Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Main

Criteria

Instructions

Nominations

October 2024 Backlog Drive

Mentorship

Review circles

Discussion

Reassessment

Report

Semi-Automated Tools User scripts for GAR: Opening: GAR-helper Closing: GANReviewTool

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

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

Before opening a reassessment

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

Opening a reassessment

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

Reassessment process

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

Closing a reassessment

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

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

Disputing a reassessment

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

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79

Good article reassessment Talk notices given view edit
Crash Bandicoot (character) 2024-04-28 Ben Nevis 2024-06-08 Leeds Country Way 2024-06-27 Louvre 2024-08-11 Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States 2024-08-11 Joan Crawford 2024-08-19 Pest control 2024-08-22 New England Patriots 2024-08-28
Find more: 2023 GA Sweeps Project

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

• 01:11:44, 18/07/2024: Stonyhurst College
  

• 06:13:05, 05/08/2024: Muammar Gaddafi
  

• 02:05:47, 25/08/2024: HL Anyang
  

• 20:04:46, 02/09/2024: Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time
  

• 23:31:20, 14/09/2024: Haile Selassie
  

• 23:17:20, 20/09/2024: Carl von In der Maur
  
• 19:04:12, 24/09/2024: Current date for reference

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

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

Result pending

This is a very old promotion which is in poor condition. The article is at most a summary of (some) of Power's career, and misses out a lot of detail. It also fails on such basic details as his birth. Over time I have added to the infobox of this article, not truly looking at the state of the main text. The contrast is clear.

The sources used are poor, ignoring almost all modern scholarship. I am not one to deride older sources if they are useful, but many of the sources here are nineteenth century, and not even his Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry is used, never mind any other literature. I also take into account the reliance on original research and primary sources in requesting this reassessment; the most-referenced source in the article is an archive of papers.

I will look to re-write this article, as it deserves, but do not have the time to do so in one sitting. It should in the meantime not keep its Good Article status. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

The GA nominator had a conflict of interest with the article, which I do not think was disclosed at the time. This resulted in an orange banner with COI concerns. There is also an orange banner with a resume concern. I also do not think the article has been updated with more recent information for his bio. Z1720 (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

@GAR Me and the GA reviewer fell out and although some substantial changes to the article were made during the review, I do not consider it properly finished. I recently asked the reviewer to fail the review so it could be reviewed by someone else, whilst referring them to that review (I was fine with waiting), but they have decided to list it instead.

I feel bad about this because to me, the review makes it appear like I wore down the reviewer just so they would list it when the main issue we conflicted over was formatting issues that I felt were detrimental to the article's quality, and a lack of comment on the article's content. (we had clashed over similar issues before.)

So in listing this article for Good Article Reassessment, I'm looking to finish the job/review on a better note/in better faith. Per the previous reviewer, issues that were not addressed before its listing include:

• Copyright vio
• Original search
• Sources,
  • Check the reliability of unlinked sources
  • Check if the Cite highlighter script recognize them
  • If the script doesn't, check if they were cited, mentioned or referenced by any reliable media publication
  • Social media is not a source unless stated otherwise

You can (and should) also refer back to the original review: PLEASE comment if you agree on comments brought up by the previous reviewer that should be implemented, because I don't know if I was wrong in rejecting his suggestions in the way that I did.

Thank you. Chchcheckit (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GAR coordinators: ping. Chchcheckit (talk) 12:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

This article has several citation needed type tags, violating WP:V. It last went through GAR in 2008, thus making it very likely it is unduly weighted toward that time period. Also were the standards for GA in 2008 lower?

