriate size depends on the topic and whether it easily lends itself to being split up.I therefore remain resolutely opposed to delisting Good Articles based on a guideline they are not required to comply with.
it's not desirable [to describe scientists' technical work] and we generally don't do it.– It absolutely is desirable, and we should do it wherever possible (while trying to make the presentation as accessible as practical). It significantly improves biographies of technical authors, and readers uninterested in the details can trivially skip over them. Biographies of technical contributors which skip their technical accomplishments do a huge disservice to technically minded readers. – jacobolus (t) 20:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
A highly educated, knowledgeable, motivated reader may comfortably read a 5,000-word featured article to the end. Another reader may struggle through the lead and look at the pictures. A good article will grab the interest of all readers and allow them to learn as much about the subject as they are able and motivated to do. An article may disappoint because it is written well above the reading ability of the reader, because it wrongly assumes the reader is familiar with the subject or field, or because it covers the topic at too basic a level or is not comprehensive.(my emphasis)
|
There have now been no edits for a week here, on the article, and on the talkpage, until today when some were made to edit war off a tag. The article remains full of banal anecdotes, mildly hagiographic fluff, and a claim that von Neumann planted people in the CIA (from snippet view this seems an overinterpretation). The tag removal and lack of editing seem to suggest these are no longer being worked on, so this should probably be delisted and closed. CMD ( talk) 18:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
"longstanding tag, plenty of activity to resolve it so far, more still to do. Verbiage is not grand."It would probably be fairer to say "undefined/unclear goalposts", what counts as "verbiage" or "more still to do"?
$(".mwe-math-element").remove()
to remove all the formulae from the article, you get 15,268 words.
AstonishingTunesAdmirer
連絡
07:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)@ Thebiguglyalien: Since we have far longer articles around, which precise contents do you consider expendable here? Also, what exactly do you mean by "unaddressed maintenance templates"?-- Hildeoc ( talk) 04:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
could be said in a sentence (maybe two)– Again, let's not exaggerate. You can certainly argue that this section is longer than it needs to be, that it should be reorganized or combined elsewhere, or even that it should be removed altogether; however, the claims in question been a significant subject of interest to secondary sources (e.g. an hour-long video biography devoted well over 2 minutes to showing Wigner relate the anecdote there, both directly and especially proportionally more than our article), and the same substantive content cannot be meaningfully addressed in 2 sentences. That is, if you chopped it to "maybe two" sentences you'd be saying something substantially different. Which one is better or more appropriate should be left to consensus of wikipedians working on the page and consideration for the plausible range of reader interest, not decided out of hand based on slavish devotion to numerical criteria. – jacobolus (t) 07:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
it is indicative of a consensus– no it really isn't. It was created in the early 2000s based on technical criteria, edited more or less arbitrarily by a random handful of people in the mean time, and never based on anything more than institutional inertia and having a few defenders who cared enough about it that it wasn't worth the trouble for anyone to mount a large-scale effort to get rid of. This is not anything like "consensus".
readers of this article reading the whole thing– this is not the purpose or even aspiration of encyclopedia articles. – jacobolus (t) 08:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
poor organisation of sections– I agree. This is a problem most obviously addressed by re-organization. Propose away, or go boldly make changes. – jacobolus (t) 12:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, as I had a request to close this discussion, and as I'm making my way through reading the discussion, can someone point to which of the GA criteria is not being met by the article? Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 11:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
There is no need for haste in splitting an article when it starts getting large. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage. If uncertain, or with high-profile articles, start a discussionWe had a discussion, and a proposal was put forward to split off various sections. Each one would contain the whole of the current section on its topic, which would be replaced by a brief summary with a "main" link to the subarticle. However, it was unclear if this had consensus. WP:TOOBIG is never a sufficient reason to split. The "rule of thumb" is arbitrary and itself lacks consensus. The relevant section is currently under review at Wikipedia talk:Article size, and it is pointless to debate it here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2008 listing has some unsourced statements, which would fail criteria 2 of the GACR. There may also be some prose issues, but I am not experienced with weather-related articles. Spinixster (chat!) 10:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lots of uncited text, citation needed tags since March 2017. Z1720 ( talk) 00:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to now think that everything below and including the international career section is now referenced correctly. I'm yet to review the club career section and lead, but I know Jmorrison has already done some work there. Idiosincrático ( talk) 03:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 massive amount of uncited material, including quotes, statistics, and much else; the article is also probably too unfocused at ~11500 words. Thus, violating criteria 2b) and 3b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are a lot of self-published sourced tags and a CN tag. If the citations could be improved, then I think it could be kept as a GA. ❤History Theorist❤ 21:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 contains numerous uncited paragraphs. Z1720 ( talk) 01:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lots of uncited text, "Additional sources needed" banner. Z1720 ( talk) 02:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Depictions in fiction" section has an orange "additional citations needed" banner since Nov 2022, which should be addressed. Z1720 ( talk) 14:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2010 addition has prose problems (most of the text is "Johnson fought this person on a date. He won/lost...") and may also contain unreliable sources/unsourced info. Spinixster (chat!) 02:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 amount of uncited text, including most of the "Planter and naval officer" section. Z1720 ( talk) 14:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing has one citation needed tag and relies on a few self-published/primary/questionable sources, which would fail criteria 2 of the GACR. Spinixster (chat!) 08:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2011 listing has several tags for citations, failed verification, and page numbers needed. Overall, I am not sure this article meets GA criterion 2. Pinging Hog Farm for a subject matter expert's opinion on specific content. