← ( Page 71) | Good article reassessment (archive) | ( Page 73) → |
The following discussion is closed. 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 2016. There are 2 citation needed tags and several paragraphs without citations, which fails criteria 2 of the GAC. There may also be some prose problems like unrelated information. Spinixster (chat!) 12:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2009. The biggest issue with the article is that it uses ONE source from 1960 to cite the entire article, which I don't think follows GA criteria. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 05:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2012. Has been tagged for needing more citations. Also, I'm quite surprised to see barely anything about his govenorship of Maryland. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 19:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 09:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article contains a lot of issues. It has zero development/concept and design section, a lot of the claims were unsourced at the appearances section, the portrayal is a bit flimsy and probably could be merged at development section and the major issues are at the reception section where it might probably take time to rewrite and then implement all the sources from its talk page. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 12:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2014. There's quite a lot of uncited material in the article. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2015. Has the same issues as the 2000 CECAFA Cup and the 2013 CECAFA Cup which were delisted. That being unsourced statements and the article not being broad enough. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2007. Has been tagged for excessive primary source use and with some sources not having page numbers. Also, some things are uncited and this article looks like it could use a major cleanup. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 20:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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. Would like to have some people take a look at the article as the article has numerous citation needed tags and may contain original research because "The paragraphs about the Khalistan movement and Sikh identity make a lot of unsourced and unverified claims, many of which may be incorrect." Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per the concerns listed by Epicgenius at Talk:2003 Chicago balcony collapse#Good article reassessment, as well as my own concerns (such as the prose being inelegant and details related to each other, especially in the aftermath section, not being presented together). — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 22:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I've measured it against the GA criteria below. Will delist in just under a week if no significant improvement by then. Godtres ( talk) 18:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2013. Article looks to have a lot of uncited material such as
among other uncited sections and statements. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 17:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 nominating this article for GAR as I believe it fails the "factually accurate and verfiable", "broad in coverage" and "focused" parts of the GA criteria.
This article passed GA about 14 years ago. Since then, Eurostar's history has changed significantly because of the merger with Thalys and the financial difficulties faced because of COVID-19 and Brexit. There are several maintenance tags on the article, and quite a few other unreferenced bits, and while I've addressed one of the tags by finding a reference, there's a lot more work required to get it back up to GA standard.
I'm also concerned that a family member works for Eurostar and hence I'm worried people might perceive me editing the article with a pro-Eurostar bias; so it's probably better for other people to work on this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
The impact of Brexit on Eurostar is not fully developed in the article. This source (New York Times, so far removed from events) discusses some of the issues in depth. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2011. Done as a personal request for User:Filmman3000. He states
I'm making this nomination to see if it's actually worth reevaluating. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
{{
citation needed}}
and {{
dead link}}
in the article
Filmman3000.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 14:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The talk page of this 2008 listing was tagged by SandyGeorgia as requiring a GAR; I must agree. The article has not been updated to the sufficient standard after 2010; this is especially egregious considering the massive leaps in AI over the last decade.
Thus, I'll tag it as needing an {{
update}}
, and nominate this for delisting as failing
GA criterion 3.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 18:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2007. There are sourcing issues: some sentences are either unsourced or sourced by unreliable sources. I also doubt the character's notability overall, because the reliable sources I found on Google and in the article talks more about the actor than the character herself. Spinixster (chat!) 08:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The last GAR was not opened or closed according to the correct procedure. Meanwhile, there are valid cleanup and update banners on the article, it has ballooned to close to 20,000 words, and the use of primary sources is excessive. This GAR may not be closed until at a minimum the cleanup banners are resolved and removed. ( t · c) buidhe 04:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Procedural discussions
|
---|
|
The following discussion is closed. 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 2012, whilst it would be a GA then, 11 years later it fails criteria 2 as not all information is verifiable and it doesn't reflect anything of her career post 2012. Her "current work" as of 2012 is likely to be out of date. At age 37, she is likely to have retired from elite and club level. For example, she is not listed on the Victoria club 2023 roster: https://vicphoenixwaterpolo.com/victorian-awl-womens-squad/ (note the team she played for Victorian Tigers has since been renamed). LibStar ( talk) 07:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Delisting this for the same reasons i delisted articles like the 2012 CECAFA Cup. That being unsourced statements and lack of broadness. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 03:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article right now wasnt fleshed out after the article was moved and renamed. The article right now needs to be updated. Concept and design should be expanded a bit more. Almost the entire Appearances section are unsourced and needs to be updated based on its appearances and lastly the Reception section where it needs to be rewritten a bit, like removing some pointless source and should be expanded since its flimsy. The lawsuit section seems to be fine, but more sources appeared after checking it at google news and should be expanded a bit more. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 11:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Most of the article was written by the banned user ItsLassieTime and is being sent for purging at Copyright Problems. At the least, the Schultz source has confirmed copyvio, and given the far-reaching problems it's likely that the rest of the article is a copyvio too. Wizardman 23:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Very substandard BLP. Mostly proseline. About a quarter of the article by weight is an inflated 'controversy' section that I'm of half a mind to take to WP:BLPN, let alone permit the article to be considered a GA. Vaticidal prophet 15:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article needs to be updated. Some statements at Concept and design section were unsourced and should be expanded a bit if found more. The reception section also needs to be expanded from scholarly books/sources and should be cleaned up all the trivial listicles that doesn't have valuable commentary to the character. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 12:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2006. there looks to be significant unsourced material in the article that has to be addressed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 22:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lots of CN's close to the end of the article, mild copyediting is also required. Doesn't look like there's a lot of citations for the size of the article. Orange tags at 2023 fire and Historical sketches and hotel guests. 🌶️ Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 20:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
=== Renaissance
GA from 2007. Significant unsourced material including entire unsourced sections throughout the article. I had placed comments before hand back in February stating that this would need to be fixed or i'd nominate it to be delisted and the issues still remain. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 03:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2015. There looks to be quite a lot of uncited material in the article which large chunks just with no citations. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 23:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2007. There are two Needs Update tag in the article and several sentences that lack citations, which fails criteria 2 of the GAC. Spinixster (chat!) 13:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article needs a bit update. The issues are also lacking about the character development/concept and design section, the appearances section needs to be rewritten a bit to be in order (there are also unsourced claim) and also some addition/expansion at the reception section. It absolutely needs help, especially when it doesn't have development section for the character. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 10:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editor added {{
GAR request}}
tag on t/p last month. 2006 listing has valid cleanup banners and citation issues. Unusually, updating doesn't seem to be an issue.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 12:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
An article can be failed without further review (known as a quick fail) if, prior to the review it has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid ... All content that could reasonably be challenged ... must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph.
