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.

• 15:05:24, 27/01/2024: Randy Orton
  

• 09:55:04, 24/03/2024: Michael Myers (Halloween)
  

• 09:41:25, 27/03/2024: Doomfist
  

• 22:24:19, 05/04/2024: Winter Olympic Games
  

• 01:35:52, 13/04/2024: Wii U
  

• 13:16:08, 18/04/2024: Bertram Fletcher Robinson
  
• 06:00:40, 19/04/2024: 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.

Fallout: New Vegas

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

Result pending

The article currently has lots of unsourced content and issues with prose (the gameplay section is one long paragraph). The page also displays too much content on fan-made mods, as posted about here by an IP in January of this year. – zmbro _{( talk) ( cont)} 18:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Zmbro: To address that IP's comments, the mods that are mentioned are the mods were covered by reliable sources. I could see an argument for creating an article titled Fallout: New Vegas modding, splitting most of the current info there, and making a small summary in this article, as was done with Skyrim. No comment yet regarding the other issues mentioned. QuicoleJR ( talk) 18:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Citroën C3 Picasso

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

Result pending

This whole article is an advertisement. Much of the article focuses excessively on the trim levels and violates WP:NOPRICES. Lead is five paragraphs, and some parts do not summarise the article. Also, some of these references do not seem reliable.  750h+ |  Talk  13:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

If the vehicle is encyclopaedic then so are the differences - the trims in this case. I have no opposition to the prices being taken out, and included them only as they seemed valuable at the time for historical information. They certainly weren't added for sales, since the vehicle was discontinued long long ago. The original GAA had no issues with any of this. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 15:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Most of that content wasn't in the article at the time of the original GAA - here's the diff between then and now. I'm not expressing a view on that content btw, just pointing out it wasn't part of that GAA review. Waggers TALK 11:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The prices were clearly in the article at the time it was passed as a GA without any issue, and that's present in the link above. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 19:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

London, Ontario

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

Result pending

This 2009 listing includes numerous unsourced paragraphs, some punctation errors, and some single-sentence paragraphs.  750h+ |  Talk  08:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Muhammad in Islam

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

Result pending

To meet the GA criteria an article needs to 1. Well-written 2. Verifiable with no original research 3. Broad in its coverage 4. Neutral 5. Stable 6. Illustrated. 6: There are a few images, many have no relevance to the topic however. It lacks actual depictions of Muhammad in Islam, except for one. 5: The article seems to be stable, but seems to be in need of a general overhaul. 4: because of the points following now. Similar to the article Ali, the article reads more like a history lesson about Muhammad synthetized from Muslim sources, not to be about Muhammad in Islam. Neutrality cannot be established this way. 3. There is one section to refer to one scripture (Quran), one about the alledged history, then his proclaimed roles, and a section about miracles without any exploration on how they are received, it is simply calimed he did it. This is not much, it only appears so because almost every paragraph is given its own section. 2. Not only is the choice of section without any guidance from a secondary source, many inline citations are referring to primary sources, such as the Ahmadiyya community and not historical sources. Next, there are not even sufficient inline citations at all. Large portions of text stay completely unsourced. 1: Most of the article is actually Original Research. Therefore, I suggest to reassess the GA status and move it to at least C status, since the article has several serious issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VenusFeuerFalle ( talk • contribs) April 16, 2024 (UTC)

I do see a few sentences missing citations, which is certainly an issue. Could you give some examples of sources you believe are not acceptable for a GA-level article? Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 16:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Field Spaniel

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

Result pending

13 years since original review, now contains self-published/unreliable citations which I've removed. Traumnovelle ( talk) 22:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

George Rogers Clark National Historical Park

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

Result pending

As I noted on the talk page back in March, this 2009 GA promotion contains significant uncited text, as well as lesser source-text integrity issues. In addition, the material on the administrative history of the site seems underdeveloped. Hog Farm _Talk 14:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion

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

Result pending

An ongoing discussion at WT:GAN (link here) questions whether this article is overreliant on primary/non-independent sources, leading to issues with WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:BALASP, all part of the GA criteria.

