Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria (GACR). GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. The GAR Coordinators — Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings — work to organize these efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the {{ @GAR}} notification template, or make a comment on the talk page.

Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including not meeting the general notability guideline, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment can be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles can be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delist.

Before opening a reassessment

1. Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
2. Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
3. Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
4. If there are many similar articles already nominated at GAR, consider delaying the reassessment request. If an editor notices that many similar GARs are open and requests a hold, such requests should generally be granted.

Opening a reassessment

1. To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
2. The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment
3. Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.

Reassessment process

1. Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them.
2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
3. If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion.
4. If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.

Closing a reassessment

To close a discussion, use the GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).

1. GARs typically remain open for at least one week.
2. Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
3. If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time.
4. After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
   • If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.

Disputing a reassessment

1. A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect. A closure should only be disputed within the first seven days following the close.
2. Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
3. If discussing does not resolve concerns, editors should post at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the coordinators.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77

The Good articles listed below would benefit from the attention of reviewers as to whether they need to be reassessed. In cases where they do, please open a community reassessment and remove the {{ GAR request}} template from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, remove the template from the article talk page.

• 03:57:17, 05/05/2024: Siege of Szigetvár
  
• 07:02:52, 27/06/2024: Current date for reference

The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a featured article candidate, please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed.

Mexico City Metropolitan Cathedral

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

This article has numerous uncited sections, a bloated lede, and the information is generally disorganised. Z1720 ( talk) 20:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Polish minority in the Czech Republic

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result pending

Lots of uncited sections, including entire paragraphs. "Present day" section has no post-1991 information. Sources listed in the "Further reading" section should be explored for their inclusion as inline citations or removed. Z1720 ( talk) 20:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Nature

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result pending

Several uncited sections, including entire paragraphs. Sources in the "Further reading" section should be explored for their use in the article as inline citations or removed. Z1720 ( talk) 20:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Remove the GA status. I went through and counted, finding 23 paragraphs without a single source. That would be an automatic declination of standard GAN.

Beyond this I have to question the coherence and relevance of grouping such a vast range of topics into one page. It is almost as if this page covers everything which has nature in the name. For instance I don't see how Microbes, Lakes and Matter and Energy belong together. I noticed that back in 2023 it was marked as a WP:COATRACK but this tagging was removed. I think it should not have been.

N.B., as I write this I noticed that some edits are taking place. Ldm1954 ( talk) 06:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Joe Rice

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result pending

Information about later life (everything post-2010) uncited. Z1720 ( talk) 20:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Davenport, Iowa

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result pending

Numerous uncited paragraphs, information out of date in government section. Z1720 ( talk) 20:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Portland Trail Blazers

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

Numerous uncited paragraphs, bloated sections and a bias towards recent events. Z1720 ( talk) 20:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Maia arson crimew

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

(this is my first time submitting a GAR, please bear with me.)

1. Well-written:

a. the prose may not be clear to a broad audience, as it may not meet WP:TECHNICAL. (although this may be unavoidable due to the article's topics, it could use more explanation of important terms/concepts or rewording, mainly in parts other than the lead section)

b. WP:LEAD: "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." I think this particularly applies to the second paragraph, whose final sentence already appears in the article.

2. Verifiable with no original research: fine, I think

3. Broad in its coverage:

a. Prior to my edit, this article contained no mention of crimew's involvement with music, despite her (currently, at least) describing herself as a musician and DJ on social media and on her personal website linked in the article. Although she is majorly known for her hacking activities, she does have a presence/reputation within various online communities as a DJ, and I feel that the article doesn't cover this at all.

b. With WP:SS in mind, the sectioning of this article feels like it could use some improvement, perhaps with some clearer separation between hacking activities / legal history / personal life and activities.

4. Neutral: I don't see much issue with the article here, although I'm unsure whether the article unduly focuses on statements from the subject herself.

