Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsFAQMay backlog driveMentorshipReview circlesDiscussionReassessmentReport
Shortcuts
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment

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 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 delisting.

Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment instructions

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.
Manual opening steps
  1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
  2. Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
  3. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. 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.
  4. The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
  5. Transclude the assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste {{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}} at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion.
  6. Notify major contributing editors, including the nominator and the reviewer. Also consider notifying relevant active WikiProjects related to the article. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.

Reassessment process

  1. Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them. Comments should focus on the article's contents and adherence to the good article criteria.
  2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
  3. Interested editors can indicate their intention to fix the article and give updates on their progress in the GAR. Commentators should periodically check the GAR and give additional comments when necessary. Wikipedia is not compulsory and editors should not insist that commentators, interested editors, or past GAN nominators make the suggested changes, nor should they state that edits should have been completed before the GAR was opened.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 month.
  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.
    • If there is no consensus, the reassessment may also be closed as keep.
  4. After at least one month, 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.
  5. If the article has been kept, consider awarding the Good Article Rescue Barnstar to the editor(s) who contributed significantly to bringing it up to standard.
Manual closing steps
  1. Locate {{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page.
  2. The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
    • If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
      • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
      • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
      • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (example)
    • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this,
      • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
      • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
      • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page, setting currentstatus to DGA (delisted good article). (example)
      • blank the class parameter of the WikiProject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment
      • remove the {{good article}} template from the article page (example)
      • remove the article from the relevant list at good articles (example)
  3. Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)

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.

Articles needing possible reassessment

Good article reassessment

Talk notices given
  1. Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States 2024-08-11
  2. Pest control 2024-08-22
  3. New England Patriots 2024-08-28
  4. The Chariot (band) 2025-02-12
  5. Cloud9 League of Legends 2025-03-13
  6. Dragon Quest 2025-03-13
  7. 18th Military Police Brigade (United States) 2025-05-01
Find more: 2023 GA Sweeps Project
See also: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sweeps 2023

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.

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.

Articles listed for reassessment

Andrea Dworkin

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

Citation needed tags x5 and better source needed tags x2. Can it be saved? Yes, but it needs attention to remain a GA. I might try and put some work into it if I have time (which I have very little of). ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 23:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 10th Earl of Shaftesbury

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

Uncited statements, including entire pargraphs. Extensive use of block quotes. Z1720 (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darius the Great

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PatGallacher: I have added "citation needed" tags to places that need citations. Z1720 (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Bloom

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

Lots of uncited statements, like in the "Music video" and "Other releases" section. Z1720 (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That strikes me as the typical sort of Wikipedia article "decay" that's easy enough to fix. The "other releases" can probably be trimmed out entirely, though I imagine sourcing would be easy enough to find too. Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

High Desert (Oregon)

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

Uncited statements in the "Climate" and "Ecology" sections. Z1720 (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jsayre64: Putting this on your radar, just in case! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avon Gorge

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Falk

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

Over-use of block quotes (which doesn't adhere to WP:SS) and some uncited statements, including paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flora of Scotland

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

There are "update needed" orange banners for climate change and conservation. There are also uncited statements in "Conservation". Z1720 (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Much of the Scottish coastline consists of machair, a fertile dune pasture land formed as sea levels subsided after the last ice age."

I think that "much" is an overstatement. Machair is restricted to some west-facing coasts in northwest Scotland (especially the Hebrides) and also northwest Ireland (Connemara and Donegal). Machair depends on sand with a high calcareous (shell) content blown inland onto the land, but I don't think it's accurate to described is as "dune pasture land". (Though machair does use that phrasing.)
Also it's not so much sea levels subsiding as the land rising due to isostatic rebound, leading to the raised beaches on which machair commonly develops. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Grand Fir mentioned near the start of the article as the tallest tree in Britain has been overtaken by many other trees over the last 20-odd years; the current holder is a 70 m Douglas-fir in Wales. I'll remove the mention as (since it is a planted tree, not part of the natural flora) it isn't very significant anyway - MPF (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Kulwicki

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Steinem

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

The election support section stops at 2016, and does not comment on 2020 or the upcoming election. There are many uncited sentences and paragraphs. There are many short, one sentence paragraphs, especially in the Activism section. Z1720 (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of counties in Delaware

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

It is a list, not an article. Easternsahara (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What purpose is this article serving, other than the fact that the other 49 states have "list of counties/county equivalents in" articles too? For example, most states have a "List of shopping malls in X", but Wyoming does not because the state has only ever had three shopping malls in the first place. I don't feel like a state with only three counties even needs a "list of counties". I feel the same way about Rhode Island and Hawaii at five each, or any other state with fewer than ten or so. In my opinion, this should not just be delisted, but merged/redirected to Delaware and/or List of United States counties and county equivalents, and the same with RI and maybe a couple other states.
Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Birds (video game)

