← ( Page 74) | Good article reassessment (archive) | ( Page 76) → |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
201 words for a GA, with a uncited sentence. GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 08:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Too short for a GA. GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 08:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Short for a GA. failing a criterion I think? GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 08:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Most of the material in the lead sentence is uncited. failing GA criterion 2b GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 14:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 not been adequately updated for many years now, and as a consequence contains significant uncited material. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 not been adequately updated since its promotion, and as a result, there is significant uncited material throughout the article.
There is also an advertisement tag in the "Services" section, and the "History" section is very biased towards the airline's earlier years. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2006 listing contains massive amounts of uncited material, meaning the article does not meet GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2006 listing contains significant uncited material, possibly verging on original research GA criteria 2b) and 2c). Even in 2007, a reviewer felt it did not meet the GA criteria. It also relies heavily on primary, not secondary, sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Most of this 2007 listing is missing inline citations, and thus it is very far away from GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 16:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 multiple unsourced claims and, quite possibly, original research. Spinixster (chat!) 02:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A 2007 promotion that survived the 2009 sweeps but is listed on the 2023 sweeps listing. Several uncited sections have accreted, and I am also concerned that not all of the various carfan websites cited would meet modern reliability standards. Hog Farm Talk 21:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2006 with a very limited review by today's standards. As the article stands today, I have concerns about its compliance with criteria 1b, 2b, and 2d.
1b: The lead of the article is not a summary of the body, as is required by MOS:LEAD. Much of the content of the lead does not appear in the body at all (e.g. the Spartan pyrrhichios is not discussed in the body; the claim that "tribalism ... usually gives rise to such folk dances" does not appear in the body). I also see aesthetic claims about specific dances made in Wikipedia's voice in violation of MOS:WTW, e.g. the sword dance Choliya "has a very beautiful and graceful form"; "The Jerusema ... is an interesting kind of hybrid war dance".
2b: I count fifteen paragraphs in the body which do not end with a citation. At least one specific claim, that Morris dance commemorates battles between Christians and Muslims between the 12th and 15th century, I am actively sceptical of. I also found one claim which does not seem to appear in the cited source: "A sub-type of the Khattak Wal Atanrh known as the Braghoni involves the use of up to three swords and requires great skill to successfully execute".
2d: This from the first source I checked; I would consider this too-close paraphrasing if I found it when reviewing an article:
Article | Source |
---|---|
In a few isolated sections of Europe, a rather savage male combat dance survives. In the villages of the Transylvania Alps and Carpathian mountains, before Twelfth Night and Whitsunday, nine men from nine villages assemble for the Joc de căluşari or căluş, a rite of initiation. The men engage in fierce battle with sticks, which used to be bloody and sometimes fatal. | Another kind of round dance survives in a few isolated sections of Mid-Europe and is gradually disappearing. It forms a part of the magic rites of brotherhoods who have gone through an ordeal of initiation. The most savage of these is the Roumanian Joe de Calusari 'horse-play' in villages of the Transylvania Alps and Carpathian mountains. Before Twelfth Night and Whitsunday nine men assemble from nine neighboring villages. They are initiated by a leader into the mystical gestures and figures of their dance; and they put on belled boots and ribboned hats and take an oath under a sword. In some villages they blacken their faces. Their troop includes a masked fool, a goat-masker, a transvestite, and a standard-bearer with a decorated pole surmounted by a horse's head. The men leap about wildly in a circle around the fool or lean on the sticks in their hands. With the sticks they engage in fierce battle, formerly bloody and even fatal. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Procedural GAR following merge. CMD ( talk) 07:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 large sections of uncited information. Z1720 ( talk) 22:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 uncited statements and an overreliance of blockquotes. Z1720 ( talk) 22:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 contains significant uncited material and thus does not meet GA criterion 2b); at well over 11,000 words, it is likely also excessively detailed and violating criterion 3b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 16:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is just 193 words long, making it the shortest GA by word count.
Problems I noted with this article include but are not limited to:
Just in case anyone is unaware, GAR is not AfD; this discussion is only about whether an article meets the GA criteria. Any arguments based on notability are at the wrong place; as far as I am aware, there is no rule forbidding simultaneous AfDs and GARs. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 18:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I think my real problem is the article doesn't tell me anything I can't get from a map, and where I'd understand the map better.Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 16:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article was made a GA in 2007 and was reassessed in 2009. It is bot up to standard for a modern GA article which is a shame as the film in my opinion deserves to be Featured!
I started trying to fix things but as I go on I see more and more.
There are unfrerenced points throughout (accolades table for example), a lack of images, it doesn't follow MoS, sources in lead. I'm happy to do the work on it but I need help and as such think this needs to be delisted and go through a GAN again. It hasn't aged well this article.