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 09:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Inline citations are needed in the "Memorials" (first half), "Legacy" and "In popular culture" sections. Z1720 ( talk) 14:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I removed the unsourced paragraphs added later on that really shouldn't have been in there to begin with. Was that the only issue? I mean that only took me 5 minutes to address not sure if it was worth sending to GAR. Wizardman 00:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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, reassessed in 2009. The article has some unsourced sentences and prose issues. There is 1 citation needed tag. Also, is this actually notable enough for a separate article? I think this could be easily merged with Kapil Dev. Spinixster (chat!) 08:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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, reassessed in 2009. There are many citation needed templates, unsourced statements, and possibly unreliable sources, which means this article fails criteria 2 of the GACR. Spinixster (chat!) 03:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2008 addition has unsourced or badly sourced information (IMDB, etc) which fails criteria 2 of the GACR. Additionally, there may be some WP:CRUFT. Spinixster (chat!) 01:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Many uncited passages and an orange "citations needed" banner on top of the "Other media" section. This is a BLP. Z1720 ( talk) 02:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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. I was going to just tag and wait to see if there's anyone interested in fixing it, but the problems are very jarring. The article is written more like an essay, with weasel wording, non-neutral wording, etc. I have added 24 "citation needed" templates, but I have not done a thorough check of the sources, so there might be even more. It would take a long time to fix the article. Spinixster (chat!) 02:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Indy beetle ( talk) 11:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 addition relies on many IMDB and other self-published sources, which need to be replaced. Spinixster (chat!) 01:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 addition has unsourced or badly sourced information (IMDB, etc) which fails criteria 2 of the GACR. Additionally, there may be some WP:CRUFT. Spinixster (chat!) 01:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Statistics for the school are outdated, citing numbers from 2007 and 2013. History section stops at 2012. Uncited passages are also present throughout the article. Z1720 ( talk) 02:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Later history" section marked with a "needs more sources" banner since October 2022. Other short uncited statements in the article. Z1720 ( talk) 18:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Post-2015 career needs more information and suffers from oversectioning. Uncited text throughout, and "Player profile" might need an update. Z1720 ( talk) 15:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2005 listing contains significant uncited material, violating GA criterion 2. Hopefully an easy fix, if someone has references to hand. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Many uncited paragraphs and the lede can be expanded. Z1720 ( talk) 05:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lots of uncited passages, and the prose in various places in the "Same-sex marriage" section needs to be updated to expand upon the latest statistics listed in the tables. Z1720 ( talk) 05:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 addition relies on many IMDB and other self-published sources, which need to be replaced. Spinixster (chat!) 02:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
← ( Page 72) |
![]() |
( Page 74) → |
The following discussion is closed. 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 2009. There are multiple statements and/or paragraphs that lack sources, and there is no Reception section. Many sources used are unreliable (IMDB, YouTube) or self-published. Needs a lot of work to maintain GA status. Spinixster (chat!) 08:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lots of uncited sections, bloating in the "Recent work" section and updates needed in "Family", "Charity", "Theater" and possibly "Recent work" sections. Z1720 ( talk) 02:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tagged with an "update needed" tag since 2017, the article seems to be missing information about its demolition and is therefore no longer considered comprehensive. Z1720 ( talk) 17:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 was kept as GAR in 2009, but GA standards have improved since then, I don't feel that the article is comprehensive enough to be a GA anymore. Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 16:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article is significantly out of date, with no statistics later than 2008 being cited. Recent reports are freely available online, but a complete overhaul of the article would be required to retain GA status. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A 2011 listing, this article has not been updated in more than a decade. The history and development section, along with the competitive history table and international history, need updates to meet GA criterion 3a). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 11:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 the last ItsLassieTime-related GAR, I promise. This is another situation where the primary author is a banned sockpuppet of the above and had a history of copyvios (see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime) but honestly I'd be sending this here even if that wasn't the case. The traditions and controversies sections almost feel like random picking and choosing and some of it feels a bit like undue weight. A lot of the sources are offline with no page numbers, which normally would not be only a minor issue, but because of the copyright concerns above it makes many of the refs impossible to verify. Wizardman 02:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 promoted in 2008 with this " review". the article contains many unsourced statements, many duly tagged with {{citation needed}}. ltbdl ( talk) 11:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Many uncited passages, not much information post-2015, and formatting concerns with lots of short paragraphs. Z1720 ( talk) 15:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails criteria 2, 3, and 4. The article needs more citations (preferably from secondary sources), it is tagged as needing updates, it goes into excessive detail significantly beyond what is appropriate for the article, and the commentary section uses a non-neutral structure. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 01:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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. The article uses several unreliable sources (IMDB) and some paragraphs aren't formatted correctly, and the Casting section contains unrelated information. I'm also concerned about the sourcing; the reception section is sourced to books that presumably quotes the original reviews instead of the original reviews, though I know it is probably not a good reason to delist. Spinixster (chat!) 08:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Many paragraphs lack references and some are only half-referenced. The subsection "Habit" and the section "Habitat" have no references at all. This is a violation of criterion 2b. The last GAR happened 13 years ago, see Talk:Drosera/GA1. Phlsph7 ( talk) 15:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm requesting reassessment to this GA article. The most pressing things to work out here appear to be removing dead links, addressing the maintenance tag, and modernizing the track map. Chess Eric 18:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Numerous uncited paragraphs, including most of the Notable people section and residences. Demographics section needs an update of the prose, and the history section needs an update of COVID-19 information (and I'd argue that it needs to be expanded to include many more significant events). Z1720 ( talk) 01:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Numerous uncited passages, including the entire "2014 and 2015 reform acts" section. Z1720 ( talk) 02:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails criteria 1, 3, and 4. The lead section is far too long for the article length and includes a random paragraph (with typos) about an alumni who was convicted of corruption in Malaysia. Additionally, the history section needs significant reorganization. It also appears that the article isn't up to date, as the last dated event in the article is hiring a new headmaster in 2019. Finally, there's a fair amount of PEACOCKing. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 02:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Only four sources in the whole article? Seems like a massive 3A/3B failure. Also it skips from antiquity to the 20th century without hinting much at the in-betweens. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 06:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