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

Uses unreliable sources (as the maintence template states at the top). The usage of maintenance templates goes against WP:GACR. For instance, "AngryBirdsNest" is used as a reference a lot, which is often considered an unreliable source. ZaLink700 (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ian McKellen

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg the Wise

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

Popular culture section unsourced. One CN tag and two primary source tags. In addition, several statements are uncited or have footnotes referring to primary sources. Mellk (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the primary sources with secondary sources accordingly. Please let me know if these qualify; I've never done this before 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 02:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lazer Beam

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

Lots of uncited statements, especially in the "Music videos" section. Z1720 (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Burnham Park (Chicago)

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

The "History" section stops at 1970: post-1970 events should be included. The "Burnham Park today" has MOS:CURRENT concerns and features references from 2012 or earlier. This article should be updated and formatted more effectively. There is some uncited prose. Z1720 (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forward exchange rate

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

citation concerns with the "Forward exchange contract" section. The text has uncited statements, uses parenthetical references, and doesn't list the sources in the "References" section. It seems like this information was added with this edit in 2018. Should this information be in this article? If so, it will need to be formatted to more align with Wikipedia policy and practices. Z1720 (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Demote: The section on Forward exchange contract is sizeable and and I think the topic should be part of the article. Nonetheless, the style and frequency of citation used here is is not appropriate for a GA. Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft

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

There are some uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. While none of the paragraphs in "Story" need to be cited per WP:PLOTCITE, the "StarCraft II" paragraphs probably do need citations. There are also uncited statements at the end of some paragraphs (and I can add citation needed templates to those places if anyone is interested). There are lots of one-sentence pargaraphs that should be merged with other content. The plot summaries might be too long. Right now the plot section is over 1500 words, while WP:VG/CONTENT recommends a maximum of 700 words. I do not think every game and expansion needs as much information as present in the article about its plot. The "Sales" section seems to be outdated and underdeveloped. The "Starcraft" section in "Music" seems to be underdeveloped. Z1720 (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All I Want for Christmas Is You

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Discogs is also cited a lot, which WP:A/S says is unreliable. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Condon

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

Lots of uncited text, including entire paragraphs and quotes. Excessive use of block quotes that could be in summary style instead. Z1720 (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2011 D.C. United season

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. SB nation citation is not considered reliable and should be replaced. Z1720 (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Founding of Moldavia

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

The beginning of the "Competing cultures in the future region of Moldavia" section has two uncited paragraphs, and there are other uncited statements in the article. I also think the lead doesn't cover all major aspects of the article and an editor raised WP:OR concerns on the talk page which were not responded to. Z1720 (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article never met GA criteria, so I have not listed it on the list of articles I nominated. I had no time to deal with the review and I should have withdrawn its nomination. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flavian dynasty

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

Numerous uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There is also an orange "no citations" banner at the top of the "Flavian family tree" section. Z1720 (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invader (artist)

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

The lead looks underdeveloped and doesn't summarise all major aspects of the article. There are some uncited statements including entire paragraphs. The article doesn't have much post-2017 information. Is this artist still active and should information be added? It's hard for me to look for sources because of the common name (Invader) and they are a French-based artist (so many sources might be in French). I think the long block-quote in reception would be more effective as a summary for WP:SS and to avoid copyright concerns. Z1720 (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, yes this artist is still active. I had a quick search and found a few post-2017 bits about them such as this 2021 feature in Artsper Magazine, this one in Beaux Arts from 2022 (in French), The New Yorker in 2023, and an article by France 24 about one of their works created in 2024. Wikociewie (talk) 10:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Tzu