Lankyant ( talk) 01:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 some unsourced statements (the entire Naval career section has barely any sources) and might also need some cleanup (I think there's too many quotes). Spinixster (chat!) 12:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I went through all the citations and cleaned them up. If dead-urls, then I added archive-urls. Military-topic single-use citations were brought up from the sources section to the references. Changed the messy harvnb citations with ref names to simpler Sfn style (which automatically combines citations which use the same page numbers). Did some verifying of content and adding page numbers. Fixed a few bits of content as I was verifying sources. Standardized the short-form citations to use Sfn with a year instead of an internal wikilink style reference (most of which didn't have the year in the short form). Found some URLs for citations that didn't have them. Added Open Library links when a book was available online. Did some other bits too numerous to recall, and some minor format cleanup. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 10:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 contains significant uncited material, including whole subsections, which means that GA criterion 2, which requires nearly everything to be cited, is not met.
I also think that this article could perhaps use more detail ( Pi is around 4x the length) but I am not an expert. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article has numerous uncited statements. The reception section is quite short, considering the amount of literature that has been written about it. I am also surprised there isn't a legacy section, considering that this is the first in a very successful video game franchise. Z1720 ( talk) 16:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 listing contains significant uncited material, including whole sections, and thus does not meet GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 18:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2016 listing has degraded significantly - it contains uncited material and relies on some unreliable sources. I intend to restore this article, but it will need a full, top-to-bottom rewrite. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 13:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 nominating this article for reassessment predominantly over prose concerns. Specifically, the massive overuse and misuse of the word "would". Would is a future tense word, yet it is frequently misused to describe past tense actions. Sentences such as The tavern, being popular with politicians while campaigning or traveling across the country, would provide heated encounters with political rivals who would stay at the tavern as well.
and The Peavine Railroad would end service in 1928, and the lines would be either demolished or washed out following the inundation of the Holston River by the Tennessee Valley Authority in 1942.
are exceptionally poorly written and do not meet GA standards as I understand them. Consider also the extreme example of The accident is considered one of the deadliest and worst traffic collisions in the history of the state of Tennessee. The collision, the deadliest in state history...
It is clear to me this article needs a fundamental rewrite.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
01:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Update - Trainsandotherthings, Premeditated Chaos, Hog Farm - It took longer than I thought (I almost forgot), but I have made a bunch of other improvements to pretty much every section. However, I'm on the fence about !voting to keep or delist. I would like to hear everyone else's opinion about whether or not any additional improvements are needed. Bneu2013 ( talk) 01:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2006 addition has many uncited paragraphs and some unreliable sources. Spinixster (chat!) 02:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2006 promotion that made it through the 2008 sweeps. This is on the 2023 GA sweeps list. This article has chunks of uncited text, and there are some other issues as well. He opposed the Vietnam War and, in the early 1980s, famously recorded radio spots to promote a freeze on nuclear weapons is sourced to a source that doesn't mention Vietnam, and In 1965, Smith helped Howard Lee, a black graduate student at North Carolina, purchase a home in an all-white neighborhood is close paraphrasing to In 1965, Smith helped a black North Carolina graduate student, Howard Lee, purchase a home in an all-white neighborhood in Chapel Hill. This article needs both additional sourcing and checks of the current sources to meet the modern GA criteria. Hog Farm Talk 02:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Has a uncited sentence saying "Has not changed since 1942" and uses Google Maps as a source. has 200 words only
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk)
08:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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. Contains significant uncited material. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 is predominantly uncited, failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 03:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 contains significant uncited material, not meeting GA criterion 2b), and suffers from poor organisation throughout, including a very problematic "In popular culture" section. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 03:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
System had minimal impacts, failing WP:GNG, which immediately disqualifies it ''Flux55'' ( talk) 05:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article has been expanded a lot in the past year with a lot of useful information, but also a lot of fancruft, a lot of messy inconsistent style usage, and ultimately all this information in presented in subpar prose that does very little to actually inform the average reader. tens of hours would likely be required to get this back to a GA status. I might even start with a revert to a previous version of the article and readd information as justified, but I don't have the time for that right now. Remsense 留 15:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Taoism draws on numerous Chinese classics that are not themselves "Taoist" texts but that remain important sources for Taoists." and ends with an embedded list of seemingly non-Taoist writing.
The character Tao 道 (or Dao, depending on the romanisation scheme)) has been expanded into an entire section that is not clear and seems to indicate the pronunciation provided on the first line of the article is incorrect.