@ WP:GAR coordinators: please close. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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. Article suffers from a lack of citations and a lack of expansion post-2007. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 23:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Many uncited statements, and questionable sources such as IMDB and history.com. Z1720 ( talk) 02:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Numerous uncited sections. I also think the amount and length of block quotes should be reduced. Z1720 ( talk) 15:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails 1a (concision) and 3b (unnecessary detail). This article has ballooned up to 19,000 words. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 07:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At over 14,000 words, this article can probably be trimmed. The "Personal life" section is excessively long, and the "History" section gives too much weight to more recent events. Some sources should be removed (IMDB, Gawker) while others should be reevaluated for inclusion. Z1720 ( talk) 01:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Several unsourced sections, including almost the entire "Components of a postal code" section. Z1720 ( talk) 21:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Uncited sections and use of unreliable sources like onlineworldofwrestling and Wrestle Zone. Z1720 ( talk) 00:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 reliant on unreliable sources, and with many citation needed tags, this 2008 listing violates GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 are many parts without sources or uses unreliable/primary sources. For instance, many claims in the Reception section are sourced to primary sources or none at all. I also see a lot of WP:CRUFT. Would need a lot of work to maintain GA status. Spinixster (chat!) 09:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Multiple uncited paragraphs, IMDB and Online World of Wrestling sources need to be replaced. Z1720 ( talk) 01:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Numerous uncited sections, including whole paragraphs. Fox News sources might need to be replaced with different, more reputable sources per WP:FOXNEWS. Z1720 ( talk) 01:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing has two problems:
There is currently a debate within the osteopathic community over the feasibility of maintaining osteopathic medicine as a distinct entity within US health caresourced to nine citations, none later than 2008;
The president of the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine commented on the current climate of crisis within the professionsourced to a 2009 source;
However, the proportion of osteopathic students choosing primary care fields, like that of their MD peers, is declining. Currently, only one in five osteopathic medical students enters a family medicine residency (the largest primary care field)sourced to two sources from 2005). The article also talks about how this change was very recent (in 2007):
In 2004, only 32% of osteopathic seniors planned careers in any primary care field; this percentage was down from a peak in 1996 of more than 50%.
The article says about 20% of DOs go into family medicine; if that is still true, then the article is accurate and neutral regardless of whether the little blue clicky number leads you to a source from ten years ago or ten hours ago.Sure. Is it true? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 08:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Personally, I would keep GA status. The needed revisions seems minor, but should be addressed. Rytyho usa ( talk) 16:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 uncited material, while the existing references are predominantly from 2011 or earlier; thus several sections are out of date, and GA criterion 3a is violated. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2010. The article still holds up quite well as a description of the state in 2010/2011 and events leading up to 2010. However, there have been only the most cursory updates since then. Recent developments (of which there were quite a few) are only covered briefly, which provides a marked contrast to the extensive (still good) descriptions of earlier parts. Therefore, the article no longer fulfils GA criterias 1 and 3 for its subject. GeorgR (de) ( talk) 15:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 (promoted nearly 15 years ago) is out of date and missing substantial information. For example, there are systematic reviews of the drugs' potential in asthma and arthritis both of which are barely mentioned in the article. None of the article's sources are more recent than 2015, while clinical trials of these drugs are ongoing as of 2023. ( t · c) buidhe 09:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Responding to a GAR request from buidhe on July 29, 2023. I see numerous uncited passages, multiple citation needed tags, inappropriate external links in the body. This is sufficient in my mind to justify listing for reassessment. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 22:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lots of uncited prose, including almost the entire "Worship and devotees" section. Z1720 ( talk) 02:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails criteria 2 and 3: the article needs more citations (preferably from secondary sources), and it goes into excessive detail significantly beyond what is appropriate for the article. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 01:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per multiple maintenance tags and other issues. Use of lists and tables may be excessive in some areas. The versions section resembles a WP:CHANGELOG at certain points. The applications section needs to be reorganized or rewritten. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 07:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
10:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Recommendation: Major revisions needed to retain GA status.
The topic
HDMI is certainly an important one. However, it appears that the article has grown somewhat haphazardly since it first passed the Good Article criteria in 2008 without paying enough attention to being useful to the non-technical reader. There are also some issues that were identified when it failed a Feature Article nomination in 2009 which have not been addressed. Further It has a few issues that editors have identified in the current version which have not been addressed such as information about FRL, Personal computers and one citation needed. There are also many statements which are not sourced, or use low-reputation sources.
A little history. The Good Article review was on 27 June 2008
here. At that time it was 51,666 bytes, ~3500 words, and 91 references The article was fairly tight and passed without any comments.
It was nominated as a Feature Article which was declined 28 November 2009,
this version. At that time it was 76,238 bytes, ~4500 words and 141 references.
A key comment at that time was “The main problem is that it is overfull of facts and doesn't explain (to the general reader) how and why…I think the article needs a fairly radical overhaul to make it an engaging read and focus more on getting the point across rather than bare facts.“
The current version as of October 2nd 2023 is 180,638 bytes, ~12,000 words with 225 references.
It appears that nothing has been done to remedy the issue identified in 2009. There is a clear issue with too much detail
WP:NOTEVERYTHING,
WP:NOTGUIDE could also be relevant, and too much detail about updates
WP:NOTCHANGELOG. As noted in the earlier FA review, it fails the GA Well-written criteria as it is too technical and needs at least an introduction for a non-technical audience
WP:TECHNICAL. There are many cases it seems to go into unnecessary detail
WP:SS.