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

Last assessed in 2011. Lots of uncited content and a few unaddressed tags. Often bizarrely and badly written in a way that impairs meaning ("according to it"? what is it? the whole story paragraph is bizarre). Multiple unreliable or unfitting primary sources used (blog looking websites, a college course, museums, an assortment of passing mentions in news articles, his own writings, sources that are several thousand years old) used in an improper fashion. Also not at all broad for someone as significant and influential as Sun Tzu, failing criterion 3. What is included here is very odd, apocryphal stories, etc... Many of the books in the further reading aren't used, and I'm sure many more great sources are out there especially new ones... though full comprehensiveness is not necessary for a GA, this is not even a broad look. The version from 2011 is actually somewhat better in ways (historicity, lead quality), though far from modern standards. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - there are a number of decent scholarly sources written in the past couple decades on Sun Tzu and the Art of War (Goldin's 2020 Art of Chinese Philosophy being a good example), and they are mostly skeptical that he was a real person to begin with, let alone wrote the book attributed to him! the fact that that viewpoint isn't represented in this article very well in favor of a minority viewpoint / common misconception indicates that it should be rewritten entirely with modern scholarly sources. Psychastes (talk) 07:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned, this article was actually, bizarrely, far clearer on this in 2011. Less of a modernity thing and more poor maintenance. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
poor maintenance is definitely an issue as well, but even in 2011 it's still mostly citing Ralph D. Sawyer, who is an independent translator who does not publish his translations under academic presses, rather than a professional academic historian. if we're going to have this be a good article it should be written almost exclusively consulting reliable WP:SCHOLARSHIP that has been peer-reviewed. Psychastes (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found some more well-cited information on The Art of War, which I've copied to this article, and replaced much of the more dubious and uncited claims. Currently the only information on the other article but not this one is some information on cultural reception and the outline of the text itself. These sorts of articles are always tricky when it's the author of a text who is (mostly) only known to us through the text itself or later legends constructed after the text was established, but I believe this article is still rather lacking in breadth. I've added a couple sources to the Futher reading as well, both those and the sources listed in the references section could likely be consulted to improve the article further. Psychastes (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cynicism (philosophy)

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

Criteria 2: Many paragraphs rely exclusively on ancient/primary sources, with no support from modern secondary sources, which implies WP:OR and is generally insufficient for citation.

Criteria 3: Many Cynics who have significant extant fragments, such as Teles of Megara, Bion of Borysthenes, and Demetrius the Cynic are barely mentioned at all, the collection of pseudigraphic Cynic epistles, which is the largest extant corpus of Cynic writings, is only mentioned in passing, the discussion of Roman cynicism does not even mention Aulus Gellius, one of the main sources for ancient cynicism. in general even for the topics that are covered (philosophical beliefs, history, cynicism and early christianity) the article is also simply much too short (2700 words, and not in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE) to cover the main points in any detail for a topic about which there's an extensive body of modern scholarly literature written in the past 30 years Psychastes (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copper

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and some tagged with "citation needed" since 2016. Other unresolved tags are also present in the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be taking a look. I'm an old copper geologist. Pete Tillman (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the citation needed cases. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Save Our Children

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

Uncited text, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I count one paragraph without citations. At the end, starts "Political activism in American gay communities"
The rest are cited. Someone came through around 2009 and put in a bunch of citation needed tags that aren't needed. All the information is cited. They don't know or like what topic and linking sentences are. I never dealt with them because article watch fatigue is real.
Remove those cite needed tags and find a source for the paragraph mentioned. Simple. Moni3 (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Moni3: Do you or any other editors want to check that the source verifies the information labelled with citation needed, and provide citations for the last two paragraphs in "Gay activism"? Of course, we are all volunteers so no pressure either way. Z1720 (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is a group project. Article maintenance should be in everyone's interest. To find a decent source you could google:
    "act up" protest 1980s gay political activism direct action protest
    and
    "queer nation" "lesbian avengers" "pink panthers"
    If no one volunteers to do this, i.e. add a source or two to this article, something I think is grossly simple, I will do it myself while being really annoyed that no one can do this. Really easy.
    As for the citation needed tags throughout the article, I already know they're unnecessary. I wrote the article. Anyone else is more than welcome to check the sources. Group project and all. Moni3 (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moni3 dear, I'm glad you're back, even if it's for this occasion. We sorely need you, my friend, now more than ever. I suspect that this article has been brought to reassessment because these kinds of articles, as you well know, are subject to a higher scrutiny than many others. Same ole'—well, you know. I am out of town right now, for my sister's wedding, but I will take a look when I get back home, maybe tomorrow since I have a day off before I leave on that jet plane. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Congratulations to your sister. Feel free to catch up on my talk page. It's good to see you. Moni3 (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're really accusing Z1720 of specifically targeting this article when he is by far the single most prolific GAR initiator and is clearly targeting articles with old promotion dates and uncited text? What happened to AGF here? Please retract your entirely unwarranted aspersion in the interest of maintaining a collegial environment. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bro if it's not about the article, take it to the user's talk page. Basic Wikipedia functioning. Moni3 (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate that Wikipedia is a group project and that these fixes might be easy for some, I am already engaged with lots of wiki-projects and can't devote the necessary time to fix up this article. However, fFeel free to ping me when this is article is ready for a re-review. In regards to the citations: some of the statements with a cn tag might be verified by the subsequent footnote, but this will need to be checked before the tag is removed. Other statements, particularily at the end of paragraphs and the last two paragraphs of "Gay activism", will need to have citations added. Would it be helpful to add citation needed tags for some of the other statements that need them? Z1720 (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"but this will need to be checked before the tag is removed"
Who does this? What checking? Reading the sources? Which other sentences or paragraphs need citation tags?
For the paragraph with no cites currently:
Cite 1:
"The HIV/AIDS Epidemic and Public Broadcasting 1989-1991: Broadcasting ACT UP Direct Action" American Archive of Public Broadcasting website. Retrieved May 29, 2025.
Cite 2:
Amory, et al. Introduction to LGBTQ+ Studies PDF, Milne Publishing (2025). p. 3.1.12
Violence against LGBTQ+ Americans continued, including the rural murders of Brandon Teena and then Matthew Shepard. Both murders gained so much media coverage that they eventually became movies. Outrage against antigay violence and prejudice led New York ACT UP members to form Queer Nation in 1990 and inspired groups like the Pink Panthers (1990) and Lesbian Avengers (1992). Their direct actions to liberate sexuality and gender from heteronormativity were defiantly queer. A particularly controversial tactic was exposing the closeted homosexuality of antigay politicians and pundits. New federal hate-crime tracking confirmed the scope of anti-LGBTQ+ violence, indicating that over 10 percent of violent crimes motivated by bias against the victim’s identity were based on sexual orientation, putting that category behind only race and religion. Congressional passage of the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act (1994) included gay bashing as a federal crime to ensure fairer trials.[64]
Moni3 (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moni3: Any editor can check to see if the citation needed tags are needed, and remove them if the source verifies the claim or if another source is added as a citation. Z1720 (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Is your intention to wait to see if someone comes along to read the sources? It's my experience if you're waiting for someone to do that, it's not going to happen. The article stood for years with these cite needed tags. If you're holding the article in GA reassessment until that happens, I mean, we'll be here a while. Either way, keep me updated. Moni3 (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moni3: In my experience, GARs have two purposes: to outline the reasons why an article might no longer meet the good article criteria, and to see if an editor wants to address those concerns. If a GAR is open for a month and no one wants to make the necessary improvements, then an article might be delisted. Z1720 (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For Z1720 and anyone else reviewing:

