← ( Page 73) | Good article reassessment (archive) | ( Page 75) → |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 addition relies on many IMDB and other self-published sources, which need to be replaced. Spinixster (chat!) 02:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is no way this article should have been passed in the manner it did. An account with under 30 edits instant-passing a level 2 vital article? That's absurd, especially considering the editor in question came in my own review, where I asked for a second opinion, and said to fail it with no other comment than "bad". At bare minimum I believe this should be re-reviewed; it doesn't look terrible, and if this re-assessment indeed concludes that it is in line with the criteria then so be it. dannymusiceditor oops 19:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article needs an update, with very little post-2009 information. Uncited text throughout, and unnecessary quoting from the Q&A portion of a pageant. Lede might also need an expansion. Z1720 ( talk) 15:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Updated the article. Can you please be more specific which texts are unsourced? I can try finding sources. D-Flo27 ( talk) 12:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article is too short, and it's nomination is from 2009. 79.185.137.127 ( talk) 20:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2008, tagged with a GAR request since September. Aside from the boosterism template, there are 5 citation needed templates and several other unsourced information. Spinixster (chat!) 01:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2013 listing was tagged with {{ GAR request}} in July. There is significant amounts of uncited material, and a behemothic notes section which seems mostly irrelevant, tbh. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Currently the article, as it stands is just a somewhat promotional summary of the features and individual release of Safari.
There isn't any discussions of privacy violations, security exploits (or even for that matter Apple's work on trying to eliminate third-party cookies, the IndexedDB data leak, issues with ITP etc). There is legitimate criticism (and some positive commentary) from multiple fronts on how Apple develops Safari and the fact that it lags behind many other browsers by a large margin. However, non of this appears to be discussed in the article in depth. This imo fails GA #3a and GA #4.
Besides this, there are a few almost contentless sections ("ios versions","Continuity" etc) failing GA #3a, multiple citation needed templates, and a almost completely unreferenced "Payments from Google" section failing GA #2, and some malformed citations. Overall, I do not think this represents the best work we have, and thus would like to move to review the article's GA status (or atleast ask for the article to be improved). Sohom ( talk) 01:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lots of unreferenced paragraphs and sentences. Z1720 ( talk) 02:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per Melchior2006 removing the good article tag out-of-process * Pppery * it has begun... 05:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
− | was appointed an [[Honorary Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire|Honorary Officer of the Order of the British Empire]] (OBE) | + | was appointed an [[Honorary Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire|Honorary Officer of the Order of the British Empire]] (OBE) by [[Elizabeth II|Queen Elizabeth]] in 2011 |
− | + | He was able to earn a living through performing in commercials. In his free time, he performed with the [[Manhattan Theater Club]]. |
Comment: I worked on the original GA and the article as it stands has changed since the reviewed edition. I tried to work with the changes as is, but there are considerable differences. That GA went on many months with suggestions from a number of editors. Certainly remove refs if there are too many, but the bio basically follows numerous interviews that he has given, so nothing is particularly promotional. I'm happy to make comments and give feedback, but I'd rather not give too much input at this point beyond the original GA that was approved. Here is the original GA: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Henry_Winkler&oldid=1083628482 - Classicfilms ( talk) 22:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Comment (?) I'd like to help out, but I feel like the changes would be very controversial, so I would like to ask for opinions about them here before I do so. Aside from the unnecessary quoting issues, I also find it to be going into too much detail. For example:
That's just some examples. Another thing to note is that I see a lot of "Further information" templates. Is it really necessary here? Spinixster (chat!) 11:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2008. Needs updating on her post-2012 career as she has appeared in many races after that date. Spinixster (chat!) 02:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 addition has 2 citation needed tags as well as multiple unsourced statements. Spinixster (chat!) 07:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Large amounts of uncited text, especially in the "Aftermath" section. Z1720 ( talk) 21:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article tagged with relying on Primary sources. It seems like the banner was added shortly after the article was promoted in 2013. I don't think this article meets the criteria anymore. Z1720 ( talk) 14:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Administrative GAR. This article has been merged elsewhere per Talk:Life of L. Ron Hubbard from 1911 to 1950#Proposed merge of Life of L. Ron Hubbard from 1911 to 1950 with Early life of L. Ron Hubbard, which also noted that the sourcing was not tilted towards hagiographic sources. CMD ( talk) 01:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lots of unreferenced sections, including almost the entire "Life to legend" section. Z1720 ( talk) 03:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, along with a host of other issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article has not been updated sufficiently since its last reassessment in 2016, meaning it fails WP:GACR criterion 3a). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 21:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article has been tagged since September for relying excessively on sources closely associated with the university. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not only does this 2008 listing contain large amounts of uncited material, but it has not been updated since the financial crisis (!). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