This article is obviously very important right now, so an unwarranted GA status is very bad for the reliability of Wikipedia. It is a wonderful world (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article relies too much on newspaper reports and speculation by biased parties, it should be scrapped and rewritten. The lead has it that Hezbollah failed to disarm after the 2006 withdrawal from Lebanon but the Shabaa Farms are still occupied. Keith-264 (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's probably not my place but small examples like the article is still quoting polled support numbers published in 2006 by The Christian Science Monitor. It listed 80% support for Druze, assuming they weren't polling children, nearly half the current population was not in that 2 decade old poll. Does having sources that may reached some level of obsolescence at least when talking in present terms mean something against verifiability? Regardless article's subject is such a complex entity because of its paramilitary/political party hybridizing, that's the argument that has been made in the UN which keeps it off the consolidated terror groups and individuals list. I can't think of any other examples of non state actor groups that are in the same position. Not withstanding all that, just in the past week, so much has happened that may fundamentally change their structure that a whole new section would need to be added to attempt to give context to an unprimed reader. Even before last week I'm not certain if meets broad coverage with news coverage pushing the bulk of its sources and now just this last week such drastic numbers that can only be estimated at this point, the article might as well have a time date describing the group before that date while refraining from describing them after last week. RCSCott91 (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the entire article, but just from reading the lede, it seems to have had a major expansion in recent years, which has turned it into a rather incoherent and bloated summary. Given the intensity of the past 16 years with regards to Hezbollah, I suspect if there was no organized and centralized effort to keep the content top notch in that period, most expansions were likely made randomly. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a GA article imo. Selfstudier (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Word count according to prosesize (web tool version) is now: 11,513. That puts it at the probably should be split size; still a little short of the definitely split size on word count according to the article size guideline. BUT the prosesize word count does not include tables and lists, which this article has, and may not include long quotations since these are not highlighted as part of the "prosesize" count and the article has several long block quotes. The random increases in the size of the article and its overall size alone would seem to be enough to change the assessment to B class from GA. Donner60 (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

This 2010 GA has many parts lacking citations, which I've tagged. Additionally, some book sources are lacking page numbers to verify the information, there are some sources of questionable reliability, and the citation style does not seem to be very consistent. Spinixster (trout me!) 06:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

During the discussion on awarding the Good Article distinction on pl:wiki (Propozycje do Dobrych Artykułów/Pierwsza kampania Mehmeda II w Albanii) for the translation of Mehmed II's Albanian campaign article, editors from the Polish version of Wiki noticed a number of irregularities and doubts about the actual use of declared sources.

• Nolli's book (Noli, Fan Stilian (1947), George Castroiti Scanderbeg (1405–1468)) – does not provide sources for the information provided in the entry.
• Schmaus (Schmaus, Alois (1969), Beiträge zur Kenntnis Südosteuropas und des Nahen Orients, vol. 8, Trofenik) is cited as the author of the periodical, but the title of his article in Beiträge zur Kenntnis Südosteuropas is missing.
• Franco, Demetrio (1539), Commentary on the cose of Turchi, et del S. Georgio Scanderbeg, principe d' Epyr (the publication from 1539 has an ISBN number? How could the author use the publication from 1539?)

We do not understand why the author, who declares knowledge of Albanian, did not publish the article in the Albanian language version of Wikipedia?

The discussants drew attention to the title of the article: in publications this era of fighting is called an uprising, and the actions of the sultan are called retaliation. We assess that the article Pierwsza kampania Mehmeda II w Albanii cannot be recognized on pl:wiki as GA, and we have grounds to believe that the article Mehmed II's Albanian campaign probably is a hoax.

In this situation, we request that the distinction of GA on en:wiki be revised. Jacek555 (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing this page, I can personally say:

This article is at most C-class. Setergh (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Setergh's assessment of C class due to referencing and citation problems. I also find the content suspicious. Other articles not by the same user do not mention campaigns involving the Albanians and Ottomans at the same time. Mehmed was concertrating on taking Constantinople during the same time period as the events in the article. The reviewers who looked at this could not find information in the article in some of the cited sources. Further research might show this is a hoax. A successful hoax along these lines would include real historical persons doing things they might have done along the lines of actual verified actions at other times in other contexts. I am not quite prepared to say this is a hoax article but it is certainly questionable. It should be downgraded for a start. Donner60 (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was invited to have a look at the MILHIST talk page. Right off the bat, I am surprised that the go-to resource on Mehmed's reign, Franz Babinger's Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, or Setton's monumental and indispensable The Papacy and the Levant, were not used. Mehmed's preoccupation in the spring and summer 1452 is known to have been the construction of Rumeli Hisar in preparation for the siege of Constantinople, and the article itself makes clear that he did not lead the campaign; so the title of the article at least incorrect. Schmaus' contribution is, I assume this dedicated volume, so it is slightly mis-cited. I can also detect at least one error of fact: Skanderbeg's primary reason for allying with Alfonso was his fear of 21-year-old Mehmed II is untrue, since Mehmed was considered widely a non-entity at the time, a youth stepping into shoes too big for him to fill; Skanderbeg was motivated by the Ottoman threat, but also by internal rivalries. I had a look at the EI2 article, where the events of 1452 are not mentioned, and the İslâm Ansiklopedisi article on Skanderbeg, where it at least confirms that "The young sultan contented himself with sending forces against Skanderbeg in the first years of his reign and tried to keep him under pressure. It is known that during the siege of Istanbul, a unit under the command of Ibrahim Bey moved against the Albanian-Neapolitan forces, but was unsuccessful." However this only explicitly confirms Battle of Polog. In short, I would like more easily accessible (and of higher scholarly caliber) sources for verifiability, but fundamentally, assuming good faith, and given that the events in Albania prior to Mehmed's active involvement there are not well covered by Western historians (cf. Babinger or Setton), I would assume that the events recounted are factual. As such I don't think this is a hoax, but it does warrant improvements in sourcing, especially as Skanderbeg's life is heavily mythologized. Constantine ✍ 09:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough review. Good information and sound conclusion. Donner60 (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may be able to get my hands on a copy of Schmaus within the next couple of weeks from the university library, will then definitely revisit the article then. Constantine ✍ 15:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