The same quandary surrounds the related issue of daojia versus daojiao, the two terms to which the first entries in this book are devoted. Even though the origins of these terms may lie in mere bibliographic categories, Taoists have sometimes used them interchangeably to denote what we call “Taoism,” and sometimes separately to distinguish the teachings of the Daode jing (and a few other works including the Zhuangzi) from “all the rest.” While these terms do not seem to have raised major issues at any time in the history of Taoism, the questions that they have generated in the scholarly realm are largely products of their early flawed translation, or rather interpretation, as “philosophical Taoism” and “religious Taoism,” respectively. Based on the way of seeing outlined above, Taoism is not exactly either a philosophy or a religion, but rather a set of consistent doctrinal notions that have taken many forms and given rise to a large variety of individual and collective practices throughout the history of the tradition.) That division is highlighted again in the next prose section, "
The distinction between Taoist philosophy and Taoist religion is an ancient, deeply-rooted one." and again cited to a source that does not seem to put weight on it (
‘Taoism’ encompasses thought and practice as a ‘philosophy’, ‘religion’, or a combination of both.[3]). Rjjiii ( talk) 13:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Short GA with uncited sentences and Google Maps as a source, which is problematic. GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 08:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2008 listing with Google Maps as a source. GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 03:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 statements, an orange banner with "more citations needed" above the video game section, short & stubby paragraphs and much of the information needs to be updated. Z1720 ( talk) 14:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unreferenced "Equipment" section and the lede needs to be expanded. Z1720 ( talk) 15:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 slanted towards pre-2012 career. Later career needs to be expanded in order to comprehensively cover this topic. Z1720 ( talk) 20:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 paragraphs, and the "Policy and identity" section has a "needs update" banner from 2016. Z1720 ( talk) 15:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2006 listing with uncited material. failing criterion 2b GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 15:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't think the required notifications were ever made here. Hog Farm Talk 20:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A 2008 GA promotion on the Sweeps listing. Significant amounts of the team history is unsourced, and several sources used are not reliable, such as tv.com and talkingthrash.blogspot. Hog Farm Talk 02:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 promotion has not been adequately updated, meaning that the last decade is given much less weight than the two previous ones. This means GA criteria 3a) and 4) are not met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 11:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unsalvagable 2007 GA. 20 citation needed tags. Two uncited sections. Schierbecker ( talk) 04:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Poorly referenced 2009 GA. The original nominator has not edited since 2022.
11 citation needed tags, one section tagged as needing more sources.
I've gone ahead and removed unreferenced material from the pop culture section. This article has other issues as well including undue weight. For example, there are almost as many words written about a viral video from 2021 as there are about the 10th Mountain's role in Operation Anaconda. Schierbecker ( talk) 04:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Listed in 2007. Six citation needed tags. Israeli-Weapons.com and jeepolog.com appear to be WP:SELFPUB. Schierbecker ( talk) 02:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus to merge at Talk:2007_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Cosme_(2007)_into_2007_Pacific_hurricane_season. Noah, AA Talk 16:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 listing contains significant uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The game's soundtrack is composed by Mario Kart: Double Dash!! composer Shinobu Tanaka with voices by Charles Martinet as Mario, Luigi, Wario, and Waluigi, Jen Taylor as Princess Peach and Toad, Kazumi Totaka as Yoshi, Deanna Mustard as Daisy, Takashi Nagasako as Donkey Kong, and Scott Burns as Bowseralso lacks a source. If someone manages to substantially improve this please do ping me, but this is very far away from 2b. So delist. VickKiang (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus to merge after a discussion at Talk:2004_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Karl_(2004)_into_2004_Atlantic_hurricane_season. Noah, AA Talk 17:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 listing contains significant uncited material, meaning it does not meet GA criterion 2b), and is heavily weighted towards her wrestling career, meaning it does not meet criterion 4. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 listing contains significant uncited material, especially in the "Notable people" section, thus failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 promotion contains significant uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 04:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2006 listing contains huge amounts of uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 04:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2006 listing contains uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b), and has not been updated since the late 2000s. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 03:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Two unreferenced sections and two citation needed tags. Some content in the lede isn't mentioned in the body. This includes most of the list of main event single-bracelet winners. 2003 WSOP Champion Chris Moneymaker, the design of the bracelet remained relatively unchanged under Yerushalmi.
Why is this statement attributed to a contestant rather than an event organizer. I could go on.
Schierbecker (
talk)
16:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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. Significant unsourced paragraphs within the article. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 think the article needs to be reassessed on Good Article status. While the battle is probably notable, the article fails the Good Article criteria of being understandable to a wide audience and balanced in coverage. It cites a single primary source no less than 22 times and goes heavily into the minutia of the battle that is largely relevant to fans. It only has a couple of sentences about the battle's real-world relevance such as making money for CCP Games. It requires major cleanup to stress why the battle does not fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE and had long-term effects. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 18:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Zxcvbnm, I've made some changes. What are your thoughts so far?-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Ok, anything else?-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 on the Sweeps listing that has accreted significant uncited text since promotion, much of which borders on original research. Most of what is cited is only cited to Herodotus, and the modern standard for these articles is to rely less heavily on the ancient sources. Hog Farm Talk 18:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 issues. The article is peppered with {{ cn}} tags, and is largely based on primary sources (with not enough weight being given to third party sources). There is a one line section covering the PHP Foundation which should probably eithier be integrated into "History" (or removed completely). Additionally there are multiple dubious statements and promotional SEAOFBLUEs in the "Use" section while the "Security" section offers uncited WP:NOTGUIDE advice on security matters Sohom ( talk) 08:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 relies on many user-published/unreliable sources. Spinixster (chat!) 10:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 contains significant amounts of uncited material, far beyond what WP:CALC permits, and thus does not meet GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 03:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
On the worth of the GAR process and participating in it
|
---|
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, meaning it does not meet GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 going to be reviewing this article as part of the reassessment drive of all weather-related good articles.