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.
A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect...Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.Am I to understand that you wish to improve the article back to GAR standard? In the future, please leave a note on the relevant GA reassessment page; that would save us all a lot of bother. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2009. There's quite a lot of uncited material in the article. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 23:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WP:MISSION in lede, short lede that is not a full summary, very long (imo unwarranted) list of publications, staff section based on primary source. PhotographyEdits ( talk) 14:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2007. There's uncited material in the article that needs to be addressed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 02:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2015. Uses many unreliable sources and some parts aren’t formatted correctly. There are also citations in the lede that should be moved into the body. Spinixster (chat!) 00:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
some parts aren’t formatted correctlyWhich parts? What GA criteria specifically are at issue? Looking at the article nothing seems broken and it seems to comply with criterion 1b.
Uses many unreliable sourcesWhich sources are unreliable? Reliability is related to the claim being supported, so what claims are the sources supporting? Since nothing specific has been pointed out, I took time and went through every citation in the article:
numerous grammar issuesWhere? What kind? I just skimmed it and it seemed fine.
some questionable structuring decisionsWhat structuring decisions? What makes them questionable? The article seems to comply with criterion 1b's layout requirement, so I need more specificity to understand what makes this a GAR issue.
redundancies (particularly in the "Historical Inaccuracies" section)this is specific and actionable. These redundancies would probably be fixed by simply cutting the claims cited to unreliable sources or even just cutting that whole section. — Wug· a·po·des 00:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
the lead tag has been there for two years now. may fail criterion 1b. ltbdl ( talk) 07:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It has several issues. Concept and design section seems to be flimsy, especially at the reception section where most of the scholarly books/sources wasnt implemented yet, thus the article isn't "broad on its coverage" yet + some of those trivia sources should be eliminated. There is also an secondary image, maybe remove it to avoid sandwiching the paragraph (Reception sec). GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 12:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lots of missing citations, poor layout, giant tables in the body, wicked excessive images, a far too detailed accidents section that fails to use any discretion... this is not a GA in its present state and is actually painful to try and read with all the clutter. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 14:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This was last reassessed in 2009. Quite a lot of research into this subject with regard to climate change has happened since and I don't think this article has completely kept up with it. There is also a [vague] template which needs to be addressed. PhotographyEdits ( talk) 08:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2008. Quite a lot of uncited material in the article. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
University Physics, Sears, Young & Zemansky, pp. 18–38. Given the profusion of textbook editions, that's not really specific enough to be verifiable. The editions with only those three authors all seem fairly old, too; for example, the 12th edition (2008) also includes Freedman and Ford. (And the page range 18–38 is definitely not correct for that edition.) XOR'easter ( talk) 18:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article overrelies mostly on lists, and some of the cited sources do not entirely say what they are cited for. It is not broad on its coverage, and some of the claim were unsourced (mainly from appearances section). Only the GameSpy source were useful that was cited at the article [4], but thats it. It needs a heavy clean up to fulfill GA criteria. GlatorNator ( ᴛ) 04:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 popular topic needs some hands. It currently has tons of issues like most of the referencing were poorly cite, unsourced statements, outdated and the addition of trivia sources/articles at reception section where some should be removed and replaced a better sources that has valuable commentary about Charizard, but it seems to be listicles and such without schoalrly sources. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 11:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2012. Mainly doing this to get other people's opinions on this but I have two concerns. 1, this article almost entirely relies on one source for the entirety of the article. 2, The article doesn't feel too broad. There's no background section, just a prelude, and the section on the siege is incredibly small. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 02:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2008. Some parts of the article seems to rely on biography/profile pages. There are also a few unreliable sources and possibly some unrelated information. Spinixster (chat!) 13:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
[s]he enjoys running and Pilates, and practices meditation?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
fails criteria 2.
only supported by four references (the fifth is used to support one sentence), which is already an issue.
the literary hub source appears to be based on the sixth tone source, and the engadget source appears to be based on the vice source. ltbdl ( talk) 14:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Verifiable with no original research. What part of the article is not verifiable? You appear to be making an argument about notability, which is something else. The place for that kind of discussion is WP:AFD. I would warn you that I do not believe this will fail an AfD. -- asilvering ( talk) 16:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Significant uncited material—nearly half of the ~1250 words in the body are in completely uncited paragraphs—which fails GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Several citation needed tags throughout the article. Z1720 ( talk) 02:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I reopen this as I find that the article is:
After the article was published, on Dec. 9, Marquis announced on the site that he was resigning as an administrator, permanently deleting his account and turning over operation of the site to someone using the online name RainAndSadness.