Pinging discussion participants @ JoelleJay, Hawkeye7, Asilvering, Trainsandotherthings, Thebiguglyalien, Chipmunkdavis, TompaDompa, and David Fuchs: the GA nominator/reviewer will be notified on their talk pages. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 13:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• I haven't done more than a quick skim, but I have WP:OR concerns about some sections, particularly the parts talking about the meaning of the names of various angels. References should be checked to make sure they actually support conclusions about Evangelion and aren't WP:SYNTHy. Brief bits giving background would be fine (eg, "In the Catholic tradition, Gabriel is the angel who..."), but whole paragraphs appear to lean on sources that aren't about eva at all, which is an issue. -- asilvering ( talk) 15:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• I support delisting due to the excessive citation to non-independent and primary sources for the bulk of the background on individual angels. The amount of detail on each angel is simply not BALASP if it hasn't been discussed by secondary sources independent of NGE. The fact that a significant majority of the sources, especially the ones in the angels' sections, are offline and in Japanese is also a problem when there is no indication the reviewer actually spot-checked any of them. JoelleJay ( talk) 02:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  

Kaunas Fortress

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

Result pending

The article needs major work to meet the broadness criteria:

• WWI section is empty.
• Article states, "About 50,000 people were executed there, including more than 60,000 Jewish victims of the Holocaust." those things can't both be true
• No information about the use of other forts besides the ninth during WWII—the sixth fort was a notorious site of abuses against Soviet prisoners of war and apparently held Polish prisoners at a different point.

( t · c) buidhe 04:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Mohanlal

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

Result pending

Article still has numerous "citation needed" tags in the "2016-present" sub-section of the "Film career" section that are still valid. NoobThreePointOh ( talk) 01:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hull City A.F.C.

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

Result pending

GA from 2009. Just a disgusting amount of things to fix according to the multitude of notifications in the article. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment @ Onegreatjoke: There are a lot of false positives, I see the hand of the disruptive editor Untitled740 and frankly I don't trust this editor, there are probably a lot of things to be fixed. One of them is to remove all the crap that Untitled740 added which ruins the enjoyment to the reader. So I am not sure about a reassessment is truly needed at current, the vandalism needs to be fixed first. Govvy ( talk) 10:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  

Bristol Harbour

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

Result pending

GA from 2007. Contains quite a fair amount of uncited material. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Centennial Light

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

Result pending

short lead. several outstanding inline cn tags. ltb d l ( talk) 06:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• The problems appear fixable. I'll take a stab at it. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 20:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  I have expanded the lead and chipped away at the missing citations. Also added a new section based on more recent sources that weren't available at the time of original promotion. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 01:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  Remaining cn tags dealt with. This should be kept. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 16:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  

Slender Man

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

Result pending

My main concern is reliable sourcing (2b) and due weight in the "References in media" section, where the listings seem to include every media reference regardless of importance, and include unsourced statements, primary sources, and fanwiki sources.

Besides that, the article structure is unorthodox. The "History" L2 contains the entirely-unrelated-to-history "Description" L3. "Folkloric qualities", "Copyright", and "References in media" are all at least unusual L2 headings. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Restructured. As for the media section, how does one decide which inclusion is worthy? Serendi ^pod ous 19:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the improvements to the article structure.