buidhe placed the {{ GAR request}} template on this 2012 listing with the edit summary "fails WP:MEDRS due to dated sources. Major updates needed". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material and a lack of updates from the last decade. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2008 promotion contains huge amounts of uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2006. This article has many unsourced statements, original research, and uses circular referencing. Spinixster (chat!) 10:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I just notably expanded/rewrote the article, so it might need a re-assessment. I am especially unsatisfied with the prose, which is overly wordy. I'd like to present it to FAC in the future, so this needs to be tip-top. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 promotion contains large amounts of uncited material, while the data it contains has not been updated since the mid-2000s, making it woefully out of date. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2008 listing contains considerable uncited material, including whole subsections, violating good article criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Numerous uncited sections, including almost the entire "Filmography" section. Z1720 ( talk) 22:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2008 listing contains significant uncited material, a lack of updates since the mid-2000s, and some instances of excessive detail/trivia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 20:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2008 listing contains significant amounts of uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2009 listing contains significant uncited material ( criterion 2b)), while a comment on the talk page indicates that it should be updated to include recent developments in the field ( criterion 3a)). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 20:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The part of the article about Kant's ethical theory is mostly just a presentation of the formulations of the categorical imperative from the Groundwork (which, as per title, is the grounding of his moral theory, not the actual theory). There is no discussion of the Critique of Practical Reason. Although I added a section on the Metaphysics of Morals, it is only the bare minimum of what a specialized article should include. For this reason it fails GA criterion 3a.
Although it meets GA criterion 2, there is very little engagement with the enormous secondary literature on this subject.
The Influences, Contemporary Kantian Ethicists, and Criticisms sections have no clear criteria for inclusion and are uneven in their coverage. For this reason it arguably fails GA criterion 4.
I did some work on this article a year ago and left some notes on the talk page, but no one has stepped up to do the sort of work necessary to get this up to current GA standards. Patrick J. Welsh ( talk) 22:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not only does this 2006 promotion contain significant uncited material, but, as noted at Sweeps 2023, it contains none of the extensive scholarship on the decision, so fails GA criterion 3a). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 18:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A 2009 promotion from the sweeps listing. Large chunks of the article are unsourced, and several of the sources used are unreliable (Sportskeeda, International Business Times, the UK Metro tabloid). Hog Farm Talk 23:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing has many unsourced statements and might also need cleanup to comply with quality standards. Spinixster (chat!) 00:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2009 listing contains significant uncited material, including eighteen uncited paragraphs, failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 03:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, violating GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 20:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2008 GA promotion that is largely unsourced. Original GA nominator has not edited since 2020. Additionally needs some updating, as there are items such as the 2021 census not properly reflected, or house pricing statistics from a 2019 source. Hog Farm Talk 21:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Like 10 Hygiea which I started a GAR for, this article is very outdated and lacks extensive coverage on recent studies from high-resolution VLT images. There are very few sources from after 2010. Compared to the recently-renovated article Ceres (dwarf planet) which passed GA review in 2021 and later promoted to FA, Hygiea is severely lacking in depth, judging by the mostly short sections, massive white space beneath the "Observations" section, and the very broad coverage of the "Physical characteristics" section. I do not think this article qualifies for GA in its current state, and a total revamp of this article long overdue. (I do not have time to renovate this entire article by myself, though I may try). Nrco0e ( talk) 08:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This rather interesting historical figure recently passed GAN, and for the very engaging story the article tells, I'm unsure if it hits the GA criteria. I took a quick glance at the sources and added what additional information I could find from them, but with the current information I'm unsure if it meets suitable breadth or not, and wanted more feedback on this. The prose is also slightly confusing at times, especially in the legacy section. Generalissima ( talk) 09:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2006 listing contains numerous sentences and paragraphs, failing GA criterion 2b). Recent edits have drawn attention to the quality of the prose (criterion 1a)), and I am additionally of the opinion that the lists in the article do not meet MOS:EMBED (criterion 1b)). As a non-subject expert, I am unable to say whether the article addresses the main aspects of the topic while excluding excessive detail (criteria 3a) and 3b)). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 20:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