5. Stable: fine

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Media in the article fulfils (a.) and (b.), but is majorly lacking. RhymeWrens ( talk) 19:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

These are rather loose criticisms and I'm not seeing an identification of any major problems. This article is not a featured article but a good article, where the standards are considerably lower.

This is not really what GAR is for. Have you brought up these concerns on the talk page? That probably should have been your first step. Aza24 (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I'd be glad to try and clarify any criticisms I made that were loose/vague. I'm well aware this is not a featured article, and I simply thought that this article did not currently meet the "considerably lower" standards of the GA criteria.

I apologize if this is not what GAR is for, but I don't know what would be the correct action to suggest this article's GA status be reconsidered. If you're simply saying that the problems I pointed out are insignificant, I guess that's valid, but are they not relevant to the criteria? Please correct me if I'm wrong (I'm still pretty inexperienced with navigating Wikipedia), but this talk page says that this article was self-nominated for GA in 2021 and its GA status hasn't been reviewed since 2021.

I will admit that I never much considered posting something to the talk page before submitting a GAR, and I apologize for not doing so; I now get the impression that it's much more of an assertive/definitive action than a simple request for reconsideration. RhymeWrens ( talk) 20:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I think your last evaluation is spot on; GAR is really for egregious issues that need to be addressed with more immediacy by many of the community. Practically all GAs (and FAs) are self nominated; 2021 is pretty recent for a GA, if you scroll through other GAR nominations, you'll find mostly articles pre-2015, oftentimes from 2006–2008 (those are the really bad ones).

For example, check out Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Pipe organ/1 from 2006. Entire uncited paragraphs, bloated messy content, unreliable sources etc. It was even worse when nominated [1] but our standards have increased a lot since then.

This isn't to say that your concerns are not valid, or indeed that you did anything wrong, but I hope it gives some more context to a process like this. From what it sounds like, you seem to have a grasp of the subject matter, so perhaps take a crack at some of the issues yourself. In any case, the original nominator, Vaticidalprophet is an excellent editor, and I'm sure they'd be happy to work with you. Aza24 (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I would agree with Aza24 that GAR is for major issues, issues so large that they would drive a reviewer to quickly fail a nomination rather than recommend improvements. I'm relatively new to the GAR process, having only opened two a few months ago; of these one had major problems with completeness and unreliable sources and the other cited unreliable sources and had even plagiarised from some. Of what you've mentioned here, it seems like these issues could be addressed by either editing the article yourself or at least discussing it with the primary author. -- Grnrchst ( talk) 10:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I suppose I can try addressing these issues myself, though given that I don't exactly have the time and definitely not the skill to confidently bring this article to fully meeting the GAC, I'm indeed probably better off trying to bring these concerns to other authors' attention (and evidently doing so through a GAR was the wrong way to go). Thanks RhymeWrens ( talk) 00:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Yea, I think this GAR should probably be dismissed/closed. Don't worry too much about it, it's a complicated website haha 222emilia222 ( talk) 22:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Aang

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

The article is in bad shape. It is not updated yet; there are a lot of unsourced statements, the "bending the elements" section is written like lists instead of prose and the reception section is too flimsy. 🍕 Boneless Pizza!🍕 ( 🔔) 11:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Xinxiu bencao

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

Far from covering all major aspects of the topic. Chinaknowledge, which is based on Chinese language secondary sources, contains several paragraphs of information about the contents of the book, while the article only has two sentences. The article says that the book is considered lost in China, even though Chinaknowledge makes clear that large sections of the book survive and even lists modern editions of the text. Kzyx ( talk) 03:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Good thing they list their sources so we can hopefully check those out. This also makes me realise that I think there must be more sources for this work that are in Mandarin, which I unfortunately do not speak; but if we find the sources hopefully there would be Mandarin-speaking Wikipedians willing to help translate/factcheck machine translations. ❧ LunaEatsTuna ( talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 11:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