Mr. Small and Mr. Galante also resigned as administrators of several websites they operated for involuntary celibates, or incels, men who believe women will never have sex with them because of their looks and social status.[7]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not really in GA shape. Contains uncited text, as well as some rather questionable sources like Daily Express, Inquisitr, as well as sources that aren't really suitable for what they're supporting, for instances Finally, a third hypothesis suggested that the Moon may have been a planetoid captured by Earth's gravity. sourced to a website that probably isn't RS and a 1960s news report. Needs general cleanup. Hog Farm Talk 00:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Significant sourcing issues (36 citation needed tags) and an update banner mean that this 2006 listing is at risk of failing GA criteria 2b and 3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 09:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I reviewed this article back in February 2021 and I now believe that the article is too unstable to remain a GA. There were edit wars in May and March 2023. There was a period of heavy editing back in October 2022 which included countless reverts and changes ( [8]). The article recently underwent some significant changes in the space of a couple of weeks and continues to be edited heavily. Since I reviewed the article it has increased in size by over 2 thousand words and in Wikitext size by nearly 50k. Ahsoo1122 11:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Sources During my source review in the initial review, I think I failed to properly question the reliability of all the references or some potentially unreliable sources have been added in the time since. Here is a list of sources which might not meet reliability requirements:
Stopped at ref 450 because this was taking too long. I think the problem here is that a significant proportion of the article is based on sources which we don't know are reliable and need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis which could potentially take some time. Of course there's some blatant issues here like this source which looks a lot like TikTok. Of course, this can be removed in a few seconds but if there's more issues like this that have fallen through the cracks, then the article surely can't be up to GA standards.
Prose
Stability
I'm happy to discuss this further and look for more evidence. The issue with an article of this length is there is so much content to try and work through, as I found in my initial review. Willbb234 12:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In addition to being rather uncited, this 2007 listing is mostly "OR/SYNTH from US legal code & court cases", in the words of Hog Farm. Thus, the article may violate GA criteria 2b) and 2c). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 10:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Significant uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b). The lead, of which a large proportion is not supported at all by the body, is included in that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Significant portions of the article lack inline citations. This is a violation of criterion 2b. There are also a few old maintenance tags. (sidenote: this article received a GAR 13 years ago, see Talk:History of the Royal Australian Navy/GA1) Phlsph7 ( talk) 08:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A lot of paragraphs lack inline citations, including the whole section "Rivalries". The current sourcing is not sufficient to meet criterion 2b. There was a GAR 13 years ago, see Talk:Dundee_United_F.C./GA1. Phlsph7 ( talk) 07:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Multiple uncited passages. Z1720 ( talk) 16:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recently, I've copyedited this article and edited fictional content into present tense. However, this article was promoted to GA status back in 2014, and the article looked vastly different to what it is now. This article may violate GAC criterion 2D, and the copyright violation report can be found here. Note that the top result is a fan site. I also feel that some of the images in the article violate criterion 6B, as the images may not have suitable captions. TarantulaTM ( speak with me) ( my legacy) 21:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Numerous unreferenced sections, including the entirety of the "Groups and divisions" section. Z1720 ( talk) 16:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lots of uncited sections, large quotes, section with an "additional sources needed" banner. Z1720 ( talk) 16:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article has had a "recent events" yellow banner since 2018 in the "Politics" section, which I agree with. Z1720 ( talk) 01:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The "structure" and "the sonatas" sections of this 2008 GA are near-completely unverifiable, with inline referencing seemingly haphazard in the extreme, failing GA criterion 2.
If someone does have relevant literature to hand, however, this will probably be a rather quick fix. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 20:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unreferenced passages, some fancruft in some book summaries. Z1720 ( talk) 18:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lots of uncited sections, cn tags since July 2020. Z1720 ( talk) 17:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Janáček was an atheist, and critical of the organized Church, but religious themes appear frequently in his work. [1] The Glagolitic Mass was partly inspired by the suggestion by a clerical friend and partly by Janáček's wish to celebrate the anniversary of Czechoslovak independence.
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It has been 10 years since this article was promoted to GA. Since then, I see the article deteriorating and missing a lot of essential new information. Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 16:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Uncited sections, short lede that needs expansion. Z1720 ( talk) 02:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A 2008 GA promotion. The article contains substantial uncited text, major issues with WP:NOELBODY, and is heavily outdated. For instance, detailed statistics such as which manages 778 residential connections, offering continuous service to some 4,200 users. It operates a sewerage system and a wastewater treatment plant. Water consumption is metered. The average monthly tariff is US$3.5 for 28m3. There is no social stratification, but special tariffs are applied to those users who consume more than 28m3. The annual cash surplus is about US$10,000 are presented as current, but are from a source from 2007. This article needs substantial overhaul. Hog Farm Talk 20:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article was almost exclusively written by the banned serial copyright violator ItsLassieTime, primarily with offline sources that are not easily accessible. I've sent the article to WP:CP where it'll most likely be shrunk to a stub, and as such will be nowhere near GA quality. Wizardman 22:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This list represents only a small fraction of her recorded performances.- WP:SELFREF violation. Also no criteria for what's included in the discography, making it very cherry-picked.
Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 06:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
I only just noticed this. TPH, you could have left a note on my talk page, and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Green - for the latter point I have raised a neutral (ie: non-canvassing) note at that project page. Anyway, it looks like the sequence of events is roughly that I improved it to GA in November 2018, then got fed up of IPs and inexperienced editors making BLP violating edits and adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, that I gave up, assuming consensus that nobody cared whether this was a GA or not. Indeed, you can see my lack of contributions from this protection for BLP violations tell that story. Therefore, raising it to a GAR to get the article fixed is acceptable. I don't have a great deal of time to dedicate to fixing up issues right now, but as a starting point, it may be worth comparing the article as it passed GA, to the state it's in now : [34]. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2007. There are some uncited areas in the article that should be addressed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article was almost exclusively written by the banned serial copyright violator ItsLassieTime, primarily with offline sources that are not easily accessible. I've sent the article to WP:CP where it'll most likely be shrunk to a stub, and as such will be nowhere near GA quality. Wizardman 23:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Missing citations in various sections and missing information about his birth, early life, personal life, death, and possible legacy. Z1720 ( talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2008. Among the sources used, there are multiple primary sources, including 2 profile pages, and many sources are dead. I know this is probably not a problem, but the reference formatting is not consistent. Aside from the essay template, the article may not be up to date with her bodybuilding career. Overall, it needs a lot of work to maintain its GA status. Spinixster (chat!) 07:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2008. There's seems to be some uncited material in the article including what looks to be most of the teams section. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 22:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An "update needed" orange banner from 2019 and numerous uncited statements throughout the article, particularly in prose relating to recent bio events. Z1720 ( talk) 00:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is not neutral, and although I've cleaned up everything that I could that was mentioned at this ANI, specifically, this section, and on article talk (see also WT:GAN), there are still many unresolved issues, as well as the dubious, non-independent sourcing mentioned by FOARP and Thebiguglyalien at the ANI. I'm unable to do any more to improve the article considering the faulty sourcing. The History Wizard is the only significant editor of the article; I have not notified them as they are topic banned, but Mike Christie, the GA reviewer, did ask to be kept in the loop. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Many unreferenced paragraphs and also many half-referenced paragraphs, especially in the second half of the article. There is also one citation needed tags. Those are violations of criterion 2b.
A few paragraphs are very long and should be split in two. Some of the descriptions of the voting process go very much into detail about the possible and hypothetical steps that can or should be taken in different scenarios. This could be a violation of criterion 3b.
The article received a GAR 14 years ago. It also received a peer review 6 years ago where concerns about the sourcing were discussed. Phlsph7 ( talk) 11:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Uncited statements in the article and it has been tagged with an "additional citations for verification" banner since 2019. Z1720 ( talk) 15:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article was partially a copyvio by the banned ItsLassieTime, see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime, but honestly even if the article was clean I still would have sent it to GAR. The performance history was mostly unsourced and seems all over the place, there seemed to be undue weight and the analyses of the role given the light sourcing, there shouldn't be an in popular culture section, and the original GA review in 2009 was just a quick pass without much looked at. Wizardman 22:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It has recently been brought to light that this page and its sourcing have been altered fairly wholesale since the page was last reviewed and kept as GA, and that there is little reason to believe the level of former quality has been maintained; on the contrary, recent informal assessments by editors have uncovered significant issues in terms of prior content and source removal, as well as in terms of the quality of new sourcing and the resulting balance of the page and its contents. The sum conclusion of the current state of affairs has already been assessed by several editors as no longer meeting GA standard. For details, see the existing talk page discussion at Talk:Muhammad#Removal of "good article" status, as well as the broader discussion entitled Talk:Muhammad#Recent neutrality concerns, and other subsequent talk page discussions. Iskandar323 ( talk) 15:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a section tagged for sources since April 2020. This makes it fail as it fulfils insta-fail criteria 3 and does not fulfil criteria 2b. Brachy08 (Talk) 01:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Numerous unreferenced passages, including almost the entirety of the "Gameplay" section. Legacy section could possibly be expanded. Z1720 ( talk) 17:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article passed GA over 15 years ago, where standards were more lax. There are several maintenance tags on the article and too much unsourced and controversial content. As the exact reasons for why Pete Best was fired from the Beatles depends on who one speaks to, we've got to use high-quality sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Multiple uncited passages, use of unreliable sources. Z1720 ( talk) 20:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2010. Fails criteria 2. Nominating this because there is one failed verification tag, with a discussion that has been abandoned since it started in April 2021, and one citation needed tag, excluding the one from the lead. VAUGHAN J. ( TALK) 03:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
References review
The following discussion is closed. 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 has numerous problems. Chief among them: A complete lack of verifiability due to the primary source being Achtung Panzer!, an unacceptable WP:SELFPUB source. This concern was not resolved during the A class review closed as "delist" in August. Schierbecker ( talk) 02:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
← ( Page 71) | Good article reassessment (archive) | ( Page 73) → |
The following discussion is closed. 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 2016. There are 2 citation needed tags and several paragraphs without citations, which fails criteria 2 of the GAC. There may also be some prose problems like unrelated information. Spinixster (chat!) 12:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2009. The biggest issue with the article is that it uses ONE source from 1960 to cite the entire article, which I don't think follows GA criteria. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 05:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2012. Has been tagged for needing more citations. Also, I'm quite surprised to see barely anything about his govenorship of Maryland. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 19:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 09:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article contains a lot of issues. It has zero development/concept and design section, a lot of the claims were unsourced at the appearances section, the portrayal is a bit flimsy and probably could be merged at development section and the major issues are at the reception section where it might probably take time to rewrite and then implement all the sources from its talk page. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 12:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2014. There's quite a lot of uncited material in the article. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 2015. Has the same issues as the 2000 CECAFA Cup and the 2013 CECAFA Cup which were delisted. That being unsourced statements and the article not being broad enough. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2007. Has been tagged for excessive primary source use and with some sources not having page numbers. Also, some things are uncited and this article looks like it could use a major cleanup. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 20:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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. Would like to have some people take a look at the article as the article has numerous citation needed tags and may contain original research because "The paragraphs about the Khalistan movement and Sikh identity make a lot of unsourced and unverified claims, many of which may be incorrect." Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per the concerns listed by Epicgenius at Talk:2003 Chicago balcony collapse#Good article reassessment, as well as my own concerns (such as the prose being inelegant and details related to each other, especially in the aftermath section, not being presented together). — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 22:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I've measured it against the GA criteria below. Will delist in just under a week if no significant improvement by then. Godtres ( talk) 18:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2013. Article looks to have a lot of uncited material such as