If the issues with the article are not improved by next year then the article will have to be delisted. Catfurball ( talk) 21:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A 2009 GA promotion on the sweeps listing whose original GA nominator has not edited since 2020. This article contains significant uncited text and the coverage of post-2013 matches is severely underdeveloped. Hog Farm Talk 21:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not only does this 2007 listing use the deprecated WP:PAREN citation style, which can be fixed pretty easily, but it contains excessive detail (7,000+ words) on "The Content" of the work, and not enough detail on its background, reception, and legacy. Thus, [[WP:GACR|GA criteria 2b) and 3b) are not met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 21:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2006. I've placed 11 citation needed tags, but there might be more unsourced bits. Spinixster (chat!) 09:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing has not been adequately updated, especially in the "Demographics" section, which relies on data from the 2001 census, and the "Economy" section, which has been tagged with an update banner for over four years. There is also uncited material in the "Geography", "Sport", and "Transport" sections. GA criteria 2b) and 3a) are thus not met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2008 listing contains significant uncited material and has not been adequately updated (census figures from 2010, citations from the mid-2000s being used for current events, etc.) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 02:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this good article for reassessment because it has so many edit wars over the years and tons of vandalism and many unsourced content, I certainly want this article to keep it's plus, but it's an old GA from 2009. -- GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 15:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Media portrayals section has an orange banner for more citations since 2019. Publications sections mostly unsourced, and I believe the Death and Post-humorous publications sections can be expanded with sources published after his death. Z1720 ( talk) 02:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article has uncited passages and an orange "additional citations needed" banner at the top. Z1720 ( talk) 18:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
His public speaking skills were so prized that he was thought to be a doctor and was obligated to cure an apparent cholera epidemic aboard a riverboat by giving his patients a dose of nitrous oxide.WP MILHIST may be interested, and I've left a notification there. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 18:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At the article's DYK nomination, an editor expressed concern with the reliance of YouTube videos. I'm bringing this here to see if editors share this concern, and to determine if the article does meet the GA criteria for sourcing. Thanks to everyone who takes a look. Z1720 ( talk) 23:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
fill in non-controversial details, with the section you quoted referring to
statements about the subjects importance and whyrequiring independent sources. A primary source could be reliable whilst secondary source could be unreliable, it is better to instead look at sources on a case-by-case basis for the best possible source for that information, see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD or WP:PRIMARYCARE, which provides examples of primary sources being acceptable in some cases such as direct quotations and sourcing information about plots or characters. Happily888 ( talk) 22:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, and thus does not meet GA criterion 2b). It may also contain excessive details on matters such as uniform, training courses and centres, and performance objectives, which are near-entirely sourced to non-independent sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, especially in the "History", "Notable people" and "Demographics" sections; the last of these also relies on data from the 2000 census (there have been two since). It thus fails GA criteria 2b) and 3a). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 promotion contains significant uncited material, along with a banner for original research from January in the "Victims" section and numerous citation-related tags. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A 2007 GA promotion - there is significant uncited text and several sources used that are not RS - setlist.fm, discogs, IMDB, etc. Hog Farm Talk 01:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Violates the "well-written" criteria. It's filled with unencyclopedic language, and often reads like a popular history book rather than an encyclopedia article. Examples:
BalinKingOfMoria ( talk) 02:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Much of the article, including whole paragraphs in the "Background" and "Aftermath" sections, are uncited. Z1720 ( talk) 16:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, which means the article does not meet GA criterion 2b) and requires significant work to keep its GA status. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 02:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, including whole subsections, violating GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 20:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Various maintens tags have been placed dating back to May 2020. I plan on fixing them myself but I wanted to see if anyother issues had arrised since then. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing contains significant unctied material, failing GA criterion 2b); it may also need to be updated, as a message on the talk page calls attention to "outdated metrics". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unreferenced prose, including whole sections. WP:OVERSECTION of the "Service history" level 3 headings. Z1720 ( talk) 17:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Significant portions, including whole sections and subsections, of this 2007 listing are missing inline citations; the article thus does not meet GA criterion 2b). If someone has access to the books of the biblography section and the requisite knowledge, this is just a matter of finding pages, to my inexpert mind. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