The article is decent, but it just doesn't quite seem up to the standards of a modern-day GA. I'll leave the review open for a week and notify the GA nominator. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 20:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Copied from Talk:Windsor Locks, Connecticut, tornado; Please see that page for attribution. Noah, AA Talk 23:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I’m leaving two comments for others to reference from.
Is the Tornado Project a reliable enough source?— Yes. Actually, last August during a GA review of Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945, the exact same question came up. The Tornado Project is cited by the National Weather Service and is linked to by them in a more information page. (Further explanation on that GA review).
I delisted the article because of no progress on any of these issues. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 21:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 chose this article since I knew there were issues previously. The article was reviewed in 2011, which was before the Atlantic hurricane reanalysis even reached 1949.
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
I'll leave the review open for seven days, and inform the Wikiproject, the original nominator, and the page for the project reassessment drive. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 02:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Copied from Talk:1949 Texas hurricane; see that page for attribution. Noah, AA Talk 23:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 promotion contains significant uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b). Most of the information should be easy to source, however. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 02:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 listing contains considerable uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b), and contains citations predominantly to non-independent sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 03:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Too much uncited content. The original GA nominator has unfortunately passed so I don't think updates are forthcoming. Schierbecker ( talk) 20:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 contains significant uncited material in the "Performance history" and "Music" sections, failing GA criterion 2b). The "Synopsis" section should also be rewritten to comply with MOS:PLOT, part of criterion 1b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 03:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While this article isn't in the worst state ever, I've questioned the GA status on it for a while now. My issues with the article include the Gameplay section consisting of some pretty faulty sourcing, the Plot section having weird writing, a completely separate section for a seemingly trivial advertisement controversy, and several smaller bits of the article not having any sourcing at all (ex. nothing in the article verifies the game as being considered one of the best of all time, and sourcing the Wikipedia list isn't an acceptable means of verification.)
I personally feel this article to fall more in line with a C-Class article than a GA at this current point in time, though I do think that if someone were to really put in the effort, it could be whipped into shape. λ Negative MP1 05:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2013. Might be a stretch but I feel as if the article hasn't been updated well enough. there's only one sentence for his tenure as mayor of Antananarivo and everything related to the post-presidency section seems really small. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 01:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 prose, including the entire "Painting" and most of the "Literature" sections. It has a good structure, but it needs a topic-subject expert to go through to cite or remove the uncited sections. Z1720 ( talk) 14:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Procedural GAR as page reverted to redirect because its creator was a sock. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 20:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Missing post-2003 information, and statements need to be updated to avoid MOS:CURRENT issues. Lead needs to be expanded. Z1720 ( talk) 00:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 Good article has multiple unsourced statements (failing criteria 2) and prose issues, such as puffery, which means this article does not meet WP:NPOV. Spinixster (chat!) 10:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 listing contains significant uncited material, meaning it does not meet GA criterion 2b). There are also problems with criterion 3b), as the article doesn't know what it is about and is overloaded with tangents on the lives of individual Hispanic Marines, and criterion 4), as the wikivoice tone is distinctly non-neutral.
I am additionally unsure whether the article really meets the notability criteria, but that is not within the purview of GAR. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 contains significant uncited material near the start and end of the body, meaning it does not meet GA criterion 2b); it is also overloaded by images (and tagged accordingly) but that is not part of the GA criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 contains significant uncited material, which does not meet GA criterion 2b), and has not been adeqautely updated since the 2000s. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 GA promotion on the new Sweeps listing, this older good article has had uncited text creep in the Transport and Sports sections. In addition, chunks of the article has become out of date, such as the demographics section being reliant on the 2001 census when two censuses have been done since then and references to changes in housing prices as of 2005. Hog Farm Talk 15:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 an uncited "Concerts" section (which I think can be removed). Also, there is disorganised structuring with information about architecture in the "History" section and the "Stadium usage" section should probably be merged with "History". Z1720 ( talk) 18:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Procedural GAR after article was merged. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus for a merge found at Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season. Noah, AA Talk 14:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus for a merge at Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season. Noah, AA Talk 14:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus for a merge at Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season. Noah, AA Talk 14:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
← ( Page 74) | Good article reassessment (archive) | ( Page 76) → |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
201 words for a GA, with a uncited sentence. GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 08:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Too short for a GA. GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 08:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Short for a GA. failing a criterion I think? GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 08:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Most of the material in the lead sentence is uncited. failing GA criterion 2b GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 14:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 not been adequately updated for many years now, and as a consequence contains significant uncited material. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 not been adequately updated since its promotion, and as a result, there is significant uncited material throughout the article.