among other uncited sections and statements. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 17:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 nominating this article for GAR as I believe it fails the "factually accurate and verfiable", "broad in coverage" and "focused" parts of the GA criteria.
This article passed GA about 14 years ago. Since then, Eurostar's history has changed significantly because of the merger with Thalys and the financial difficulties faced because of COVID-19 and Brexit. There are several maintenance tags on the article, and quite a few other unreferenced bits, and while I've addressed one of the tags by finding a reference, there's a lot more work required to get it back up to GA standard.
I'm also concerned that a family member works for Eurostar and hence I'm worried people might perceive me editing the article with a pro-Eurostar bias; so it's probably better for other people to work on this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
The impact of Brexit on Eurostar is not fully developed in the article. This source (New York Times, so far removed from events) discusses some of the issues in depth. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2011. Done as a personal request for User:Filmman3000. He states
I'm making this nomination to see if it's actually worth reevaluating. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
{{
citation needed}}
and {{
dead link}}
in the article
Filmman3000.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 14:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The talk page of this 2008 listing was tagged by SandyGeorgia as requiring a GAR; I must agree. The article has not been updated to the sufficient standard after 2010; this is especially egregious considering the massive leaps in AI over the last decade.
Thus, I'll tag it as needing an {{
update}}
, and nominate this for delisting as failing
GA criterion 3.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 18:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2007. There are sourcing issues: some sentences are either unsourced or sourced by unreliable sources. I also doubt the character's notability overall, because the reliable sources I found on Google and in the article talks more about the actor than the character herself. Spinixster (chat!) 08:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The last GAR was not opened or closed according to the correct procedure. Meanwhile, there are valid cleanup and update banners on the article, it has ballooned to close to 20,000 words, and the use of primary sources is excessive. This GAR may not be closed until at a minimum the cleanup banners are resolved and removed. ( t · c) buidhe 04:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Procedural discussions
|
---|
|
The following discussion is closed. 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 2012, whilst it would be a GA then, 11 years later it fails criteria 2 as not all information is verifiable and it doesn't reflect anything of her career post 2012. Her "current work" as of 2012 is likely to be out of date. At age 37, she is likely to have retired from elite and club level. For example, she is not listed on the Victoria club 2023 roster: https://vicphoenixwaterpolo.com/victorian-awl-womens-squad/ (note the team she played for Victorian Tigers has since been renamed). LibStar ( talk) 07:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Delisting this for the same reasons i delisted articles like the 2012 CECAFA Cup. That being unsourced statements and lack of broadness. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 03:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article right now wasnt fleshed out after the article was moved and renamed. The article right now needs to be updated. Concept and design should be expanded a bit more. Almost the entire Appearances section are unsourced and needs to be updated based on its appearances and lastly the Reception section where it needs to be rewritten a bit, like removing some pointless source and should be expanded since its flimsy. The lawsuit section seems to be fine, but more sources appeared after checking it at google news and should be expanded a bit more. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 11:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Most of the article was written by the banned user ItsLassieTime and is being sent for purging at Copyright Problems. At the least, the Schultz source has confirmed copyvio, and given the far-reaching problems it's likely that the rest of the article is a copyvio too. Wizardman 23:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Very substandard BLP. Mostly proseline. About a quarter of the article by weight is an inflated 'controversy' section that I'm of half a mind to take to WP:BLPN, let alone permit the article to be considered a GA. Vaticidal prophet 15:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article needs to be updated. Some statements at Concept and design section were unsourced and should be expanded a bit if found more. The reception section also needs to be expanded from scholarly books/sources and should be cleaned up all the trivial listicles that doesn't have valuable commentary to the character. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 12:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2006. there looks to be significant unsourced material in the article that has to be addressed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 22:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lots of CN's close to the end of the article, mild copyediting is also required. Doesn't look like there's a lot of citations for the size of the article. Orange tags at 2023 fire and Historical sketches and hotel guests. 🌶️ Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 20:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
=== Renaissance
GA from 2007. Significant unsourced material including entire unsourced sections throughout the article. I had placed comments before hand back in February stating that this would need to be fixed or i'd nominate it to be delisted and the issues still remain. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 03:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2015. There looks to be quite a lot of uncited material in the article which large chunks just with no citations. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 23:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2007. There are two Needs Update tag in the article and several sentences that lack citations, which fails criteria 2 of the GAC. Spinixster (chat!) 13:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article needs a bit update. The issues are also lacking about the character development/concept and design section, the appearances section needs to be rewritten a bit to be in order (there are also unsourced claim) and also some addition/expansion at the reception section. It absolutely needs help, especially when it doesn't have development section for the character. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 10:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editor added {{
GAR request}}
tag on t/p last month. 2006 listing has valid cleanup banners and citation issues. Unusually, updating doesn't seem to be an issue.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 12:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
An article can be failed without further review (known as a quick fail) if, prior to the review it has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid ... All content that could reasonably be challenged ... must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph.