@ AirshipJungleman29, @ Jacobolus: the discussion of improvement may be found in many places: see at my talk and the talk page of the article Derivative. In my talk page, me and XOR'easter discussed the improvement in the section of definition. Dedhert.Jr ( talk) 03:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Some questions from me regarding the improvement of this article:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2009 listing contains significant uncited material, especially in the "Former monarchies" section, thus failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 23:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This older GA suffers from bloating and disorganisation. Since its promotion in 2008, lots of prose has been added that is uncited, not notable for this article, and/or fancruft. In particular, the season synopsizes, "Critical reception" and "Characters" sections need to be trimmed. Hopefully, someone familiar with the topic can merge or remove the unnecessary information. Z1720 ( talk) 15:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article has a number of claims lacking citations, and relies heavily on citations to the subject's own works. There may also be some issues with plagiarism - for example this source is being nearly directly quoted, but is not attributed as such. Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 addition has multiple unsourced or badly sourced statements, which would not meet GA standards. Spinixster (chat!) 10:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2006 listing contains significant uncited material and large amounts of excessive detail (many sections on the minutiae of scouting could probably be cut), meaning that GA criteria 2b) and 3b) are not met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 20:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the two reasons given: Article has 64 cites and IMO meets the norm for GA's in that area. Regarding excessive detail, IMO I didn't see any. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 20:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2009 that is on the Sweeps listing. There is significant uncited text, which is problematic per WP:GACR #2b, and the notable cases section is largely sourced only to the cases section itself, which leads to issues as to how these cases were selected as notable. This latter issue was brought up in the original GA review in 2009. Hog Farm Talk 15:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2009 listing will need a few changes. Some poorly sourced stuff is in here. GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 07:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A 2009 GA promotion on the Sweeps listing. The article contains significant uncited text and most of the statistical content has become outdated, such as sewer rate comparisons from 2008 and employment figures from 2002. Hog Farm Talk 02:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 addition is on the Sweeps list. GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 07:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One permanent dead link and uncited sources. GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 02:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've found some CN tags and non primary source needed tags. The article also isn't that long and looks like it could use a bit of updating. Folks have had NPOV concerns but I don't know how substantiated they are. Please improve or delist. Right now, I'm doing a research project for school so I looked up the FEE to know what it's all about and saw the tags. I am too busy to work on the article myself because of this project. Thanks! ❤History Theorist❤ 23:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2009 addition has some unsourced claims and might also need some cleanup. Spinixster (chat!) 06:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing has quite a few issues:
The following discussion is closed. 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 very outdated and lacks extensive coverage on recent studies from high-resolution VLT images. There are three citation needed tags and an update template has been placed under the "Orbit and rotation" section since 2019. Compared to the recently-renovated article Ceres (dwarf planet) which passed GA review in 2021 and later promoted to FA, Hygiea is severely lacking in depth, judging by the mostly short sections and the very broad coverage of the "Physical characteristics" section. I do not think this article qualifies for GA in its current state, and a total revamp of this article long overdue. (I do not have time to renovate this entire article by myself, though I may try) Nrco0e ( talk) 07:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In April 2023, an article of the town of Sakurajima was merged into this article. This caused a new, uncited section to be added to the article. This merger should be resolved if this article is to remain a GA. Z1720 ( talk) 01:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 additions suffers from multiple issues, namely missing citations, external links and prose. Spinixster (chat!) 07:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, violating GA criterion 2b). It is also over 10,300 words long (not including numerous quotes, lists, or references) and contains excessive detail, meaning the article does not meet GA criterion 3b). Significant work is needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 21:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2009 addition has three citation needed tags as well as multiple unsourced statements. The article may also need updates to reflect new information. Spinixster (chat!) 06:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2008 listing contains significant uncited material, in addition to some poor prose and a lack of updates (the notable players subsection is based on a dead link from 2007). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 21:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2008. With a heavy heart, I think this no longer meets GA requirements. Some of the sources are questionable (Sensitivitytothings and maybe Rush Limbaugh's website), the article is not written very well with puffery and cruft here and there, but it might be easy to fix. Spinixster (chat!) 04:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Interestingly, upon returning to air on January 7, 2008, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report had increased ratings. [...] Late Night with Conan O'Brien, however, remained at a normal level, with 2.5 million viewers.;
On February 7, 2008, Huckabee made a trip to New York to make yet another appearance on The Colbert Report, [...]; etc. Also, is there a need to mention every single detail of the mock feud? A lot of the sources used there are primary. Spinixster (chat!) 01:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