What appears to have happened is that more sections have been added, with no significant rethinking of this as an encyclopedic article. Many sections read as a depository of technical information which should be elsewhere. Examples of this include
HDMI#Cables. There are also many sections which have lengthy descriptions which are poorly sourced and whose utility is unclear. For instance in the Blue Ray section the paragraph that starts with “Blu-ray permits” makes many statements without citations whose relevance is unclear.
When I do a quick Google Scholar search I find many refereed articles. However, I do not find many refereed high reputation sources in this article. For certain Press Releases and Blogs are not high reputation and should not be used. A non-exhaustive list of marginal sources is:
A few specifics:
Ldm1954 ( talk) 12:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Similarly to Quatermass (TV serial), this 2010 addition has some major sourcing and prose problems. Casting section contains unrelated and badly sourced information, there are two (!) production sections, some parts are not sourced or badly sourced. Spinixster (chat!) 06:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tagged with an "update needed" banner for five years, more recent information needs to be added. Z1720 ( talk) 18:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 missing post-2013 information. Z1720 ( talk) 18:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails 1a (concision) and 3b (unnecessary detail). At nearly 15,000 words, this article likely needs to be reduced in size by as much as 50% before it can be reasonably expected to meet the GA criteria. Though this is not a GA requirement, WP:INDISCRIMINATE is also relevant. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 07:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
The first paragraph of every match summary is a previewno it's not. The organisational changes section is quite concise for what it covers. It is also comprehensive in the sense that it covers virtually all departures and arrivals of coaches and staff. Just because a coach is red linked that does not make him non-notable. I would agree that a table could complement the arrival and departures section, but this is not a necessity for GAs. I've cut down the draft section but have left the commentary as I think it's relevant. Willbb234 16:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Multiple cases of missing citations/unsourced content and need for greater comprehensiveness on topic (particularly in certain sections). May also need some updating (neither the History nor Health sections talk about the COVID-19 pandemic, which I think should be mentioned and definitely has RS on). General cleanup and miscellaneous work is also needed in many sections. Dan the Animator 07:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm responding to the request made by User:Catfurball back in September. [2] The current version has unsourced material and sources that can't be traced back, either because the reference information is entirely wrong or something else. This is true for Adventist Review, which the freely available archives do not support by the date, volume, title, or issue listed, so there are issues with the referencing. Viriditas ( talk) 01:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am seriously surprised that this article passed GA review. It has two major issues. First, the article is frequently far too vague, just saying that things exist without providing any further information on them or even naming examples. Second, the article has a severe bias towards the US. This goes far beyond the examples for things nearly always being American - very frequently the article presents US-specific information as though it applied worldwide. I can go through the article point by point with my criticisms if necessary. Eldomtom2 ( talk) 16:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Here's a list of some of the issues the article has that I could find from a quick scan. This is not an exhaustive list by any stretch of the imagination.
"Since the 1970s, governments, environmentalists, and train advocates have promoted increased use of trains due to their greater fuel efficiency and lower greenhouse gas emissions compared to other modes of land transport." - not keen on this sentence because it implies that the 1970s onwards saw a sudden surge of support for rail transport, which isn't the case
"Another German inventor, Rudolf Diesel, constructed the first diesel engine in the 1890s, though the potential of his invention to power trains was not realized until decades later" - the first diesel locomotives were built in the early 1910s, so this phrasing is misleading
"Intermodal freight trains, carrying double-stack shipping containers, have since the 1970s generated significant business for railroads and gained market share from trucks." - Significant US bias. Double-stack freight trains are nearly exclusive to America and India and intermodal freight trains do not require the use of double-stacked containers
"Increased use of commuter rail has also been promoted as a means of fighting traffic congestion on highways in urban areas" - I'm fairly certain a lot of people who support increased use of commuter rail want to reduce the usage of cars even when there isn't much congestion
"Trains can be sorted into types based on whether they haul passengers or freight (though mixed trains which haul both exist), by their weight (heavy rail for regular trains, light rail for lighter rapid transit systems), by their speed, and by what form of track they use. Conventional trains operate on two rails, but several other types of track systems are also in use around the world." -this entire paragraph is just a mess that says pretty much nothing
"The railway terminology that is used to describe a train varies between countries. The two primary systems of terminology are International Union of Railways terms in much of the world, and Association of American Railroads terms in North America." - as noted this failed verification, and has obvious issues on its face - what terms are used in East Asia, for instance?
"Early trains could only be stopped by manually applied hand brakes, requiring workers to ride on top of the cars and apply the brakes when the train went downhill" - First, this is inaccurate - steam trains can also be stopped by going into reverse and thus making steam push against the pistons and slow them down. Second, this is another example of severe US bias - many countries had different methods of controlling unbraked trains that did not involve workers riding on the top of the train and applying the handbrakes.
"Train vehicles are linked to one another by various systems of coupling. In much of Europe, India, and South America, trains primarily use buffers and chain couplers. In the rest of the world, Janney couplers are the most popular, with a few local variations persisting (such as Wilson couplers in the former Soviet Union).[31]" - More US bias. It would be better if the article didn't mention Janney couplers at all and just talked about automatic couplers generally.