Regarding the media section, it's an essay, but WP:IPCEXAMPLES is a good guide on this stuff, and basically says that the work should be significant, the mention should be significant, and that the mention should have been noted by reliable sources. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Concretely going through a couple examples from the article, if that helps:

• Minecraft Endermen: This one is probably fine, as a significant element of a popular game, but ideally we'd have better sourcing than igxpro.com, which appears to be a blog reposting social media speculation. [1] [2]
• Lost Girl: This one is fine, seems to be a major element of a popular television episode, sourced to RS.
• "Sympathy for Slender Man": This one's very shaky. A filler short; the cited source doesn't actually say anything other that hosting the short.
• My Little Pony: This isn't a significant mention. As the text indicates, it is a "brief cameo". ~ A412 ^talk! 20:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• +Article doesn't even have reception section; which is important for every fictional character articles. Same issue with Michael Myers. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 22:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

This article is extremely outdated. At least four academic works (Chess and Shira, Peck, Asimov, Slender Man is Coming) dedicated to Slender Man exist, none of whose content are adequately covered in the article. — VORTEX ³⁴²⁷ ( Talk!) 00:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Links? Serendi ^pod ous 12:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

A "reception" section would have been easier ten years ago. Nowadays the Slender Man is a forgotten and discredited meme tied forever to an act of senseless violence. Serendi ^pod ous 15:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Then the references in media title should be renamed as "In popular culture". Also, that section shouldn't be written like that. Article a little bit outdated as it seems? and there are still unsourced claim. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 22:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

What unsourced claims? And outdated in what way? Also, while your sources do make the connection between slenderman and enderman, igxpro is the only one that explains how the connection was made. Serendi ^pod ous 23:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I see that you have rewritten it. Looks good now. There are still some cn tags at development section and it might need a bit expansion I think; the quote in history sec seems to be a bit messy? Also, try removing citations on the lead and cite it in the body. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 01:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Vortex3427:, @ Greenish Pickle!:, could you please sort your comments? There seem to be a couple threads here, but they're all broken up between indents. ~ A412 ^talk! 01:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I just felt like some were not covered yet (like what Voltrex said) for such a popular character like this, but for now, my concerns were from the history section that I replied to above. I'll leave it to Vortex since he is more familiar with this than I am as a video game character editor. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 01:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Thom Darden

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

Result pending

This passed as a GA in 2009, and it definitely does not meet the standards of a 2024 GA. In fact, I'm not sure if it should have passed in 2009 either. The pro section is sorely lacking for someone that had a 10-year career, and reads rather disjointed as written even if the prose was long enough. Wizardman 15:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I do see some expansion was done so I'll make some time and look to see if it was sufficient. Wizardman 22:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Louie Caporusso

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

Result pending

This article was reviewed as a GA in 2009 (by me). While it did pass GA standards in 2009, at the time he was still a college hockey player, and in the meantime he has had essentially his entire professional career. As a result the article has atrophied, with 2013 to present in particular lacking in depth. Wizardman 21:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• The article has not really attrophied. Nothing encyclopedic has been written about him as the feature since 2013. Pull him up on Newspaper.com and click on the 2020-24 articles and you will see what I mean. Proquest had 143 articles on him in 2013. No year since has had 10% of that number and the stories usually just mention something like he scored a goal.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Why are you using newspapers.com and ProQuest, two sites focusing primarily on the United States, to search for coverage of a player who has spent most of the past decade in Europe TonyTheTiger? Also pinging Wizardman, who may not have seen the above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 18:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • I am only fluent in English. I don't speak the languages of any of the foreign countries he has played in.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      • That means that the article may not be broad enough. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 09:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • This one I did see, but I guess we're at am impasse because I can't say I agree. Wizardman 22:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      • Are you familiar with missing content?- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      • Do any of the other language versions of his article give us reason to believe via cited content that content is missing on EN WP?- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
        • You clearly did not bother to have a look yourself; a quick glance shows [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
          • That is correct. I do not visit foreign language WPs to read articles in languages that I do not speak. Never have for any subject on WP. I consider myself to be a fairly hard working editor. However, I don't research in foreign languages. That is a bar no other reviewer has ever asked me to clear. If you isolate pages like these, I can try to make sense of them with google translate, but as you are surely aware a lot gets lost in translation. I would welcome any German-English fluent editorial assistance. As you may have noticed at Thom Darden, I am not averse to reopening the research on a subject. I just don't research in foreign languages. The only foreign language that I might have a chance with is Spanish, but I don't even trust myself to be able to adaquately summarize a Spanish article in English. If you want me to try to expand from Google translate, I can do that. I will need a few days. Give me 4 or 5 days.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
            • I have used Google Translate to help with several GAs and FAs. These days, the machine translation is astute enough that if you're reasonably astute, you can realise the minor inaccuracies yourself. In the case of this article, I am slightly staggered that you think looking up sources about a player who has spent the majority of his professional career playing for non-American teams "a bar to clear"—that is basic stuff. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
              • Not really "basic stuff". Been through dozens of GA biography reviews of athletes who have played overseas and never been asked to track down foreign language sources beyond contract signings and releases. Non of my four bio FAs have had relevant international experience. This will be an adventure.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
                