← ( Page 73) | Good article reassessment (archive) | ( Page 75) → |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 addition relies on many IMDB and other self-published sources, which need to be replaced. Spinixster (chat!) 02:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is no way this article should have been passed in the manner it did. An account with under 30 edits instant-passing a level 2 vital article? That's absurd, especially considering the editor in question came in my own review, where I asked for a second opinion, and said to fail it with no other comment than "bad". At bare minimum I believe this should be re-reviewed; it doesn't look terrible, and if this re-assessment indeed concludes that it is in line with the criteria then so be it. dannymusiceditor oops 19:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article needs an update, with very little post-2009 information. Uncited text throughout, and unnecessary quoting from the Q&A portion of a pageant. Lede might also need an expansion. Z1720 ( talk) 15:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Updated the article. Can you please be more specific which texts are unsourced? I can try finding sources. D-Flo27 ( talk) 12:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article is too short, and it's nomination is from 2009. 79.185.137.127 ( talk) 20:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2008, tagged with a GAR request since September. Aside from the boosterism template, there are 5 citation needed templates and several other unsourced information. Spinixster (chat!) 01:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2013 listing was tagged with {{ GAR request}} in July. There is significant amounts of uncited material, and a behemothic notes section which seems mostly irrelevant, tbh. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Currently the article, as it stands is just a somewhat promotional summary of the features and individual release of Safari.
There isn't any discussions of privacy violations, security exploits (or even for that matter Apple's work on trying to eliminate third-party cookies, the IndexedDB data leak, issues with ITP etc). There is legitimate criticism (and some positive commentary) from multiple fronts on how Apple develops Safari and the fact that it lags behind many other browsers by a large margin. However, non of this appears to be discussed in the article in depth. This imo fails GA #3a and GA #4.
Besides this, there are a few almost contentless sections ("ios versions","Continuity" etc) failing GA #3a, multiple citation needed templates, and a almost completely unreferenced "Payments from Google" section failing GA #2, and some malformed citations. Overall, I do not think this represents the best work we have, and thus would like to move to review the article's GA status (or atleast ask for the article to be improved). Sohom ( talk) 01:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lots of unreferenced paragraphs and sentences. Z1720 ( talk) 02:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per Melchior2006 removing the good article tag out-of-process * Pppery * it has begun... 05:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
− | was appointed an [[Honorary Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire|Honorary Officer of the Order of the British Empire]] (OBE) | + | was appointed an [[Honorary Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire|Honorary Officer of the Order of the British Empire]] (OBE) by [[Elizabeth II|Queen Elizabeth]] in 2011 |
− | + | He was able to earn a living through performing in commercials. In his free time, he performed with the [[Manhattan Theater Club]]. |
Comment: I worked on the original GA and the article as it stands has changed since the reviewed edition. I tried to work with the changes as is, but there are considerable differences. That GA went on many months with suggestions from a number of editors. Certainly remove refs if there are too many, but the bio basically follows numerous interviews that he has given, so nothing is particularly promotional. I'm happy to make comments and give feedback, but I'd rather not give too much input at this point beyond the original GA that was approved. Here is the original GA: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Henry_Winkler&oldid=1083628482 - Classicfilms ( talk) 22:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Comment (?) I'd like to help out, but I feel like the changes would be very controversial, so I would like to ask for opinions about them here before I do so. Aside from the unnecessary quoting issues, I also find it to be going into too much detail. For example:
That's just some examples. Another thing to note is that I see a lot of "Further information" templates. Is it really necessary here? Spinixster (chat!) 11:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2008. Needs updating on her post-2012 career as she has appeared in many races after that date. Spinixster (chat!) 02:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 addition has 2 citation needed tags as well as multiple unsourced statements. Spinixster (chat!) 07:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Large amounts of uncited text, especially in the "Aftermath" section. Z1720 ( talk) 21:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article tagged with relying on Primary sources. It seems like the banner was added shortly after the article was promoted in 2013. I don't think this article meets the criteria anymore. Z1720 ( talk) 14:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Administrative GAR. This article has been merged elsewhere per Talk:Life of L. Ron Hubbard from 1911 to 1950#Proposed merge of Life of L. Ron Hubbard from 1911 to 1950 with Early life of L. Ron Hubbard, which also noted that the sourcing was not tilted towards hagiographic sources. CMD ( talk) 01:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lots of unreferenced sections, including almost the entire "Life to legend" section. Z1720 ( talk) 03:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, along with a host of other issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article has not been updated sufficiently since its last reassessment in 2016, meaning it fails WP:GACR criterion 3a). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 21:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article has been tagged since September for relying excessively on sources closely associated with the university. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not only does this 2008 listing contain large amounts of uncited material, but it has not been updated since the financial crisis (!). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