"but the predominant braking system for trains globally is air brakes, invented in 1869 by George Westinghouse.[failed verification] Air brakes are applied at once to the entire train using air hoses.[32]" - no mention of vacuum brakes, which while never as widespread as air brakes were common enough to deserve a mention
"To prevent collisions or other accidents, trains are often scheduled, and almost always are under the control of train dispatchers.[38] Historically, trains operated based on timetables; most trains (including nearly all passenger trains), continue to operate based on fixed schedules, though freight trains may instead run on an as-needed basis, or when enough freight cars are available to justify running a train.[39]" - only citations are US sources and thus reflects a US idea of freight trains
"Train drivers, also known as engineers, are responsible for operating trains.[43] Conductors are in charge of trains and their cargo, and help passengers on passenger trains.[43] Brakeman, also known as trainmen, were historically responsible for manually applying brakes, though the term is used today to refer to crew members who perform tasks such as operating switches, coupling and uncoupling train cars, and setting handbrakes on equipment.[43] Steam locomotives require a fireman who is responsible for fueling and regulating the locomotive's fire and boiler.[43] On passenger trains, other crew members assist passengers, such as chefs to prepare food, and service attendants to provide food and drinks to passengers. Other passenger train specific duties include passenger car attendants, who assist passengers with boarding and alighting from trains, answer questions, and keep train cars clean, and sleeping car attendants, who perform similar duties in sleeping cars.[43]" - this entire paragraph uses a single US source and is therefore heavily US-biased - for starters, many trains do not have conductors and thus the driver/engieer is "in charge" of the train.
"Trains also need to fit within the loading gauge profile to avoid fouling bridges and lineside infrastructure with this being a potential limiting factor on loads such as intermodal container types that may be carried." - doesn't explicitly explain what loading gauge is
"Modern trains have a very good safety record overall, comparable with air travel.[49]" - source only discusses US
"The vast majority of train-related fatalities, over 90 percent, are due to trespassing on railroad tracks, or collisions with road vehicles at level crossings.[52] Organizations such as Operation Lifesaver have been formed to improve safety awareness at railroad crossings, and governments have also launched ad campaigns. Trains cannot stop quickly when at speed; even an emergency brake application may still require more than a mile of stopping distance. As such, emphasis is on educating motorists to yield to trains at crossings and avoid trespassing.[53]" - First, the figure given for the majority of train fatalities being trespass-related is a US one and thus the figure only applies to the US. Second, this gives the false impression that educational campaigns are the only way to reduce crossing fatalities and does not give any attention to methods such as grade separation
"Diesel locomotives are powered with a diesel engine, which generates electricity to drive traction motors. This is known as a diesel–electric transmission, and is used on almost all diesels" - no mention of other transmissions - diesel-mechanical and diesel-hydraulic transmissions are common enough to deserve a mention
"Train cars, also known as wagons, are unpowered rail vehicles which are typically pulled by locomotives. Many different types exist, specialized to handle various types of cargo. Some common types include boxcars (also known as covered goods wagons) that carry a wide variety of cargo, flatcars (also known as flat wagons) which have flat tops to hold cargo, hopper cars which carry bulk commodities, and tank cars which carry liquids and gases. Examples of more specialized types of train cars include bottle cars which hold molten steel,[63] Schnabel cars which handle very heavy loads, and refrigerator cars which carry perishable goods.[64][65]" - for some reason the "Train car" section solely talks about freight cars
"Long distance passenger trains travel over hundreds or even thousands of miles between cities. The longest passenger train service in the world is Russia's Trans-Siberian Railway between Moscow and Vladivostok, a distance of 9,289 kilometers (5,772 mi).[67] In general, long distance trains may take days to complete their journeys, and stop at dozens of stations along their routes. For many rural communities, they are the only form of public transportation available.[68] Short distance or regional passenger trains have travel times measured in hours or even minutes, as opposed to days. They run more frequently than long distance trains, and are often used by commuters. Short distance passenger trains specifically designed for commuters are known as commuter rail.[69]" - The article completely ignores the existence of trains that cover long distances but have travel times measured in hours - i.e. what is generally called "intercity" rail
""Metro" may also refer to rapid transit that operates at ground level." - this is just a nonsense sentence. The article should just say that "metro" and "rapid transit" mean pretty much the same thing
"Light rail is a catchall term for a variety of systems, which may include characteristics of trams, passenger trains, and rapid transit systems." - another example of the article being so vague as to say absolutely nothing
"Longer freight trains typically operate between classification yards, while local trains provide freight service between yards and individual loading and unloading points along railroad lines.[87]" - US centric again - in some countries unit trains are the sole type of freight train operating-- Eldomtom2 ( talk) 18:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Eldomtom2 was good enough to notify me of this GAR and furthermore I am aware of WP:AGF and fully support this guideline. Nevertheless, I am sure everyone will understand that I feel the need to make a comment on the quality of the review I conducted. Even on a cursory level I would argue that it can easily be seen that I interrogated and analysed the article in a high level of detail in comparison to some Good Article Reviews which are almost nodded through. Secondly, some of the issues being discussed above were discussed as part of that review; for example the issue of it being US-centric. On that point - some of the examples above are not a reason for removing GA status. For example "First, the figure given for the majority of train fatalities being trespass-related is a US one and thus the figure only applies to the US" is a bit disigenious; would a reference and example from another part of the world be preferable? Of course. But that doesn't negate the data completely and it gives an indication that is useful for the topic of the paragraph.
For some of the comments above, I would draw your attention to criteria 3b which states that the article must "stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." Some of the comments (for me as a non-expert) are getting into minutiae on the subject. But I am not interested in getting into a debate on that as I have admitted that I am not an expert on the subject.
Having said all that, I will of course check back in on the final result of this discussion and take whatever learnings I can for GA reviews. Mark83 ( talk) 12:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 a readable prose size of ~23500, not counting 9,000+ words of notes, image captions, quotes, and tables, this article clearly violates criterion 3b) of the GACR. To remain a GA, this article needs to undergo a large amount of cleanup, with a particular emphasis on summary style. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 13:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadingsin the
{{
Very long}}
template literally.