It's been a long while since I took a look at this but I would hesitate to call Chinaknowledge.de a reliable source, even though its information is ostensibly based on reliable-looking Chinese sources. Notwithstanding the fact that I would really love to incorporate info from Chinese-language sources, I believe this article already covers virtually everything that can be found in the English-language scholarship; I would challenge anyone to contradict me. Claims such as the full text being lost (which I think you're insinuating to be inaccurate) are not based on my word ( WP:OR), but the RSes cited. In any case, thanks for helping to improve the article but I respectfully submit that this GAR is a tad premature. Cheers, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 12:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

By the way, I believe you meant to link here instead. Frankly I do not see that much of a significant difference between the info listed there and in our article. There is a distinction between "comprehensive" (in fact, just "broad in coverage" suffices for GA purposes...) and "exhaustive"... For instance, I'm not quite sure our readers really need to know about every single modern print of the fragments by the Keji weisheng press, the Shanghai keji press, or the Shanghai guji Press, etc. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 12:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I did mean that link. I didn't actually want to cite Chinaknowledge (which is written by a specialist in Chinese history) in the article and it's definitely not necessary to actually list modern editions. I was just pointing out that there is a lot of information yet to be added. And yes, the statement that the full text is lost is inaccurate: the Encyclopedia of China states that 20 juan survive, and those 20 juan can be found on ctext.org. There are also very many academic papers in Chinese whose main topic is the Xinxiu bencao : [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. In any case, the article's five paragraphs are woefully inaccurate for a clearly important text in the history of Chinese medicine. Kzyx ( talk) 21:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Please address my point that "this article already covers virtually everything that can be found in the English-language scholarship"... It's not reasonable to expect anything here to incorporate information from the "very many academic papers in Chinese", as much as I would like for this to be the case (and notwithstanding the fact that this topic is indeed Chinese-related)... The claim, for instance, that the full text is lost is made in one of the RSes and faithfully reported in this article. Per WP:OR, it is not in within our purview to contradict that. FWIW, the fact that 20 juan survive (which you are more than welcome to add) is not mutually exclusive with the fact that the full text (comprising who knows how many juan) no longer survives.... Again, as far as the modern English-language scholarship is concerned, I do not think your assessment of "Woefully inaccurate" is at all fair. Cheers, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 16:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Pipe organ

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

The article has numerous uncited sentences. Deprecated and unreliable sources are used (such as Answers.com) while there is an extensive "Further reading" and "External links" sections that can be used as inline citations or removed. Z1720 ( talk) 13:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I have put out a message to User:Cor anglais 16, who was a major contributor in the past, regarding this reassessment. I will try to address some of the issues but I'm in no way familiar with the literature so apologies if I fall short. Recon rabbit 12:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Póvoa de Varzim

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result pending

This article has numerous uncited paragraphs and sections. It is also over 11,000 words, so it is recommended that someone with knowledge on the subject evaluate if anything can be removed or spun out. Z1720 ( talk) 13:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply

John W. Campbell

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

Numerous uncited passages, bloated lede, reliance on block quotes, and unused sources in the "Further reading" section. Z1720 ( talk) 13:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Ni Yulan

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

A. Serious concerns with "Verifiable with no original research"

I have compiled a registry of the sources used in this article: New York Times (x4), Eurasia Review (x1), Radio Free Asia (x1), Chinese Urgent Action Working Group (x1), Frontline Defenders (x3), Human Rights Watch (x1), Christian Science Monitor (x2 - erroneous double cite [7][13]), Reuters (x1), Amnesty Int'l (x1), Lawyers for Lawyers (x1), BBC (x1), HK Free Press (x1), Government of the Netherlands (x1), Radio Netherlands Worldwide (x1), SCMP (x1), Voice of America (x1).

There are 23 sources in sum. While sources themselves are generally consistent with perennially reliable sources, each of the guidelines for several of the sources used (Amnesty, RFA, etc.) carry recommendations or disclaimers that citations of these sources should be done with caution (either amending the language for neutrality, or disclaiming a relationship to the U.S. government). However, the *majority of sources* as expressed (Lawyers for Lawyers, Human Rights Watch, China Urgent Action Warning Group, etc.) are primary by nature, have express political leanings and incentives, and are used as the guiding citation for several contentious claims in places where substantially more reliable sources may be called for.