Northallerton

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

Result pending

This 2008 GA promotion has become out of date in many sections. The demographics section is still dependent on the 2001 census, and other out-of-date content is present as well, such as It was due to close in spring 2008, as the building which opened in 1877 is not up to modern standards. However, the move has been delayed due to lack of space at the Friarage sourced to an article from 2008, or housing prices also from 2008. In addition, uncited text has crept in over the years, including material such as Hambleton Seals Water Polo are a newly formed team which aims to attract local children to a quite small, yet fun sport. that is not in an encyclopedic tone. Hog Farm _Talk 02:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• This GAR had originally been closed as delist by Real4jyy, who seems to have not checked the article history, where there is evidence of significant improvement. As Real4jyy is only online once a week, it appears, I have reopened this GAR. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 13:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • @ Esemgee, Ed1964, Keith D, and Finlay McWalter: are any of you able to cite the few remaining citation needed tags? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 14:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • I should be able to do the courthouse stuff. -- Finlay McWalter··–· Talk 18:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • In addition to the remaining citation issues, would it be possible to update the demographics information to use the 2021 census instead of the 2001 census? The statistical information at the beginning of the economy section is also quite dated. Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Esemgee, Ed1964, Keith D, Finlay McWalter, and Hog Farm: Regarding the census; is it necessary for the whole comparison statistics table to remain? This is not cited and is far too detailed IMHO. I am in favour of removing it, if you are...? Regards. The joy of all things ( talk) 20:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I'd prefer that we source the data better (that is, see if we can get a verifiable stable link instead of the what we have for ref [58]). I don't think the table is excessive, but I wouldn't be opposed to it being in a collapsed box - it is dull, but encyclopedias often contain dull things. I'm trying to see if we can massage the ONS query system (perhaps with one of their "custom data set" options) to source the data we have. And hopefully address Hog Farm's concerns about using such old data. -- Finlay McWalter··–· Talk 21:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I would prefer to see it kept and sourced, as the information about long-term population trends is useful for the reader. Hog Farm _Talk 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

As per above I would try to keep the information but update to the 2011 census for now, until ONS publish the full set of 2021 stats, unless we can easily get to the information on 2021 without using the citypopulation site. If this is a stumbling block to retaining GA status then reduce to minimum and fill in later when info is available. Keith D ( talk) 17:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I'd be fine with 2011 for now - that's certainly an improvement over using the old 2001 stats. Hog Farm _Talk 18:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I have found most of the missing cites - there are still a couple to complete. I will look at the census data. The joy of all things ( talk) 18:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Patrick Omameh