There is also an advertisement tag in the "Services" section, and the "History" section is very biased towards the airline's earlier years. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2006 listing contains massive amounts of uncited material, meaning the article does not meet GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2006 listing contains significant uncited material, possibly verging on original research GA criteria 2b) and 2c). Even in 2007, a reviewer felt it did not meet the GA criteria. It also relies heavily on primary, not secondary, sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Most of this 2007 listing is missing inline citations, and thus it is very far away from GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 16:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 multiple unsourced claims and, quite possibly, original research. Spinixster (chat!) 02:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A 2007 promotion that survived the 2009 sweeps but is listed on the 2023 sweeps listing. Several uncited sections have accreted, and I am also concerned that not all of the various carfan websites cited would meet modern reliability standards. Hog Farm Talk 21:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2006 with a very limited review by today's standards. As the article stands today, I have concerns about its compliance with criteria 1b, 2b, and 2d.
1b: The lead of the article is not a summary of the body, as is required by MOS:LEAD. Much of the content of the lead does not appear in the body at all (e.g. the Spartan pyrrhichios is not discussed in the body; the claim that "tribalism ... usually gives rise to such folk dances" does not appear in the body). I also see aesthetic claims about specific dances made in Wikipedia's voice in violation of MOS:WTW, e.g. the sword dance Choliya "has a very beautiful and graceful form"; "The Jerusema ... is an interesting kind of hybrid war dance".
2b: I count fifteen paragraphs in the body which do not end with a citation. At least one specific claim, that Morris dance commemorates battles between Christians and Muslims between the 12th and 15th century, I am actively sceptical of. I also found one claim which does not seem to appear in the cited source: "A sub-type of the Khattak Wal Atanrh known as the Braghoni involves the use of up to three swords and requires great skill to successfully execute".
2d: This from the first source I checked; I would consider this too-close paraphrasing if I found it when reviewing an article:
Article | Source |
---|---|
In a few isolated sections of Europe, a rather savage male combat dance survives. In the villages of the Transylvania Alps and Carpathian mountains, before Twelfth Night and Whitsunday, nine men from nine villages assemble for the Joc de căluşari or căluş, a rite of initiation. The men engage in fierce battle with sticks, which used to be bloody and sometimes fatal. | Another kind of round dance survives in a few isolated sections of Mid-Europe and is gradually disappearing. It forms a part of the magic rites of brotherhoods who have gone through an ordeal of initiation. The most savage of these is the Roumanian Joe de Calusari 'horse-play' in villages of the Transylvania Alps and Carpathian mountains. Before Twelfth Night and Whitsunday nine men assemble from nine neighboring villages. They are initiated by a leader into the mystical gestures and figures of their dance; and they put on belled boots and ribboned hats and take an oath under a sword. In some villages they blacken their faces. Their troop includes a masked fool, a goat-masker, a transvestite, and a standard-bearer with a decorated pole surmounted by a horse's head. The men leap about wildly in a circle around the fool or lean on the sticks in their hands. With the sticks they engage in fierce battle, formerly bloody and even fatal. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Procedural GAR following merge. CMD ( talk) 07:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 large sections of uncited information. Z1720 ( talk) 22:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 uncited statements and an overreliance of blockquotes. Z1720 ( talk) 22:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 contains significant uncited material and thus does not meet GA criterion 2b); at well over 11,000 words, it is likely also excessively detailed and violating criterion 3b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 16:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is just 193 words long, making it the shortest GA by word count.
Problems I noted with this article include but are not limited to:
Just in case anyone is unaware, GAR is not AfD; this discussion is only about whether an article meets the GA criteria. Any arguments based on notability are at the wrong place; as far as I am aware, there is no rule forbidding simultaneous AfDs and GARs. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 18:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I think my real problem is the article doesn't tell me anything I can't get from a map, and where I'd understand the map better.Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 16:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article was made a GA in 2007 and was reassessed in 2009. It is bot up to standard for a modern GA article which is a shame as the film in my opinion deserves to be Featured!
I started trying to fix things but as I go on I see more and more.
There are unfrerenced points throughout (accolades table for example), a lack of images, it doesn't follow MoS, sources in lead. I'm happy to do the work on it but I need help and as such think this needs to be delisted and go through a GAN again. It hasn't aged well this article.