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.
A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect...Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.Am I to understand that you wish to improve the article back to GAR standard? In the future, please leave a note on the relevant GA reassessment page; that would save us all a lot of bother. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2009. There's quite a lot of uncited material in the article. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 23:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WP:MISSION in lede, short lede that is not a full summary, very long (imo unwarranted) list of publications, staff section based on primary source. PhotographyEdits ( talk) 14:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2007. There's uncited material in the article that needs to be addressed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 02:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2015. Uses many unreliable sources and some parts aren’t formatted correctly. There are also citations in the lede that should be moved into the body. Spinixster (chat!) 00:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
some parts aren’t formatted correctlyWhich parts? What GA criteria specifically are at issue? Looking at the article nothing seems broken and it seems to comply with criterion 1b.
Uses many unreliable sourcesWhich sources are unreliable? Reliability is related to the claim being supported, so what claims are the sources supporting? Since nothing specific has been pointed out, I took time and went through every citation in the article:
numerous grammar issuesWhere? What kind? I just skimmed it and it seemed fine.
some questionable structuring decisionsWhat structuring decisions? What makes them questionable? The article seems to comply with criterion 1b's layout requirement, so I need more specificity to understand what makes this a GAR issue.
redundancies (particularly in the "Historical Inaccuracies" section)this is specific and actionable. These redundancies would probably be fixed by simply cutting the claims cited to unreliable sources or even just cutting that whole section. — Wug· a·po·des 00:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
the lead tag has been there for two years now. may fail criterion 1b. ltbdl ( talk) 07:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It has several issues. Concept and design section seems to be flimsy, especially at the reception section where most of the scholarly books/sources wasnt implemented yet, thus the article isn't "broad on its coverage" yet + some of those trivia sources should be eliminated. There is also an secondary image, maybe remove it to avoid sandwiching the paragraph (Reception sec). GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 12:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lots of missing citations, poor layout, giant tables in the body, wicked excessive images, a far too detailed accidents section that fails to use any discretion... this is not a GA in its present state and is actually painful to try and read with all the clutter. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 14:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This was last reassessed in 2009. Quite a lot of research into this subject with regard to climate change has happened since and I don't think this article has completely kept up with it. There is also a [vague] template which needs to be addressed. PhotographyEdits ( talk) 08:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2008. Quite a lot of uncited material in the article. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
University Physics, Sears, Young & Zemansky, pp. 18–38. Given the profusion of textbook editions, that's not really specific enough to be verifiable. The editions with only those three authors all seem fairly old, too; for example, the 12th edition (2008) also includes Freedman and Ford. (And the page range 18–38 is definitely not correct for that edition.) XOR'easter ( talk) 18:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article overrelies mostly on lists, and some of the cited sources do not entirely say what they are cited for. It is not broad on its coverage, and some of the claim were unsourced (mainly from appearances section). Only the GameSpy source were useful that was cited at the article [4], but thats it. It needs a heavy clean up to fulfill GA criteria. GlatorNator ( ᴛ) 04:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 popular topic needs some hands. It currently has tons of issues like most of the referencing were poorly cite, unsourced statements, outdated and the addition of trivia sources/articles at reception section where some should be removed and replaced a better sources that has valuable commentary about Charizard, but it seems to be listicles and such without schoalrly sources. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 11:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2012. Mainly doing this to get other people's opinions on this but I have two concerns. 1, this article almost entirely relies on one source for the entirety of the article. 2, The article doesn't feel too broad. There's no background section, just a prelude, and the section on the siege is incredibly small. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 02:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2008. Some parts of the article seems to rely on biography/profile pages. There are also a few unreliable sources and possibly some unrelated information. Spinixster (chat!) 13:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
[s]he enjoys running and Pilates, and practices meditation?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
fails criteria 2.
only supported by four references (the fifth is used to support one sentence), which is already an issue.
the literary hub source appears to be based on the sixth tone source, and the engadget source appears to be based on the vice source. ltbdl ( talk) 14:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Verifiable with no original research. What part of the article is not verifiable? You appear to be making an argument about notability, which is something else. The place for that kind of discussion is WP:AFD. I would warn you that I do not believe this will fail an AfD. -- asilvering ( talk) 16:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Significant uncited material—nearly half of the ~1250 words in the body are in completely uncited paragraphs—which fails GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Several citation needed tags throughout the article. Z1720 ( talk) 02:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I reopen this as I find that the article is:
After the article was published, on Dec. 9, Marquis announced on the site that he was resigning as an administrator, permanently deleting his account and turning over operation of the site to someone using the online name RainAndSadness.