GA criteria:

3.a) As a lot has changed since 2010 I think the article no longer properly addresses the main aspects of the topic. In particular the topic has become far more political. I mentioned this again on the talk page last month https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Forestry_in_the_United_Kingdom#Important_info_is_missing_I_think but there is still very little about politics in the article. There are plenty of sources - for example https://www.forestryjournal.co.uk/news/politics/ and it has been a couple of months now since the new government appointed a minister https://www.charteredforesters.org/uk-government-appoints-new-minister-for-forestry

Also the article does not have enough content on Northern Ireland (possible sources https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/information-and-services/forests/public-forests-northern-ireland https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/forestry-in-northern-ireland-facing-uncertain-future/), and there are some cleanup tags and reference errors which have been there for a while now. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I seem to have unwatched this article by accident. I certainly didn't mean to. I was therefore unaware of the maintenance tags and talk page commentary, and I haven't satisfied the tagger's demands. I would however note that if changes are needed and sources exist, then the edit button is available... Otherwise I'll get to this in due course.—S Marshall T/C 08:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not going to edit this myself as I am busy with Forests in Turkey. But I don’t think there is any rush. Maybe people who are out walking in the woods now will take this up once winter storms force them inside. I have notified some other editors but if you know any more who might be interested please let them know. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the ping! I'm coming at this from a botanical rather than commercial forestry angle. The tree list is of uncertain value as it stands at the moment, as a lot of the trees on it (including many of the native species) are not of commercial forestry significance, being little more than shrubs and/or very rare (e.g. the native whitebeams, many of the willows), or only of horticultural interest; but there are also a few species used in forestry that are not included and should be added. I'd recommend changing the order to ! Scientific name !! Common name !! as it makes maintenance easier (the option of sorting to sci name is how found a duplicate in the list just now). The 'Period' is also of limited value, but if wanted, much more precise introduction dates are known for most introduced species; I can add them if need be. I'd also suggest changing the lead photo from Epping Forest (basically, a public park, not a commercial forestry site); perhaps something like File:Timber harvesting in Kielder Forest.JPG which shows more what 'real' forestry is like, and with forestry work in progress - MPF (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @MPF As there is already an article List of trees of Great Britain and Ireland perhaps we should just delete the list in this article to avoid duplication? If this article needs a list it could maybe excerpt the list article? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Certainly worth considering, though that list does not include several commercially important forestry species that happen not to be widely naturalised in Britain - MPF (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why would we avoid duplication?—S Marshall T/C 16:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To make the list easier to maintain if new species entered the UK, for example those better able to tolerate climate change Chidgk1 (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah! Well, this is why we have WP:LST. It's a relatively new feature which we used extensively in articles about the COVID-19 pandemic, so we could update the case numbers once and propagate that information to lots of articles. I would suggest that we convert List of trees of Great Britain and Ireland into one or more sortable wikitables, then merge the lists, and then use the LST feature to selectively transclude the commercial forestry species. That way we only have to maintain one list but we can display a complete set of information everywhere we need to!—S Marshall T/C 17:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