Lankyant ( talk) 01:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 some unsourced statements (the entire Naval career section has barely any sources) and might also need some cleanup (I think there's too many quotes). Spinixster (chat!) 12:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I went through all the citations and cleaned them up. If dead-urls, then I added archive-urls. Military-topic single-use citations were brought up from the sources section to the references. Changed the messy harvnb citations with ref names to simpler Sfn style (which automatically combines citations which use the same page numbers). Did some verifying of content and adding page numbers. Fixed a few bits of content as I was verifying sources. Standardized the short-form citations to use Sfn with a year instead of an internal wikilink style reference (most of which didn't have the year in the short form). Found some URLs for citations that didn't have them. Added Open Library links when a book was available online. Did some other bits too numerous to recall, and some minor format cleanup. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 10:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 contains significant uncited material, including whole subsections, which means that GA criterion 2, which requires nearly everything to be cited, is not met.
I also think that this article could perhaps use more detail ( Pi is around 4x the length) but I am not an expert. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article has numerous uncited statements. The reception section is quite short, considering the amount of literature that has been written about it. I am also surprised there isn't a legacy section, considering that this is the first in a very successful video game franchise. Z1720 ( talk) 16:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 listing contains significant uncited material, including whole sections, and thus does not meet GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 18:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2016 listing has degraded significantly - it contains uncited material and relies on some unreliable sources. I intend to restore this article, but it will need a full, top-to-bottom rewrite. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 13:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 nominating this article for reassessment predominantly over prose concerns. Specifically, the massive overuse and misuse of the word "would". Would is a future tense word, yet it is frequently misused to describe past tense actions. Sentences such as The tavern, being popular with politicians while campaigning or traveling across the country, would provide heated encounters with political rivals who would stay at the tavern as well.
and The Peavine Railroad would end service in 1928, and the lines would be either demolished or washed out following the inundation of the Holston River by the Tennessee Valley Authority in 1942.
are exceptionally poorly written and do not meet GA standards as I understand them. Consider also the extreme example of The accident is considered one of the deadliest and worst traffic collisions in the history of the state of Tennessee. The collision, the deadliest in state history...
It is clear to me this article needs a fundamental rewrite.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
01:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Update - Trainsandotherthings, Premeditated Chaos, Hog Farm - It took longer than I thought (I almost forgot), but I have made a bunch of other improvements to pretty much every section. However, I'm on the fence about !voting to keep or delist. I would like to hear everyone else's opinion about whether or not any additional improvements are needed. Bneu2013 ( talk) 01:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2006 addition has many uncited paragraphs and some unreliable sources. Spinixster (chat!) 02:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2006 promotion that made it through the 2008 sweeps. This is on the 2023 GA sweeps list. This article has chunks of uncited text, and there are some other issues as well. He opposed the Vietnam War and, in the early 1980s, famously recorded radio spots to promote a freeze on nuclear weapons is sourced to a source that doesn't mention Vietnam, and In 1965, Smith helped Howard Lee, a black graduate student at North Carolina, purchase a home in an all-white neighborhood is close paraphrasing to In 1965, Smith helped a black North Carolina graduate student, Howard Lee, purchase a home in an all-white neighborhood in Chapel Hill. This article needs both additional sourcing and checks of the current sources to meet the modern GA criteria. Hog Farm Talk 02:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Has a uncited sentence saying "Has not changed since 1942" and uses Google Maps as a source. has 200 words only
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk)
08:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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. Contains significant uncited material. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 is predominantly uncited, failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 03:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 contains significant uncited material, not meeting GA criterion 2b), and suffers from poor organisation throughout, including a very problematic "In popular culture" section. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 03:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
System had minimal impacts, failing WP:GNG, which immediately disqualifies it ''Flux55'' ( talk) 05:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article has been expanded a lot in the past year with a lot of useful information, but also a lot of fancruft, a lot of messy inconsistent style usage, and ultimately all this information in presented in subpar prose that does very little to actually inform the average reader. tens of hours would likely be required to get this back to a GA status. I might even start with a revert to a previous version of the article and readd information as justified, but I don't have the time for that right now. Remsense 留 15:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Taoism draws on numerous Chinese classics that are not themselves "Taoist" texts but that remain important sources for Taoists." and ends with an embedded list of seemingly non-Taoist writing.
The character Tao 道 (or Dao, depending on the romanisation scheme)) has been expanded into an entire section that is not clear and seems to indicate the pronunciation provided on the first line of the article is incorrect.