Charcoal feather (
talk)
19:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article. Charcoal feather ( talk) 14:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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's information is supported by three cited sources. Whilst the article is well-written and three sources is sufficient for general notability, the fairly large sourcing limitations make it difficult to assess that the article is capable of providing broad coverage or giving appropriate weight to its sources. VRXCES ( talk) 06:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Much like the case of Quatermass and the Pit (film), this 2009 addition has some major sourcing and prose problems. Casting section contains unrelated information, many parts, such as the first two paragraphs of the Production section, are not sourced or badly sourced. Spinixster (chat!) 01:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 addition has several unsourced paragraphs, especially in the Broadcast format section, which would fail criteria 2 of the GACR. Spinixster (chat!) 09:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Last year, I nominated this article for GA and it was rightfully quickfailed. After another (albeit small) revision, it passed another review in May of this year. I have since become a much more experienced editor, and after re-reading through this upon an inquiry on the talk page, I do not believe this aligns with the GA criteria. There's a lack of page numbers on many sources in the history section, there's little independent coverage of the subjects discussed under arts and culture, and the reliability of numerous sources is questionable (e.g. RateBeer.com, Encyclopedia of Alabama, Tennessee Valley Civil War Round Table, etc). This article fails criteria points 2b and 3a. MyCatIsAChonk ( talk) ( not me) ( also not me) ( still no) 14:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 sourcing here is terrible, a definite compromise to the article's quality:
This article was promoted in 2012 and clearly shows it due to a lack of maintenance, poor source choices, and linkrot.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 addition has unsourced or badly sourced information (IMDB, Getty Images, etc) which fails criteria 2 of the GACR. Spinixster (chat!) 13:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Numerous uncited sections, 17th-century section tagged with "additional citations needed" banner since 2020, post-2018 information needs to be added, and 21st-century information needs to be expanded. Z1720 ( talk) 02:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 was listed as GA in 2014. It is well written, but the structure of the article does not conform to the MOS. This diverts a clearer focus on information about the gameplay and reception of the title. VRXCES ( talk) 06:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 uses IMDB numerous times as a source for biographical information: these will need to be verified by another source and replaced. Z1720 ( talk) 22:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 that no longer meets the criteria. Significant amounts of text are uncited, and the more recent season sections with the exception of 2015 are quite under-developed. Hog Farm Talk 03:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 NPOV issues and changes since article was reviewed 13yrs ago. // Timothy :: talk 23:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails criteria 1a (concision) and 3b (excessive detail). It appears that this article attempts to compile everything ever written about the man, and it may be one of the longest articles on Wikipedia by word count. A few hundred more words, and this article will be longer than The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway. Significant trimming and summarization are required. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 07:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
compile everything ever written about the man– This is either a joke or you have no idea how much has been written about Von Neumann. This article seems excellent and it would be a crying shame to dramatically chop it apart just for the sake of jumping through artificial bureaucratic hoops. The biographical section is of appropriate length, and the technical sections are an extremely compressed summary of Von Neumann's work.... it's just that the man single handedly invented like 10 different brand new fields of study and his work output was incredible by the standards of ordinary humans. It's wonderful that Wikipedia dives into at least a tiny bit of detail about these instead of hand waving them away. Let the bureaucrats take away the little green badge if they must, but if any busybodies try "significant trimming and summarization" on this basis without first getting complete support from whichever dedicated authors originally wrote this article, I would recommend vigorously fighting such changes. (Disclaimer: I have never tried to look at this article before today, but am a big fan of Von Neumann.) – jacobolus (t) 07:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
either get to work on the problems ... or raise them on the article talk page. I've put the second disjunct in italics to help you focus. Read more attentively next time. E Eng 17:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
unfortunately radical cuts are needed– I would urge you to abandon this as your starting point; as a fundamental criterion it is vanishihngly unlikely to lead to the best outcome, not only because it leads you to read the article in a motivated rather than dispassionate way while editing, but also because it frames any discussion about the changes as an unavoidable conflict rather than a truth- and consensus-seeking conversation. To make this more concretely productive, rather than "perform sufficiently radical cuts", some alternative goals might be: "the organization should be clear to readers without miscellaneous topics mashed together incoherently", "the same material should not be split apart and repeated several times", "the article should fairly characterize the subject's prowess without fawning over him", "the level of detail in each section should be reasonably consistent with the topic's importance to the subject's life and impact", "the article should try to show readers through concrete claims rather than telling them what to think", etc. Some of these goals might lead to cutting, combining, or reorganizing sections; summarizing material and leaving detailed discussion to the cited sources; replacing quotations with paraphrases, or the like. But the goals should be structured with reader benefit in mind, rather than just some absolute word count target. – jacobolus (t) 07:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
It can be very helpful to think in terms of radical cuts ("what content can be moved to a subarticle?", "how can I condense this by a factor of three?") to force yourself to actually perform the re-organisation you suggest.Maybe this has helped someone, but I have never in decades of scientific writing found the pursuit of an arbitrary ratio to be useful. Killing darlings just for the sake of it is merely being bloodthirsty. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
bogged down with detailanyway. My point is that this all just sounds like cutting for the sake of cutting, before any informed judgments are made. But if that's what green checkmarks and gold stars are really about, well, OK: no more GAR's or FA saves for me. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
A page of about 10,000 words takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is close to the attention span of most readers. Understanding of standard texts at average reading speed is around 65%. At 10,000 words it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style. Articles are not exempt from editing guidelines because we think they're really really important. And if you think that your interpretation of "comprehensive" in regard to FA is correct, then I implore you to go over there and start challenging featured article candidates that don't meet it. I guarantee you that none of them will. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 17:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
occasional exceptions may apply, just like for any other guideline. So, yes, being
really really importantcan be a valid reason for an article to be longer. Honestly, I think this article is about in the range that would be considered "comprehensive" for FA purposes. It's a bit rambly and redundant in places, but nothing it covers should be omitted completely. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
a percentage of everything that's been written on the guy? I don't think that has been anyone's position in this whole fracas. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
There is no need for haste in splitting an article when it starts getting large. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage. If uncertain, or with high-profile articles, start a discussion on the talkpage regarding the overall topic structure.Moreover, there is already an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article size, and Jacobolus's position has considerable support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
the person, not every single thing [Euler] wrote– You are not at all following my basic point. Describing every single thing Euler wrote would be its own multi-volume encyclopedia, and nobody is coming close to suggesting that here. What I'm talking about is significant areas of research with 10+ papers written through his life, which later spawned centuries of follow-up research but are completely unmentioned or barely mentioned in our current article, but should instead merit at least a paragraph or two.