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

Result pending

The article seems to be suffering from a great degree of scope creep. It's bloated considerably in size since the GAN in 2014, and further changes within the show in the 2020s have only bloated the article out further. Last GAR was closed as "kept", but it's only gotten worse since then as more changes have ensued in the show's history (e.g., the tournament spinoffs, Michael Davies taking over, Mayim Bialik being fired, etc.). Also, I think the gameplay description and host changeover sections are way too verbose and detailed. I should also note that Claire McNear's 2020 book has not been integrated into the article and is only listed under "further reading". I do have a copy of the book, but the rest of the article needs a severe trim first. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick skim of the article, and while at first glance I think it seemed quite long for a tv show. But after further thought it does seem to be necessary for how much information of a show of that caliber should maintain. I don't quite know what information I would cut. Eruditess (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's way too much technical cruft about the ins and outs of tournaments, for one. The section on host changes could also be massively tightened up and do without all the quotes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @SethAllen623: This was 10 (!) years ago now, but Seth and I worked together a bit on bringing this and Millionaire (also recently delisted as a GA, unfortunately) up to GA standards. If I recall correctly, the same reviewer took on both articles and admittedly didn't cover as much detail in their reviews as they probably could/should have. I don't know how much time I have to try to save this one at the moment, though I do have the updated 2022 paperback version of McNear's book and would be happy to at least try to incorporate that into this article where appropriate later this week. FWIW, I donated my copy of the original 2020 hardback version to my college's library, but given I currently work at said library...I can almost certainly get access to that as well if necessary. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

There are uncited sections, particularily about the production's history during COVID-19 restrictions. The "Movie" section has large blockquotes which should be summarised instead due to copyright concerns. The article also has over 10,000 words of prose, which WP:TOOBIG states should probably be spun-out or reduced. BroadwayWorld is used as a citation numerous times, which WP:RS/P states is an unreliable source. Z1720 (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Wicked needs a lot of clean-up, and streamlining, but, as I pointed out to Z1720 elsewhere, while WP:RS/P states that BroadwayWorld is not a reliable source "for biographies of living persons", it is a standard source for use in musicals for basic production information like production dates and casts (though Playbill, IBDB, etc. would be preferred). -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

This article is missing several sections, including its history, the cuisine it is used in, and its uses outside of the United States. Z1720 (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - it was easier for geneticists to trace human existence back to its Mitochondrial mother than what it would be to trace the history of the exact (or evolving) ingredients for crab dip. I am not aware of any patents on crap dip. Without the latter or other form of verifiable proof, the sections claimed to be missing are, quite frankly, quite a ^[stretch]. Having said that, I commend Z1720 for exercising due diligence in wanting our GAs to be really, really good articles. Atsme 💬 📧 18:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Atsme, I would think there is probably something that could be, um, cooked up, about how it came to be associated with Maryland, and about whether it is used outside of the US. In other words, I'm wondering whether you could meet the criticisms part way? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reviewed the article, and it meets the requirements for GA. Can it be expanded? Perhaps, but that is not a reason to file a GAR. There is no documented history about this particular recipe that I can find, though there is a National Crab Meat Day that doesn't specifically mention crab dip, and there is also documented history about crabbing in Maryland which lists ways to prepare crab meat; crap dip is on the list, but just passing mention. The lead of the crab dip article states that it is sometimes referred to as Maryland crab dip. If someone wants to expand the article as a potential FA candidate, they can certainly give it a shot, but finding the documented history that states the where/when/how, it's just another mom & pop homestyle recipe that is typically passed along by word of mouth, online, or in multiple recipe books with some variation. It is also possible that there is a long established, upscale Maryland seafood restaurant that makes claim to their own crab dip recipe, and has it documented but again, that's just a variation of the ubiquitous basic ingredients for crab dip. j/s Atsme 💬 📧 12:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thoughts @Z1720 and Tryptofish:? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still think Atsme might meet the review issues part way, but I see that more as friendly advice than as something that would make me want to de-list the page. I'll defer to whatever Z1720 prefers. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          

---

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

Result pending

The references are mangled with multiple errors, missing authors and publication dates, and self-published sources. Multiple uncited claims. The prose itself is somewhat flawed. Kimikel (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify the uncited claims? Also seeing maybe 2 self-published sources. The reference errors are mainly easily fixable template mistakes Aza24 (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• and as having an "Antiquarian Importance",[7] a status which is enjoyed by only a handful of other species. > no citation
• Other Bidni olive trees in the vicinity can be found in the private grounds of Qannotta Castle in Wardija.
• Nowadays, the use of oil in Maltese cuisine is still predominant. The popular Maltese snack "ħobż biż-żejt", which literally translates to "bread with oil", is testimony to this.