buidhe placed the {{ GAR request}} template on this 2012 listing with the edit summary "fails WP:MEDRS due to dated sources. Major updates needed". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material and a lack of updates from the last decade. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2008 promotion contains huge amounts of uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2006. This article has many unsourced statements, original research, and uses circular referencing. Spinixster (chat!) 10:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I just notably expanded/rewrote the article, so it might need a re-assessment. I am especially unsatisfied with the prose, which is overly wordy. I'd like to present it to FAC in the future, so this needs to be tip-top. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 promotion contains large amounts of uncited material, while the data it contains has not been updated since the mid-2000s, making it woefully out of date. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2008 listing contains considerable uncited material, including whole subsections, violating good article criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Numerous uncited sections, including almost the entire "Filmography" section. Z1720 ( talk) 22:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2008 listing contains significant uncited material, a lack of updates since the mid-2000s, and some instances of excessive detail/trivia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 20:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2008 listing contains significant amounts of uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2009 listing contains significant uncited material ( criterion 2b)), while a comment on the talk page indicates that it should be updated to include recent developments in the field ( criterion 3a)). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 20:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The part of the article about Kant's ethical theory is mostly just a presentation of the formulations of the categorical imperative from the Groundwork (which, as per title, is the grounding of his moral theory, not the actual theory). There is no discussion of the Critique of Practical Reason. Although I added a section on the Metaphysics of Morals, it is only the bare minimum of what a specialized article should include. For this reason it fails GA criterion 3a.
Although it meets GA criterion 2, there is very little engagement with the enormous secondary literature on this subject.
The Influences, Contemporary Kantian Ethicists, and Criticisms sections have no clear criteria for inclusion and are uneven in their coverage. For this reason it arguably fails GA criterion 4.
I did some work on this article a year ago and left some notes on the talk page, but no one has stepped up to do the sort of work necessary to get this up to current GA standards. Patrick J. Welsh ( talk) 22:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not only does this 2006 promotion contain significant uncited material, but, as noted at Sweeps 2023, it contains none of the extensive scholarship on the decision, so fails GA criterion 3a). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 18:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A 2009 promotion from the sweeps listing. Large chunks of the article are unsourced, and several of the sources used are unreliable (Sportskeeda, International Business Times, the UK Metro tabloid). Hog Farm Talk 23:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing has many unsourced statements and might also need cleanup to comply with quality standards. Spinixster (chat!) 00:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2009 listing contains significant uncited material, including eighteen uncited paragraphs, failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 03:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, violating GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 20:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2008 GA promotion that is largely unsourced. Original GA nominator has not edited since 2020. Additionally needs some updating, as there are items such as the 2021 census not properly reflected, or house pricing statistics from a 2019 source. Hog Farm Talk 21:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Like 10 Hygiea which I started a GAR for, this article is very outdated and lacks extensive coverage on recent studies from high-resolution VLT images. There are very few sources from after 2010. Compared to the recently-renovated article Ceres (dwarf planet) which passed GA review in 2021 and later promoted to FA, Hygiea is severely lacking in depth, judging by the mostly short sections, massive white space beneath the "Observations" section, and the very broad coverage of the "Physical characteristics" section. I do not think this article qualifies for GA in its current state, and a total revamp of this article long overdue. (I do not have time to renovate this entire article by myself, though I may try). Nrco0e ( talk) 08:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This rather interesting historical figure recently passed GAN, and for the very engaging story the article tells, I'm unsure if it hits the GA criteria. I took a quick glance at the sources and added what additional information I could find from them, but with the current information I'm unsure if it meets suitable breadth or not, and wanted more feedback on this. The prose is also slightly confusing at times, especially in the legacy section. Generalissima ( talk) 09:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2006 listing contains numerous sentences and paragraphs, failing GA criterion 2b). Recent edits have drawn attention to the quality of the prose (criterion 1a)), and I am additionally of the opinion that the lists in the article do not meet MOS:EMBED (criterion 1b)). As a non-subject expert, I am unable to say whether the article addresses the main aspects of the topic while excluding excessive detail (criteria 3a) and 3b)). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 20:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