B. Strong issues with WP:NPOV

Language in the text appears flaired or put in substantial excess of what the sources themselves say. For example, the sentence

having her passport arbitrarily denied by Chinese government authorities

is not found anywhere in the BBC article that the clause cites - at all. The article only indicates that Ni was released from prison and that she uses a wheelchair, which the article proceeds to suggest (without further provenance) that some of her supporters say are due to the hands of police - hardly sufficiently reliable to justify any unqualified claim regarding police brutality.

The passport claim, which is then repeated several times in the article (unqualified), may be found in some other sources (e.g., the New York Times), but such sources, e.g., [18], carry no particular provenance for the claim other than a direct interview with the person herself - by definition, a primary source for which the publisher has repeatedly and clearly disclaimed as content from the interviewee herself. This phenomenon repeats frequently and is once again an example of flawed authorship in the article.

Continued claims in the article about alleged social hardship, such as source [17] indicating her eviction, are themselves uncited and of dubious quality. No evidence, provenance, or citations are offered in the source. The only other source where the alleged 2017 window-smashing case is mentioned is in Hong Kong Free Press - once again, only through an interview by the subject herself.

These issues are present throughout the article. Overall, by inspection of about six sources, the article dramaticizes content with theatrical effect, relies overly on a persona constructed by the article subject herself through interviews, and offers no explanation connecting any of the disparate phenomena observed (e.g., window-smashing with passport denial, etc).

C. Cursory initial approval round

Upon inspection of WP:Peer review/Ni Yulan/archive1, it appears that no particular analysis or work was conducted on the article other than the addition of certain sources and basic formatting. No particular comment as to relationships with the GA criteria were discussed at all. Moreover, no commentary in relation to writing quality exists at any point, in any form, at any time. Augend ( drop a line) 06:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

FM (No Static at All)

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

In 2019, I promoted this article to "Good article" status, which was the first time I ever took on this responsibility. As such, I am not entirely sure if I conducted the process properly. My biggest concern is that I directly assisted in the editing of the article during the GA Review process, which I believe influenced my decision to list it as one of the Music good articles. If we could get an impartial set of eyes on this article, that would be greatly appreciated. Dobbyelf62 ( talk) 23:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Just a quick drive-by, but there are too many fair use audio files in the article. WP:SAMPLE notes that "There should be only one sample per song recording, even if several users produce samples," and I doubt this song requires multiple samples; in any case, the 70 combined seconds of sample audio is 23% of the length of the original song's length, much greater than the 10% recommended in the MoS. This is luckily pretty easy to fix, removing two samples from the article and leaving one, but I'm not entirely sure if it's enough to warrant a delist because the audio files, while excessive, are technically relevant as they are captioned. Making the call is probably best reserved for someone with better knowledge of the criteria and the song. Leafy46 ( talk) 23:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Fortunately, this would be an easy fix. If we were to keep one audio file, I would probably select the piano intro, although I could be convinced to keep the second pre-chorus and chorus. Of three, which one do you think adds most to the article? Dobbyelf62 ( talk) 13:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Jack Russell Terrier

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

Multiple claims were sourced to a self-published source. I removed the source as it didn't meet the criteria for use and rewrote the health section. Other parts of article remain unsourced. Traumnovelle ( talk) 04:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Combat Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

This 2009 GA needs sourcing improvements - a good chunk of the article is sourced to Global Security, which is now considered unreliable - see WP:GLOBALSECURITY. Additionally, there is other uncited material in the article, including a couple CN tags. Additionally, if possible, it would be nice to get a little more detailed inforation about the 2017 Atlantic Resolve and 2019 Freedom's Sentinel deployments. Hog Farm _Talk 13:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi @ Hog Farm, I would like to work on this article. What is your expected timeline? 10-20 days? Matarisvan ( talk) 15:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