No person in this world (this is not hyperbole) is going to read a two hour long Wikipedia article ... discourages casual readers– First, this is false on its face: I can guarantee you that somebody is going to not only read an article multiple times any of the lengths we are talking about but will even follow up by examining many of the cited sources for further detail. But even if we grant that nobody would read an article of this length in its entirety, that's besides the point and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how people read Wikipedia and what its purpose is. Someone interested in operator algebras could skip over the part about the atomic bomb. Someone interested in quantum mechanics could skip over the part about game theory. A layperson interested in the general human experience and the concept of "polymaths" might skip all of the specific detail about every aspect of Von Neumann's work. Etc. That is to be expected and entirely fine. Articles should not be written with the expectation of someone reading them straight through in one sitting; that is setting them up for failure before you even start writing. – jacobolus (t) 16:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Once this article is in a somewhat settled state, can we compile a "graveyard" of all of the removed sentences, quotations, and paragraphs someplace? (If so, where would be a good place?) I feel like some of the removed material (including friends' anecdotes, von Neumann's quoted opinions, biographical and technical details, background context, etc.) is encyclopedic, of general interest to people reading about von Neumann, and worth retaining or at least discussing concretely, but it's going to be somewhat tricky for passers-by to manually diff the initial and end versions. – jacobolus (t) 22:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
The discussion has become polarized, so perhaps an alternative take on the question might be in order. The article is certainly long by Wikipedia standards. Biographies do not need to go into great detail on the technical aspects of a subject's work, indeed it's not desirable and we generally don't do it.
I suggest that rather than attempt to copy-edit the article down piecemeal - difficult and time-consuming, and quite likely to create a bad result - we should simply create a set of five (quite long) subsidiary articles, namely John Von Neumann's mathematics achievements (or similar wording), John Von Neumann's physics achievements, John Von Neumann's economics achievements, John Von Neumann's computer science achievements, and John Von Neumann's defense achievements. Each one will contain the whole of the current chapter on its topic, and will be replaced by a brief summary (like an article lead section) with a "main" link to the subsidiary article. This will shorten the parent article very considerably, while not "throwing away" large amounts of text. If colleagues would like this, I'm happy to do the splitting and summarizing. If the answer is yes, please ping me. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail, with SS as an advisory rather than a hard requirement. Moreover the guideline itself cautions that
opinions vary as to what counts as an ideal length; judging the appropriate size depends on the topic and whether it easily lends itself to being split up.I therefore remain resolutely opposed to delisting Good Articles based on a guideline they are not required to comply with.
it's not desirable [to describe scientists' technical work] and we generally don't do it.– It absolutely is desirable, and we should do it wherever possible (while trying to make the presentation as accessible as practical). It significantly improves biographies of technical authors, and readers uninterested in the details can trivially skip over them. Biographies of technical contributors which skip their technical accomplishments do a huge disservice to technically minded readers. – jacobolus (t) 20:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
A highly educated, knowledgeable, motivated reader may comfortably read a 5,000-word featured article to the end. Another reader may struggle through the lead and look at the pictures. A good article will grab the interest of all readers and allow them to learn as much about the subject as they are able and motivated to do. An article may disappoint because it is written well above the reading ability of the reader, because it wrongly assumes the reader is familiar with the subject or field, or because it covers the topic at too basic a level or is not comprehensive.(my emphasis)
|
There have now been no edits for a week here, on the article, and on the talkpage, until today when some were made to edit war off a tag. The article remains full of banal anecdotes, mildly hagiographic fluff, and a claim that von Neumann planted people in the CIA (from snippet view this seems an overinterpretation). The tag removal and lack of editing seem to suggest these are no longer being worked on, so this should probably be delisted and closed. CMD ( talk) 18:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
"longstanding tag, plenty of activity to resolve it so far, more still to do. Verbiage is not grand."It would probably be fairer to say "undefined/unclear goalposts", what counts as "verbiage" or "more still to do"?
$(".mwe-math-element").remove()
to remove all the formulae from the article, you get 15,268 words.