If the issues with the article are not improved by next year then the article will have to be delisted. Catfurball ( talk) 21:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A 2009 GA promotion on the sweeps listing whose original GA nominator has not edited since 2020. This article contains significant uncited text and the coverage of post-2013 matches is severely underdeveloped. Hog Farm Talk 21:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not only does this 2007 listing use the deprecated WP:PAREN citation style, which can be fixed pretty easily, but it contains excessive detail (7,000+ words) on "The Content" of the work, and not enough detail on its background, reception, and legacy. Thus, [[WP:GACR|GA criteria 2b) and 3b) are not met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 21:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2006. I've placed 11 citation needed tags, but there might be more unsourced bits. Spinixster (chat!) 09:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing has not been adequately updated, especially in the "Demographics" section, which relies on data from the 2001 census, and the "Economy" section, which has been tagged with an update banner for over four years. There is also uncited material in the "Geography", "Sport", and "Transport" sections. GA criteria 2b) and 3a) are thus not met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2008 listing contains significant uncited material and has not been adequately updated (census figures from 2010, citations from the mid-2000s being used for current events, etc.) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 02:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this good article for reassessment because it has so many edit wars over the years and tons of vandalism and many unsourced content, I certainly want this article to keep it's plus, but it's an old GA from 2009. -- GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 15:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Media portrayals section has an orange banner for more citations since 2019. Publications sections mostly unsourced, and I believe the Death and Post-humorous publications sections can be expanded with sources published after his death. Z1720 ( talk) 02:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article has uncited passages and an orange "additional citations needed" banner at the top. Z1720 ( talk) 18:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
His public speaking skills were so prized that he was thought to be a doctor and was obligated to cure an apparent cholera epidemic aboard a riverboat by giving his patients a dose of nitrous oxide.WP MILHIST may be interested, and I've left a notification there. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 18:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At the article's DYK nomination, an editor expressed concern with the reliance of YouTube videos. I'm bringing this here to see if editors share this concern, and to determine if the article does meet the GA criteria for sourcing. Thanks to everyone who takes a look. Z1720 ( talk) 23:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
fill in non-controversial details, with the section you quoted referring to
statements about the subjects importance and whyrequiring independent sources. A primary source could be reliable whilst secondary source could be unreliable, it is better to instead look at sources on a case-by-case basis for the best possible source for that information, see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD or WP:PRIMARYCARE, which provides examples of primary sources being acceptable in some cases such as direct quotations and sourcing information about plots or characters. Happily888 ( talk) 22:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, and thus does not meet GA criterion 2b). It may also contain excessive details on matters such as uniform, training courses and centres, and performance objectives, which are near-entirely sourced to non-independent sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, especially in the "History", "Notable people" and "Demographics" sections; the last of these also relies on data from the 2000 census (there have been two since). It thus fails GA criteria 2b) and 3a). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 promotion contains significant uncited material, along with a banner for original research from January in the "Victims" section and numerous citation-related tags. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A 2007 GA promotion - there is significant uncited text and several sources used that are not RS - setlist.fm, discogs, IMDB, etc. Hog Farm Talk 01:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Violates the "well-written" criteria. It's filled with unencyclopedic language, and often reads like a popular history book rather than an encyclopedia article. Examples:
BalinKingOfMoria ( talk) 02:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Much of the article, including whole paragraphs in the "Background" and "Aftermath" sections, are uncited. Z1720 ( talk) 16:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, which means the article does not meet GA criterion 2b) and requires significant work to keep its GA status. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 02:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, including whole subsections, violating GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 20:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Various maintens tags have been placed dating back to May 2020. I plan on fixing them myself but I wanted to see if anyother issues had arrised since then. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing contains significant unctied material, failing GA criterion 2b); it may also need to be updated, as a message on the talk page calls attention to "outdated metrics". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unreferenced prose, including whole sections. WP:OVERSECTION of the "Service history" level 3 headings. Z1720 ( talk) 17:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Significant portions, including whole sections and subsections, of this 2007 listing are missing inline citations; the article thus does not meet GA criterion 2b). If someone has access to the books of the biblography section and the requisite knowledge, this is just a matter of finding pages, to my inexpert mind. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