Looking back, the lead section additionally doesn't summarize the body at all, and instead introduces information not mentioned anywhere else. It would need to be rewritten, with that information being moved to the body. Kimikel (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you couldn't manage yourself, surely, Kimikel? That's the sensible way forward, I think. Tim riley talk 15:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: It is not a reviewer's responsibility or requirement to make edits to an article. Instead, those who want the article to retain its GA status should be the ones to make the necessary improvements. Z1720 (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, if you can't be bothered. No obligation, but it might have been a kindness. Tim riley talk 20:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. There are also sources listed in the "Bibliography" that are not used as inline citations: these should be used as inline citations or removed. Z1720 (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am willing to work on the article. It's a good 20 years old so a review is fine. I've put the unused sources into the 'Further reading' section. If you have particular cite concerns, please mark them with the 'citation needed' template. That would be helpful. Alaney2k (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Alaney2k: I have added the cn tags. Z1720 (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I will take care of those this week. I think I have access to all of the materials needed. Alaney2k (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

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

Result pending

There are several "reliance on primary sources" orange banners that need to be addressed. There are uncited statements throughout the article, MOS:OVERSECTION concerns, and I think the "Incidents and accidents" section can be incorporated into the article's history or removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello; can you give me some more detail on some of these items. I'll try to make some improvements. Kyteto (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyteto: The areas with primary source concerns have already been placed. That would be a good area to start. Z1720 (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kyteto do you still intend to work on this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do, I've been a bit ill recently, it's why my normal article writing has fallen off in recent weeks - finally feeling better for the first time, but it is still not great. I am also having an issue with the primary source problem, in that in several instances they are extremely trivial bits of info, to the point where I'd suspect nobody but BA would ever care to mention them. I see a very strong case for third party sourcing of any claim that is, or remotely is, extraordinary, such as "British Airways was the most profitable airline in the world in the mid 1990s" (a true fact indeed) while a statement like "British Airways has a class of seating called [X]" is... mundane. Does it really need to even be cited at all? WP:Cite had never demanded absolutely everything to have a cite, technically only that which is challenged; so, can I resolved the primary source tag by simply removing them and leaving them uncited? What's the best course of action for the mundanes? Kyteto (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kyteto, GA criterion 2b) requires that all content that could reasonably be challenged be cited inline. I think it fairly likely that travel websites would mention details of BA's seating classes or loyalty programs. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google isn't always complying with that fairly likely... I am trying... Kyteto (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

buidhe added the {{GAR request}} tag in May, adding the rationale "Article cites sources from the 19th century, and the ref format has grown inconsistent since promotion more than a decade ago. Also, per above, the siege is only a small portion of the article text. The 2019 book specifically about the siege, which should be accessible to TWL users, could be helpful on expanding the content about the article topic." below. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AirshipJungleman29, I'm willing to work on this. What would your expected timeline be? I think 30-40 days will be ok here, wdyt? Matarisvan (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

The article contains uncited text, including entire paragraphs. It also has many one- or two-sentence paragraphs that should be merged together, particularly in the "Personal life" section. Z1720 (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a look at this. The gaps in the recent managerial career can be easily filled as they were recent, even if they were for minor teams. Amazed that his double whammy suspension [1] was not already in the article, as the name Le Saux appears four times on the talk page... Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unknown Temptation, do you intend to do further work on the article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

This article has had an orange "relies on primary sources" banner at the top of the article since October 2023. Upon looking at the inline citations, I agree with that assessment. This would require a subject-matter expert to look through the citations to see what should be replaced with a more recent source. Z1720 (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The scholarly literature on the Greco-Persian wars is vast -- there's no excuse to be using primary sources here, and the sourcing for the article in general is well below what I'd expect of a GA. The modern sources cited are nearly all either non-scholarly, outdated, generally tangential to the field or from people whose scholarly standing is controversial. Fixing this would need a full rewrite, so I would advise a delist if nobody is willing to do that. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Overuse of primary sources; secondary sources used are plainly insufficient. It's been well known that the ancient sources' description of the battle are not consistent and do not lend themselves to recognisable (today) topographic features. This is not a problem anymore, however, because we now have aerial ground penetrating radar. Jones (2020) p 196 The [battle] is particularly difficult to reconstruct using only literature from ancient sources... Modern historians [list of 10 names], many of whom visited the battlefield north of Erythres/Kriekouki, were unable to agree on the events and locations of the Battle of Plataea. There are too many complications due to lost topographical markers and reliance on ancient sources [list of 6] to identify locations from accounts of the battle. See also Konechny (2022) for detailed reconstruction. Ifly6 (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I can work on this article and restore it to GA level in ~20 days. I hope that timeline is ok for everyone. Matarisvan (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for volunteering to take this up. I want to ask, however, whether any rewrite is (for lack of a better term) happening. Ifly6 (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm working on 2 other GA rewrites so the timeline will be delayed quite a bit, but the rewrite is on. I've done the biblio formatting, I expect to complete the rewrite in 30-40 days instead of the 20 estimated above. I hope that is ok, @Ifly6? Matarisvan (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really matter how quickly it happens to me, just wanted to know that you're in earnest on it. Ifly6 (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