The same quandary surrounds the related issue of daojia versus daojiao, the two terms to which the first entries in this book are devoted. Even though the origins of these terms may lie in mere bibliographic categories, Taoists have sometimes used them interchangeably to denote what we call “Taoism,” and sometimes separately to distinguish the teachings of the Daode jing (and a few other works including the Zhuangzi) from “all the rest.” While these terms do not seem to have raised major issues at any time in the history of Taoism, the questions that they have generated in the scholarly realm are largely products of their early flawed translation, or rather interpretation, as “philosophical Taoism” and “religious Taoism,” respectively. Based on the way of seeing outlined above, Taoism is not exactly either a philosophy or a religion, but rather a set of consistent doctrinal notions that have taken many forms and given rise to a large variety of individual and collective practices throughout the history of the tradition.) That division is highlighted again in the next prose section, "
The distinction between Taoist philosophy and Taoist religion is an ancient, deeply-rooted one." and again cited to a source that does not seem to put weight on it (
‘Taoism’ encompasses thought and practice as a ‘philosophy’, ‘religion’, or a combination of both.[3]). Rjjiii ( talk) 13:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Short GA with uncited sentences and Google Maps as a source, which is problematic. GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 08:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2008 listing with Google Maps as a source. GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 03:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 statements, an orange banner with "more citations needed" above the video game section, short & stubby paragraphs and much of the information needs to be updated. Z1720 ( talk) 14:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unreferenced "Equipment" section and the lede needs to be expanded. Z1720 ( talk) 15:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 slanted towards pre-2012 career. Later career needs to be expanded in order to comprehensively cover this topic. Z1720 ( talk) 20:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 paragraphs, and the "Policy and identity" section has a "needs update" banner from 2016. Z1720 ( talk) 15:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2006 listing with uncited material. failing criterion 2b GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 15:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't think the required notifications were ever made here. Hog Farm Talk 20:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A 2008 GA promotion on the Sweeps listing. Significant amounts of the team history is unsourced, and several sources used are not reliable, such as tv.com and talkingthrash.blogspot. Hog Farm Talk 02:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 promotion has not been adequately updated, meaning that the last decade is given much less weight than the two previous ones. This means GA criteria 3a) and 4) are not met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 11:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unsalvagable 2007 GA. 20 citation needed tags. Two uncited sections. Schierbecker ( talk) 04:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Poorly referenced 2009 GA. The original nominator has not edited since 2022.
11 citation needed tags, one section tagged as needing more sources.
I've gone ahead and removed unreferenced material from the pop culture section. This article has other issues as well including undue weight. For example, there are almost as many words written about a viral video from 2021 as there are about the 10th Mountain's role in Operation Anaconda. Schierbecker ( talk) 04:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Listed in 2007. Six citation needed tags. Israeli-Weapons.com and jeepolog.com appear to be WP:SELFPUB. Schierbecker ( talk) 02:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus to merge at Talk:2007_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Cosme_(2007)_into_2007_Pacific_hurricane_season. Noah, AA Talk 16:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 listing contains significant uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The game's soundtrack is composed by Mario Kart: Double Dash!! composer Shinobu Tanaka with voices by Charles Martinet as Mario, Luigi, Wario, and Waluigi, Jen Taylor as Princess Peach and Toad, Kazumi Totaka as Yoshi, Deanna Mustard as Daisy, Takashi Nagasako as Donkey Kong, and Scott Burns as Bowseralso lacks a source. If someone manages to substantially improve this please do ping me, but this is very far away from 2b. So delist. VickKiang (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus to merge after a discussion at Talk:2004_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Karl_(2004)_into_2004_Atlantic_hurricane_season. Noah, AA Talk 17:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 listing contains significant uncited material, meaning it does not meet GA criterion 2b), and is heavily weighted towards her wrestling career, meaning it does not meet criterion 4. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 listing contains significant uncited material, especially in the "Notable people" section, thus failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 promotion contains significant uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 04:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2006 listing contains huge amounts of uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 04:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2006 listing contains uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b), and has not been updated since the late 2000s. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 03:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Two unreferenced sections and two citation needed tags. Some content in the lede isn't mentioned in the body. This includes most of the list of main event single-bracelet winners. 2003 WSOP Champion Chris Moneymaker, the design of the bracelet remained relatively unchanged under Yerushalmi.
Why is this statement attributed to a contestant rather than an event organizer. I could go on.
Schierbecker (
talk)
16:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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. Significant unsourced paragraphs within the article. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 think the article needs to be reassessed on Good Article status. While the battle is probably notable, the article fails the Good Article criteria of being understandable to a wide audience and balanced in coverage. It cites a single primary source no less than 22 times and goes heavily into the minutia of the battle that is largely relevant to fans. It only has a couple of sentences about the battle's real-world relevance such as making money for CCP Games. It requires major cleanup to stress why the battle does not fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE and had long-term effects. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 18:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Zxcvbnm, I've made some changes. What are your thoughts so far?-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Ok, anything else?-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 on the Sweeps listing that has accreted significant uncited text since promotion, much of which borders on original research. Most of what is cited is only cited to Herodotus, and the modern standard for these articles is to rely less heavily on the ancient sources. Hog Farm Talk 18:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 issues. The article is peppered with {{ cn}} tags, and is largely based on primary sources (with not enough weight being given to third party sources). There is a one line section covering the PHP Foundation which should probably eithier be integrated into "History" (or removed completely). Additionally there are multiple dubious statements and promotional SEAOFBLUEs in the "Use" section while the "Security" section offers uncited WP:NOTGUIDE advice on security matters Sohom ( talk) 08:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 relies on many user-published/unreliable sources. Spinixster (chat!) 10:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 contains significant amounts of uncited material, far beyond what WP:CALC permits, and thus does not meet GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 03:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
On the worth of the GAR process and participating in it
|
---|
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, meaning it does not meet GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 going to be reviewing this article as part of the reassessment drive of all weather-related good articles.