@ AirshipJungleman29, @ Jacobolus: the discussion of improvement may be found in many places: see at my talk and the talk page of the article Derivative. In my talk page, me and XOR'easter discussed the improvement in the section of definition. Dedhert.Jr ( talk) 03:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Some questions from me regarding the improvement of this article:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2009 listing contains significant uncited material, especially in the "Former monarchies" section, thus failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 23:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This older GA suffers from bloating and disorganisation. Since its promotion in 2008, lots of prose has been added that is uncited, not notable for this article, and/or fancruft. In particular, the season synopsizes, "Critical reception" and "Characters" sections need to be trimmed. Hopefully, someone familiar with the topic can merge or remove the unnecessary information. Z1720 ( talk) 15:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article has a number of claims lacking citations, and relies heavily on citations to the subject's own works. There may also be some issues with plagiarism - for example this source is being nearly directly quoted, but is not attributed as such. Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 addition has multiple unsourced or badly sourced statements, which would not meet GA standards. Spinixster (chat!) 10:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2006 listing contains significant uncited material and large amounts of excessive detail (many sections on the minutiae of scouting could probably be cut), meaning that GA criteria 2b) and 3b) are not met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 20:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the two reasons given: Article has 64 cites and IMO meets the norm for GA's in that area. Regarding excessive detail, IMO I didn't see any. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 20:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2009 that is on the Sweeps listing. There is significant uncited text, which is problematic per WP:GACR #2b, and the notable cases section is largely sourced only to the cases section itself, which leads to issues as to how these cases were selected as notable. This latter issue was brought up in the original GA review in 2009. Hog Farm Talk 15:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2009 listing will need a few changes. Some poorly sourced stuff is in here. GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 07:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A 2009 GA promotion on the Sweeps listing. The article contains significant uncited text and most of the statistical content has become outdated, such as sewer rate comparisons from 2008 and employment figures from 2002. Hog Farm Talk 02:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 addition is on the Sweeps list. GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 07:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One permanent dead link and uncited sources. GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 02:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've found some CN tags and non primary source needed tags. The article also isn't that long and looks like it could use a bit of updating. Folks have had NPOV concerns but I don't know how substantiated they are. Please improve or delist. Right now, I'm doing a research project for school so I looked up the FEE to know what it's all about and saw the tags. I am too busy to work on the article myself because of this project. Thanks! ❤History Theorist❤ 23:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2009 addition has some unsourced claims and might also need some cleanup. Spinixster (chat!) 06:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing has quite a few issues:
The following discussion is closed. 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 very outdated and lacks extensive coverage on recent studies from high-resolution VLT images. There are three citation needed tags and an update template has been placed under the "Orbit and rotation" section since 2019. Compared to the recently-renovated article Ceres (dwarf planet) which passed GA review in 2021 and later promoted to FA, Hygiea is severely lacking in depth, judging by the mostly short sections and the very broad coverage of the "Physical characteristics" section. I do not think this article qualifies for GA in its current state, and a total revamp of this article long overdue. (I do not have time to renovate this entire article by myself, though I may try) Nrco0e ( talk) 07:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In April 2023, an article of the town of Sakurajima was merged into this article. This caused a new, uncited section to be added to the article. This merger should be resolved if this article is to remain a GA. Z1720 ( talk) 01:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 additions suffers from multiple issues, namely missing citations, external links and prose. Spinixster (chat!) 07:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, violating GA criterion 2b). It is also over 10,300 words long (not including numerous quotes, lists, or references) and contains excessive detail, meaning the article does not meet GA criterion 3b). Significant work is needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 21:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2009 addition has three citation needed tags as well as multiple unsourced statements. The article may also need updates to reflect new information. Spinixster (chat!) 06:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2008 listing contains significant uncited material, in addition to some poor prose and a lack of updates (the notable players subsection is based on a dead link from 2007). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 21:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2008. With a heavy heart, I think this no longer meets GA requirements. Some of the sources are questionable (Sensitivitytothings and maybe Rush Limbaugh's website), the article is not written very well with puffery and cruft here and there, but it might be easy to fix. Spinixster (chat!) 04:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Interestingly, upon returning to air on January 7, 2008, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report had increased ratings. [...] Late Night with Conan O'Brien, however, remained at a normal level, with 2.5 million viewers.;
On February 7, 2008, Huckabee made a trip to New York to make yet another appearance on The Colbert Report, [...]; etc. Also, is there a need to mention every single detail of the mock feud? A lot of the sources used there are primary. Spinixster (chat!) 01:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)