If you can get it done in less than a month, that would be great. Hog Farm _Talk 13:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Justinian I

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result pending

This 2008 promotion has 9 citation needed tags, as well as other untagged statements lacking citations. Real4jyy ( talk) 08:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi, I will work on this article. What is your expected timeline for this? 10-20 days? Matarisvan ( talk) 15:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

hey, nice to see you're planning to work on this article. I'm not an expert on the period, but I was confused by the following: he came from a peasant family ... The name Iustinianus, which he took later, is indicative of adoption by his uncle Justin. ... His mother was Vigilantia, the sister of Justin. Justin, who was commander of one of the imperial guard units (the Excubitors) before he became emperor. I think it should be clarified - how it was possible that commander of the guard became an emperor? Was there a military coup? Or he was from the previous emperor's family? And were this commander and his nephew really from a peasant family? Artem.G ( talk) 21:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I have provided many of the citations, and will continue looking for ones where they are still needed. Chronicler Frank ( talk) 06:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Franklin's lost expedition

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

An early 2008 listing that has clearly shown its age. Some uncited paragraphs here and there; a few "[citation needed]" tags; and a heap of "[unreliable source?]" alerts in the timeline. (Subject of AMC's original The Terror miniseries.) -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 09:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi, I will try to restore the article to GA level. What is your timeline for this? 10-20 days? Matarisvan ( talk) 12:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Nothing specific (this topic is outside my interests), but three to four weeks sounds reasonable. -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 13:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The Stanley Parable

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

I'm not sure how this article got so out of hand, but you can pretty clearly see something went very askew here. There are wayyyy too many fair use images now, the formatting's broken, a two year old expansion template...this article is in dire need of some weed trimming when compared to the version that passed GAN in 2020. Kung Fu Man ( talk) 07:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I'd be interested on improving the article in the spots where it is broken. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 12:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I think the biggest issue is the lack of reception for the new release. Lee Vilenski ^{( talk • contribs)} 11:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

There's also a lot of academic analysis that hasn't been included that I found while researching The Narrator (The Stanley Parable), for example, and a lot of things mentioned in the nomination to clean up. I've been busy the past few days but I intend to hit this up soon. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 00:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Kung Fu Man I've expanded the Reception to account for the Narrator's existence with additional Analysis, and I've also added reviews for the Ultra Deluxe game. I've tried reformatting the images per my discussion with you, but the infobox physically will not let me have no image there and it is confounding me. In any case, bar that image debacle (Which I will need some help with) is there anything else that needs patching up? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 00:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Pokémon Diamond and Pearl

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

Citation needed tags and after a quick skim you will see other places that aren’t tagged but deserve cn tags. Also there are 2 maintenance tags but both are about expansions. 48JCL TALK 01:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I'd be willing to work on improvements to the article in order for it to comply with Good Article standards. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 23:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ 48JCL I've fixed up the spots needing expansion and additionally cited several sections with citation needed tags (As well as Pokémon Platinum's section). Could you clarify what other spots need improvement? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 22:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes. Could [1] be moved to the body, making the lead more summary style? I’ll come back with more. 48JCL TALK 21:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ 48JCL what else needs to be done? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 16:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Galatian War

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result pending

An older GA from 2007, with a bevy of primary and old sources (the most recent author died in 1905). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi @ Iazyges, I am willing to work on this. What is your expected timeline for resolving the major issues before we can take on the specifics? I believe I can get done with the former in 5-10 days. Matarisvan ( talk) 11:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Matarisvan: Thanks! I don't have a specific timeline as long as progress is being made; the 7-day close is meant to be an accelerant for articles that attract no interest, not a hard deadline. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Ok, I have started working on the article and expect it to get to GA level within 10 days. I will ping you once I'm done upgrading this one. Matarisvan ( talk) 13:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi @ Iazyges, I have reworked the article quite a bit. Do you think this is now back at GA level? Any comments you would like to add? Matarisvan ( talk) 07:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Mario Kart: Double Dash