AstonishingTunesAdmirer
連絡
07:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)@ Thebiguglyalien: Since we have far longer articles around, which precise contents do you consider expendable here? Also, what exactly do you mean by "unaddressed maintenance templates"?-- Hildeoc ( talk) 04:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
could be said in a sentence (maybe two)– Again, let's not exaggerate. You can certainly argue that this section is longer than it needs to be, that it should be reorganized or combined elsewhere, or even that it should be removed altogether; however, the claims in question been a significant subject of interest to secondary sources (e.g. an hour-long video biography devoted well over 2 minutes to showing Wigner relate the anecdote there, both directly and especially proportionally more than our article), and the same substantive content cannot be meaningfully addressed in 2 sentences. That is, if you chopped it to "maybe two" sentences you'd be saying something substantially different. Which one is better or more appropriate should be left to consensus of wikipedians working on the page and consideration for the plausible range of reader interest, not decided out of hand based on slavish devotion to numerical criteria. – jacobolus (t) 07:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
it is indicative of a consensus– no it really isn't. It was created in the early 2000s based on technical criteria, edited more or less arbitrarily by a random handful of people in the mean time, and never based on anything more than institutional inertia and having a few defenders who cared enough about it that it wasn't worth the trouble for anyone to mount a large-scale effort to get rid of. This is not anything like "consensus".
readers of this article reading the whole thing– this is not the purpose or even aspiration of encyclopedia articles. – jacobolus (t) 08:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
poor organisation of sections– I agree. This is a problem most obviously addressed by re-organization. Propose away, or go boldly make changes. – jacobolus (t) 12:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, as I had a request to close this discussion, and as I'm making my way through reading the discussion, can someone point to which of the GA criteria is not being met by the article? Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 11:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
There is no need for haste in splitting an article when it starts getting large. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage. If uncertain, or with high-profile articles, start a discussionWe had a discussion, and a proposal was put forward to split off various sections. Each one would contain the whole of the current section on its topic, which would be replaced by a brief summary with a "main" link to the subarticle. However, it was unclear if this had consensus. WP:TOOBIG is never a sufficient reason to split. The "rule of thumb" is arbitrary and itself lacks consensus. The relevant section is currently under review at Wikipedia talk:Article size, and it is pointless to debate it here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2008 listing has some unsourced statements, which would fail criteria 2 of the GACR. There may also be some prose issues, but I am not experienced with weather-related articles. Spinixster (chat!) 10:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lots of uncited text, citation needed tags since March 2017. Z1720 ( talk) 00:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to now think that everything below and including the international career section is now referenced correctly. I'm yet to review the club career section and lead, but I know Jmorrison has already done some work there. Idiosincrático ( talk) 03:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 massive amount of uncited material, including quotes, statistics, and much else; the article is also probably too unfocused at ~11500 words. Thus, violating criteria 2b) and 3b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are a lot of self-published sourced tags and a CN tag. If the citations could be improved, then I think it could be kept as a GA. ❤History Theorist❤ 21:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 contains numerous uncited paragraphs. Z1720 ( talk) 01:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lots of uncited text, "Additional sources needed" banner. Z1720 ( talk) 02:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Depictions in fiction" section has an orange "additional citations needed" banner since Nov 2022, which should be addressed. Z1720 ( talk) 14:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2010 addition has prose problems (most of the text is "Johnson fought this person on a date. He won/lost...") and may also contain unreliable sources/unsourced info. Spinixster (chat!) 02:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 amount of uncited text, including most of the "Planter and naval officer" section. Z1720 ( talk) 14:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing has one citation needed tag and relies on a few self-published/primary/questionable sources, which would fail criteria 2 of the GACR. Spinixster (chat!) 08:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2011 listing has several tags for citations, failed verification, and page numbers needed. Overall, I am not sure this article meets GA criterion 2. Pinging Hog Farm for a subject matter expert's opinion on specific content. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 09:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Inline citations are needed in the "Memorials" (first half), "Legacy" and "In popular culture" sections. Z1720 ( talk) 14:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I removed the unsourced paragraphs added later on that really shouldn't have been in there to begin with. Was that the only issue? I mean that only took me 5 minutes to address not sure if it was worth sending to GAR. Wizardman 00:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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, reassessed in 2009. The article has some unsourced sentences and prose issues. There is 1 citation needed tag. Also, is this actually notable enough for a separate article? I think this could be easily merged with Kapil Dev. Spinixster (chat!) 08:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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, reassessed in 2009. There are many citation needed templates, unsourced statements, and possibly unreliable sources, which means this article fails criteria 2 of the GACR. Spinixster (chat!) 03:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2008 addition has unsourced or badly sourced information (IMDB, etc) which fails criteria 2 of the GACR. Additionally, there may be some WP:CRUFT. Spinixster (chat!) 01:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Many uncited passages and an orange "citations needed" banner on top of the "Other media" section. This is a BLP. Z1720 ( talk) 02:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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. I was going to just tag and wait to see if there's anyone interested in fixing it, but the problems are very jarring. The article is written more like an essay, with weasel wording, non-neutral wording, etc. I have added 24 "citation needed" templates, but I have not done a thorough check of the sources, so there might be even more. It would take a long time to fix the article. Spinixster (chat!) 02:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Indy beetle ( talk) 11:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 addition relies on many IMDB and other self-published sources, which need to be replaced. Spinixster (chat!) 01:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 addition has unsourced or badly sourced information (IMDB, etc) which fails criteria 2 of the GACR. Additionally, there may be some WP:CRUFT. Spinixster (chat!) 01:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Statistics for the school are outdated, citing numbers from 2007 and 2013. History section stops at 2012. Uncited passages are also present throughout the article. Z1720 ( talk) 02:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Later history" section marked with a "needs more sources" banner since October 2022. Other short uncited statements in the article. Z1720 ( talk) 18:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Post-2015 career needs more information and suffers from oversectioning. Uncited text throughout, and "Player profile" might need an update. Z1720 ( talk) 15:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2005 listing contains significant uncited material, violating GA criterion 2. Hopefully an easy fix, if someone has references to hand. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Many uncited paragraphs and the lede can be expanded. Z1720 ( talk) 05:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lots of uncited passages, and the prose in various places in the "Same-sex marriage" section needs to be updated to expand upon the latest statistics listed in the tables. Z1720 ( talk) 05:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 addition relies on many IMDB and other self-published sources, which need to be replaced. Spinixster (chat!) 02:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)