Mr. Small and Mr. Galante also resigned as administrators of several websites they operated for involuntary celibates, or incels, men who believe women will never have sex with them because of their looks and social status.[7]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not really in GA shape. Contains uncited text, as well as some rather questionable sources like Daily Express, Inquisitr, as well as sources that aren't really suitable for what they're supporting, for instances Finally, a third hypothesis suggested that the Moon may have been a planetoid captured by Earth's gravity. sourced to a website that probably isn't RS and a 1960s news report. Needs general cleanup. Hog Farm Talk 00:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Significant sourcing issues (36 citation needed tags) and an update banner mean that this 2006 listing is at risk of failing GA criteria 2b and 3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 09:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I reviewed this article back in February 2021 and I now believe that the article is too unstable to remain a GA. There were edit wars in May and March 2023. There was a period of heavy editing back in October 2022 which included countless reverts and changes ( [8]). The article recently underwent some significant changes in the space of a couple of weeks and continues to be edited heavily. Since I reviewed the article it has increased in size by over 2 thousand words and in Wikitext size by nearly 50k. Ahsoo1122 11:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Sources During my source review in the initial review, I think I failed to properly question the reliability of all the references or some potentially unreliable sources have been added in the time since. Here is a list of sources which might not meet reliability requirements:
Stopped at ref 450 because this was taking too long. I think the problem here is that a significant proportion of the article is based on sources which we don't know are reliable and need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis which could potentially take some time. Of course there's some blatant issues here like this source which looks a lot like TikTok. Of course, this can be removed in a few seconds but if there's more issues like this that have fallen through the cracks, then the article surely can't be up to GA standards.
Prose
Stability
I'm happy to discuss this further and look for more evidence. The issue with an article of this length is there is so much content to try and work through, as I found in my initial review. Willbb234 12:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In addition to being rather uncited, this 2007 listing is mostly "OR/SYNTH from US legal code & court cases", in the words of Hog Farm. Thus, the article may violate GA criteria 2b) and 2c). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 10:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Significant uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b). The lead, of which a large proportion is not supported at all by the body, is included in that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Significant portions of the article lack inline citations. This is a violation of criterion 2b. There are also a few old maintenance tags. (sidenote: this article received a GAR 13 years ago, see Talk:History of the Royal Australian Navy/GA1) Phlsph7 ( talk) 08:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A lot of paragraphs lack inline citations, including the whole section "Rivalries". The current sourcing is not sufficient to meet criterion 2b. There was a GAR 13 years ago, see Talk:Dundee_United_F.C./GA1. Phlsph7 ( talk) 07:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Multiple uncited passages. Z1720 ( talk) 16:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recently, I've copyedited this article and edited fictional content into present tense. However, this article was promoted to GA status back in 2014, and the article looked vastly different to what it is now. This article may violate GAC criterion 2D, and the copyright violation report can be found here. Note that the top result is a fan site. I also feel that some of the images in the article violate criterion 6B, as the images may not have suitable captions. TarantulaTM ( speak with me) ( my legacy) 21:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Numerous unreferenced sections, including the entirety of the "Groups and divisions" section. Z1720 ( talk) 16:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lots of uncited sections, large quotes, section with an "additional sources needed" banner. Z1720 ( talk) 16:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article has had a "recent events" yellow banner since 2018 in the "Politics" section, which I agree with. Z1720 ( talk) 01:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The "structure" and "the sonatas" sections of this 2008 GA are near-completely unverifiable, with inline referencing seemingly haphazard in the extreme, failing GA criterion 2.
If someone does have relevant literature to hand, however, this will probably be a rather quick fix. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 20:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unreferenced passages, some fancruft in some book summaries. Z1720 ( talk) 18:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lots of uncited sections, cn tags since July 2020. Z1720 ( talk) 17:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Janáček was an atheist, and critical of the organized Church, but religious themes appear frequently in his work. [1] The Glagolitic Mass was partly inspired by the suggestion by a clerical friend and partly by Janáček's wish to celebrate the anniversary of Czechoslovak independence.
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It has been 10 years since this article was promoted to GA. Since then, I see the article deteriorating and missing a lot of essential new information. Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 16:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Uncited sections, short lede that needs expansion. Z1720 ( talk) 02:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A 2008 GA promotion. The article contains substantial uncited text, major issues with WP:NOELBODY, and is heavily outdated. For instance, detailed statistics such as which manages 778 residential connections, offering continuous service to some 4,200 users. It operates a sewerage system and a wastewater treatment plant. Water consumption is metered. The average monthly tariff is US$3.5 for 28m3. There is no social stratification, but special tariffs are applied to those users who consume more than 28m3. The annual cash surplus is about US$10,000 are presented as current, but are from a source from 2007. This article needs substantial overhaul. Hog Farm Talk 20:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article was almost exclusively written by the banned serial copyright violator ItsLassieTime, primarily with offline sources that are not easily accessible. I've sent the article to WP:CP where it'll most likely be shrunk to a stub, and as such will be nowhere near GA quality. Wizardman 22:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This list represents only a small fraction of her recorded performances.- WP:SELFREF violation. Also no criteria for what's included in the discography, making it very cherry-picked.
Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 06:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
I only just noticed this. TPH, you could have left a note on my talk page, and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Green - for the latter point I have raised a neutral (ie: non-canvassing) note at that project page. Anyway, it looks like the sequence of events is roughly that I improved it to GA in November 2018, then got fed up of IPs and inexperienced editors making BLP violating edits and adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, that I gave up, assuming consensus that nobody cared whether this was a GA or not. Indeed, you can see my lack of contributions from this protection for BLP violations tell that story. Therefore, raising it to a GAR to get the article fixed is acceptable. I don't have a great deal of time to dedicate to fixing up issues right now, but as a starting point, it may be worth comparing the article as it passed GA, to the state it's in now : [34]. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2007. There are some uncited areas in the article that should be addressed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article was almost exclusively written by the banned serial copyright violator ItsLassieTime, primarily with offline sources that are not easily accessible. I've sent the article to WP:CP where it'll most likely be shrunk to a stub, and as such will be nowhere near GA quality. Wizardman 23:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Missing citations in various sections and missing information about his birth, early life, personal life, death, and possible legacy. Z1720 ( talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2008. Among the sources used, there are multiple primary sources, including 2 profile pages, and many sources are dead. I know this is probably not a problem, but the reference formatting is not consistent. Aside from the essay template, the article may not be up to date with her bodybuilding career. Overall, it needs a lot of work to maintain its GA status. Spinixster (chat!) 07:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2008. There's seems to be some uncited material in the article including what looks to be most of the teams section. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 22:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An "update needed" orange banner from 2019 and numerous uncited statements throughout the article, particularly in prose relating to recent bio events. Z1720 ( talk) 00:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is not neutral, and although I've cleaned up everything that I could that was mentioned at this ANI, specifically, this section, and on article talk (see also WT:GAN), there are still many unresolved issues, as well as the dubious, non-independent sourcing mentioned by FOARP and Thebiguglyalien at the ANI. I'm unable to do any more to improve the article considering the faulty sourcing. The History Wizard is the only significant editor of the article; I have not notified them as they are topic banned, but Mike Christie, the GA reviewer, did ask to be kept in the loop. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Many unreferenced paragraphs and also many half-referenced paragraphs, especially in the second half of the article. There is also one citation needed tags. Those are violations of criterion 2b.
A few paragraphs are very long and should be split in two. Some of the descriptions of the voting process go very much into detail about the possible and hypothetical steps that can or should be taken in different scenarios. This could be a violation of criterion 3b.
The article received a GAR 14 years ago. It also received a peer review 6 years ago where concerns about the sourcing were discussed. Phlsph7 ( talk) 11:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Uncited statements in the article and it has been tagged with an "additional citations for verification" banner since 2019. Z1720 ( talk) 15:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article was partially a copyvio by the banned ItsLassieTime, see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime, but honestly even if the article was clean I still would have sent it to GAR. The performance history was mostly unsourced and seems all over the place, there seemed to be undue weight and the analyses of the role given the light sourcing, there shouldn't be an in popular culture section, and the original GA review in 2009 was just a quick pass without much looked at. Wizardman 22:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It has recently been brought to light that this page and its sourcing have been altered fairly wholesale since the page was last reviewed and kept as GA, and that there is little reason to believe the level of former quality has been maintained; on the contrary, recent informal assessments by editors have uncovered significant issues in terms of prior content and source removal, as well as in terms of the quality of new sourcing and the resulting balance of the page and its contents. The sum conclusion of the current state of affairs has already been assessed by several editors as no longer meeting GA standard. For details, see the existing talk page discussion at Talk:Muhammad#Removal of "good article" status, as well as the broader discussion entitled Talk:Muhammad#Recent neutrality concerns, and other subsequent talk page discussions. Iskandar323 ( talk) 15:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a section tagged for sources since April 2020. This makes it fail as it fulfils insta-fail criteria 3 and does not fulfil criteria 2b. Brachy08 (Talk) 01:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Numerous unreferenced passages, including almost the entirety of the "Gameplay" section. Legacy section could possibly be expanded. Z1720 ( talk) 17:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article passed GA over 15 years ago, where standards were more lax. There are several maintenance tags on the article and too much unsourced and controversial content. As the exact reasons for why Pete Best was fired from the Beatles depends on who one speaks to, we've got to use high-quality sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Multiple uncited passages, use of unreliable sources. Z1720 ( talk) 20:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2010. Fails criteria 2. Nominating this because there is one failed verification tag, with a discussion that has been abandoned since it started in April 2021, and one citation needed tag, excluding the one from the lead. VAUGHAN J. ( TALK) 03:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
References review
The following discussion is closed. 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 has numerous problems. Chief among them: A complete lack of verifiability due to the primary source being Achtung Panzer!, an unacceptable WP:SELFPUB source. This concern was not resolved during the A class review closed as "delist" in August. Schierbecker ( talk) 02:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)