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

Result pending

TonyTheTiger is citing the status of this article as a GA to justify submitting subpar GANs like Talk:Heath Irwin/GA1 and Talk:Michael Schofield (American football)/GA1. However, it's clearly not at GA status today. It was perhaps a defensible promotion back in 2013, before Omameh's football had progressed. But it's far short of the GAC in 2024. His professional career is inadequately summarised in choppy prose – tiny sections detail little more than the dates he signed for and left his various teams. – Tera tix ₵ 02:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Although Proquest has 1500 articles with his name, I am not seeing anything really encyclopedic missing. Here are samples of the types of articles on Omameh:

  https://giantswire.usatoday.com/2018/09/04/new-york-giants-patrick-omameh-struggled-pass-protection-preseason/

  https://saintswire.usatoday.com/2020/12/29/saints-depth-chart-patrick-omameh-chiefs-practice-squad/

  https://www.raiders.com/news/las-vegas-raiders-sign-patrick-omameh-nfl-2021- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Most articles that seem interesting are rehashing his WP Bio:

  https://giantswire.usatoday.com/2018/03/15/new-york-giants-sign-patrick-omameh-5-things-now/- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Coverage of him drops off after 2019.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment at the moment, the article violates MOS:OVERSECTION; that is easily fixed, but a quick couple of searches on newspapers.com and Google shows that there has been large amounts of coverage on Omameh's professional career, especially in its early years, which the article eschews in favour of endless statistics and all-star team inclusions. Thus, the article does not meet GA criterion 3a) as it stands. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Fortress of Klis

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

Result pending

Significant amount of the article, including almost the entire "Importance" section is uncited. Z1720 ( talk) 01:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Z1720 it looks like most of this "Importance" section is uncited because it was in the lead section, as it had been added in edits like [9] or [10] decades ago, but was then broken out in this unexplained edit in 2013, by an account that was later indefinitely blocked for other abuse (I found this using the "Who Wrote That?" extension). Maybe the logic of that needs to be reassessed first. -- Joy ( talk) 15:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I've re-integrated the old lede into the lede and edited it mildly for concision. The nomination does not appear to be correct that a "significant amount of the article is uncited" - can you clarify where exactly these uncited parts are, if you're standing by that?
• While I'm not sure if it's GAR-worthy, the prose is not particularly tight, and it seems to have some Croatian nationalist vibes in parts (which I'm sure is in the sources, but it doesn't mean that has to be transmitted here - I removed a "Turkish menace" for example). I'd argue that would be a more productive area to examine and spruce up in this. SnowFire ( talk) 06:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  One thing I noticed as well was the quality of the supporting materials - I swapped out the top image immediately. The laundry list of historical years in the infobox also doesn't strike me as well documented or a good use of screen-estate. -- Joy ( talk) 10:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  I noticed now that @ Edgars2007 noticed this in 2015 (!). I've moved it around a bit, is this better? -- Joy ( talk) 12:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Thanks to SnowFire's recent edit, I had a look at one of the main sources, the municipality's history page:

• Listeš, Srećko. "Povijest Klisa". klis.hr (in Croatian). Službene stranice Općine Klis. Archived from the original on 2011-07-21. Retrieved 2010-05-16.

This archive link implies that the text was taken from a 1998 book called Klis: prošlost, toponimi, govor published by an NGO called Croatian society Trpimir Klis. It would be better to get this referenced to the actual work, which seems to be ISBN  953-96751-3-8, with page numbers.

At the same time, the current website's history link goes to this:

• Firić, Valter (2018). Klis: Kulturno povijesna baština (PDF). Narodna knjižnica i čitaonica u Klisu / People's library and reading room of Klis. p. 112. ISBN  978-953-59767-1-4.

-- Joy ( talk) 08:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• I would request that this GAR not be closed too aggressively - I do think that this article could use a tune-up, even if not for the reasons the nominator cited, but it will probably take more time. SnowFire ( talk) 21:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I haven't had the time to come back to this like I'd hoped. I think this article has the bones of being in great shape and only needs some minor work to get back to GA quality - just some rereading of the sources and rephrasing, mostly. @ Joy:, would you have time to take a go at this? If not, I suppose I'd be fine with a reluctant delist-by-default. SnowFire ( talk) 20:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  

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