The article is decent, but it just doesn't quite seem up to the standards of a modern-day GA. I'll leave the review open for a week and notify the GA nominator. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 20:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Copied from Talk:Windsor Locks, Connecticut, tornado; Please see that page for attribution. Noah, AA Talk 23:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I’m leaving two comments for others to reference from.
Is the Tornado Project a reliable enough source?— Yes. Actually, last August during a GA review of Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945, the exact same question came up. The Tornado Project is cited by the National Weather Service and is linked to by them in a more information page. (Further explanation on that GA review).
I delisted the article because of no progress on any of these issues. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 21:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 chose this article since I knew there were issues previously. The article was reviewed in 2011, which was before the Atlantic hurricane reanalysis even reached 1949.
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
I'll leave the review open for seven days, and inform the Wikiproject, the original nominator, and the page for the project reassessment drive. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 02:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Copied from Talk:1949 Texas hurricane; see that page for attribution. Noah, AA Talk 23:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 promotion contains significant uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b). Most of the information should be easy to source, however. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 02:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 listing contains considerable uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b), and contains citations predominantly to non-independent sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 03:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Too much uncited content. The original GA nominator has unfortunately passed so I don't think updates are forthcoming. Schierbecker ( talk) 20:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 contains significant uncited material in the "Performance history" and "Music" sections, failing GA criterion 2b). The "Synopsis" section should also be rewritten to comply with MOS:PLOT, part of criterion 1b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 03:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While this article isn't in the worst state ever, I've questioned the GA status on it for a while now. My issues with the article include the Gameplay section consisting of some pretty faulty sourcing, the Plot section having weird writing, a completely separate section for a seemingly trivial advertisement controversy, and several smaller bits of the article not having any sourcing at all (ex. nothing in the article verifies the game as being considered one of the best of all time, and sourcing the Wikipedia list isn't an acceptable means of verification.)
I personally feel this article to fall more in line with a C-Class article than a GA at this current point in time, though I do think that if someone were to really put in the effort, it could be whipped into shape. λ Negative MP1 05:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2013. Might be a stretch but I feel as if the article hasn't been updated well enough. there's only one sentence for his tenure as mayor of Antananarivo and everything related to the post-presidency section seems really small. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 01:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 prose, including the entire "Painting" and most of the "Literature" sections. It has a good structure, but it needs a topic-subject expert to go through to cite or remove the uncited sections. Z1720 ( talk) 14:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Procedural GAR as page reverted to redirect because its creator was a sock. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 20:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Missing post-2003 information, and statements need to be updated to avoid MOS:CURRENT issues. Lead needs to be expanded. Z1720 ( talk) 00:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 Good article has multiple unsourced statements (failing criteria 2) and prose issues, such as puffery, which means this article does not meet WP:NPOV. Spinixster (chat!) 10:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 listing contains significant uncited material, meaning it does not meet GA criterion 2b). There are also problems with criterion 3b), as the article doesn't know what it is about and is overloaded with tangents on the lives of individual Hispanic Marines, and criterion 4), as the wikivoice tone is distinctly non-neutral.
I am additionally unsure whether the article really meets the notability criteria, but that is not within the purview of GAR. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 contains significant uncited material near the start and end of the body, meaning it does not meet GA criterion 2b); it is also overloaded by images (and tagged accordingly) but that is not part of the GA criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 contains significant uncited material, which does not meet GA criterion 2b), and has not been adeqautely updated since the 2000s. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 GA promotion on the new Sweeps listing, this older good article has had uncited text creep in the Transport and Sports sections. In addition, chunks of the article has become out of date, such as the demographics section being reliant on the 2001 census when two censuses have been done since then and references to changes in housing prices as of 2005. Hog Farm Talk 15:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 an uncited "Concerts" section (which I think can be removed). Also, there is disorganised structuring with information about architecture in the "History" section and the "Stadium usage" section should probably be merged with "History". Z1720 ( talk) 18:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Procedural GAR after article was merged. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus for a merge found at Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season. Noah, AA Talk 14:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus for a merge at Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season. Noah, AA Talk 14:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus for a merge at Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season. Noah, AA Talk 14:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)