There is a lot of uncited text, including entire paragraphs. Some of the notes have "verification needed" tags from 2011. Many sources listed in the bibliography are not used as intext citations. Z1720 (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Repeated use of primary source Al-Waqidi as well. Ifly6 (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a delist -- no longer meets GA sourcing standards. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I can work on this and get the article back to GA level in ~20 days. Is that timeline ok for everyone? Matarisvan (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Z1720, @Ifly6 and @UndercoverClassicist: Can Akram 1970, 2004 and 2009 be considered reliable sources? I personally do not think they are, if there is consensus then I can remove and replace these. Matarisvan (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akram was a recognised military historian in addition to being a senior military officer; they may not be the best sources, but the bar for GA is low (not unreliable), and I'd suggest that the article has bigger sourcing problems at the moment. However, replacing them with works with greater scholarly impact would be a net positive. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Numerous uncited statements. The history section stops at 1966 and needs to mention recent events. The lede needs to mention information about the history of the location. Z1720 (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I relied almost exclusively on Blank's book when I started this article 18 years ago. The local library has a non-circulating copy, so I can look in it to provide citations for a lot of things. I may be able to gain access to The Book of Key Biscayne by Jim Woodman, although I suspect Blank used it as a source. Donald Albury 17:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As to recent history. Crandon Park and the Village of Key Biscayne were created in the mid-20th century and the Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park was created in 1966, and most of the history of Key Biscayne since then has really been about one of those entities and not the island as a whole. There may be a few events that affected the island as a whole, but Hurricane Andrew is the only one I can think of off hand. There may be something to say about how changes to the Rickenbacker Causeway and Crandon Boulevard have affected access to the island, but events on Virginia Key and along the causeway itself are not part of the history of the island. Donald Albury 13:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably worth mentioning the incorporation of the eponymous municipality as that seems a major event for the island, and some although not all of the municipal history, as this would be in keeping with the existing text in History which does cover the inhabitants and various demographic and infrastructure developments. I also wonder if there is something more to add regarding sea level rise giving the mentioned low elevation, but at a quick look I couldn't find anything not focused on the municipality. CMD (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the article mentions the beginning of the housing devekopment that led to the incorporation, but does stop too soon. Some more about the creation of Crandon Park could also be added, comparable to the coverage of the creation of the state park.

A quick Google search found a number of news items focused on the effects of sea level rise on the municipality, more or less ignoring the rest of the island. Google Scholar results are rather sparse on articles about contemporary sea level rise at Key Biscayne.

My todo list keeps growing as I (temporarily) set aside articles I'm working on to deal with the next thing that comes along. Maybe I will get to the library this week to look at the Blank book. Donald Albury 13:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sea level rise does seem to be either municipal level or Miami-Dade level, up to your editorial call as to whether and how it could be included in the article. CMD (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added page numbers to a couple of cites, and added cites for what I could find in the Blank book. I also rewrote a couple of small bits after reviewing the Blank book. There are still things I haven't found a source for, and parts of the article should be rewriten. Donald Albury 22:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

This article contains a 5-paragraph bloated lede, numerous uncited sentences and paragraphs, and short, one sentence paragraphs in a very long "Legacy and honours" section. Z1720 (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article has lots of deficiencies. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has seen a flurry of activity since this GAR was opened. Could you provide additional feedback following recent edits? Zsinj^Talk 11:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to keep working on this article to address the issues raised. Other editors are active and making improvements. I welcome further feedback, review, or support at the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zsinj and Firefangledfeathers: Since reviewer time is limited, please post below when the article fulfils the GA criteria and someone will conduct a more in-depth review. Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Firefangledfeathers, we are around three weeks away from this GAR being three months old, which is normally when we start looking towards a close (we try not to let them go on indefinitely). There still seems to be extensive issues with the article. Do you believe that it is salvageable? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will update soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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