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

On 5 March, Sergecross73 tagged this 2012 GA as needing cleanup, noting on the talk page that the article was "well below GA standards" and contained "unsourced content, trivia, sloppy stuff, etc." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 14:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, it's in terrible shape - a victim of a decade plus of people slow degrading it into a worse status. I originally intended on cleaning it up myself, but I've lost interest and am focusing on other projects now, so that cleanup effort probably won't come from me anymore... Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Roll back Why not just roll back the article to the last "GA-quality" version? It was fully-sourced at one point before a lot of cruft was added. The only part relevant to the modern day is a Kotaku listicle. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 15:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  I'm open to that if someone wants to present a certain version to revert back to. Not much has happened with this game over the years - it hasn't been re-released, found a cult following, had much in the way of a retrospective commentary, etc. So there's probably not much concern about it being "outdated" if we were to do that. Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  The article was listed as a GA on 2 May 2012, and the adding of unsourced content began less than ten days afterwards. If rollback is needed, it would have to be to the version promoted to GA, which does not satisfy the current criteria ( criterion 2b), for example). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 16:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  Yeah, fair, even the GA version is a bit light on sourcing. (Sorry Salv.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Went ahead and fixed the gameplay section on a whim, so there's that chunk of work done. Cat's Tuxedo ( talk) 21:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Sergecross73 do you think the fix is good enough to keep the GA status? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 13:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't say so personally. The reception section is still lacking even with the one paragraph I added to it, and I've been too lazy lately to fix it further. Cat's Tuxedo ( talk) 17:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Fallout 3

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

There's like a lot of issues in the gameplay section. It was written a little bit awfully (for now) and has sourcing issues, and some of it is possibly unsourced. It also needs to be trimmed down. Meanwhile, there are also citation errors, no authors at the citation, and unreliable sources like ref 22. The retail version sub-section is written like a list instead of prose. 🥒 Greenish Pickle!🥒 ( 🔔) 12:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm working on the good article reassessment for Fallout: New Vegas right now, and after that's done I intend on getting to this article. Outside of the gameplay section, it seems to be in much better shape than the Fallout: New Vegas was, so it shouldn't be too bad. But in case I don't get to this article in time, I agree with Greenish Pickle!, this article does not meet the GA requirements as is. Famous Hobo ( talk) 06:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Famous Hobo do you still intend to work on the article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Just stumbled upon this and began a copyedit pass. It'll be next week before I can really sink my teeth into it, but I'm happy to do some work on it. This should be a salvageable article. DrOrinScrivello ( talk) 20:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

@ AirshipJungleman29: @ DrOrinScrivello: Sorry for the delay, but yes I do plan on fixing up this article, been working on other stuff. Ironically this is my favorite Fallout game, but it's been a bit of a struggle to work on this article. I did start working on it on my sandbox page. I've shortened the plot section and began work on the development section. Due to the extreme gameplay similarities between Fallout 3 and New Vegas, I asked the Video Games Project if it would be okay copying nearly entire paragraphs over from one article to another. The general consensus was yes, so long as the paragraphs that were copied are properly attributed in the original article they came from in the edit description. Famous Hobo ( talk) 23:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Famous Hobo: your working version looks like you're doing the same sort of paring down that I started and you're much further along, so I'll pause my efforts for now. Feel free to ping me if you'd like a second set of eyes on anything. DrOrinScrivello ( talk) 23:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Famous Hobo and DrOrinScrivello: I see the editing has slowed down now after some big chops. How are we feeling about the article now? Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 17:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Famous Hobo did some fine work on the article, and it seems to me as if the original issues have been addressed, so my opinion is Keep. DrOrinScrivello ( talk) 18:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

So there's still some stuff that needs to be worked on. The reception section needs to be beefed up to meet modern standards, and the lede needs to be rewritten to reflect the content of the article. The reason I haven't edited this article in a while is because I hate writing reception sections for larger games, but I'll get around to it shortly. Famous Hobo ( talk) 20:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Subpages • Category:Good article reassessment nominees • Good article cleanup listing