Citation needed tags were placed in the article July 2014 by IP user 31.39.53.205.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Save_Our_Children&diff=prev&oldid=616081554

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Save_Our_Children&diff=next&oldid=616081554

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Save_Our_Children&diff=next&oldid=616081885

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Save_Our_Children&diff=next&oldid=616081998

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Save_Our_Children&diff=next&oldid=616197065

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Save_Our_Children&diff=next&oldid=618120924

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Save_Our_Children&diff=next&oldid=618129884

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Save_Our_Children&diff=next&oldid=618145090

Moni3 (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2008 NHL Winter Classic

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

Uncited statements, especially in the "Television and radio coverage" and "Pregame" sections. The "Pregame" section is quite underdeveloped and should be expanded. Z1720 (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 I will help this article maintain its good article status, but I am on vacation, so when I return in June, I'll get started on this. Conyo14 (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am also going to help! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Howe Island

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

Article contains uncited statements and paragraphs, including the entire "List of endemic birds" section. There's an "update needed" orange banner from December 2022 that needs to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Talent

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

There are uncited statements in the article including entire paragraphs. There doesn't seem to be much post-2021 information, even though the band seems to be active. Z1720 (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antichrist Superstar

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

Lots of uncited text, including some indicated with "citation needed" tags since December 2023. Z1720 (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The [citation needed] are due to gaps left behind from where Acclaimed Music once stood, which at the time was acceptable for Wikipedia. Its use has since been deprecated. It would not be too difficult to fix if this is the only issue. However, the tags in the tracklist notes are unrelated and definitely valid. I will not be volunteering - I have personal moral reservations which make me uncomfortable with substantially improving any articles related to this group, and am busy with my own work anyhow. It just surprised me to see this at GAR. mftp dan oops 23:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all unsourced statements from the article. Since GA promotion 8 years ago, a lot of different editors have amended the body. My apologies for not being more on top of things. I guess I didn't want to give the appearance of ownership, but I will hopefully be in a position [real life-dependent] where I can expand and improve the article further over the summer. No intention of ever taking this or any other of the band's articles to FA, by the way. Just maintenance of previous contributions. Kind regards, Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Batavian Republic

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

Uncited text, including entire pargraphs. Overreliance on "Schama, S. (1977)" as a source. Z1720 (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wyatt Earp

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Too much detail and unencyclopedic information. Overreliance on blockquotes. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Romford

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

This 2009 GA promotion is one of those remaining on the 2023 GA Sweeps listing. There is uncited text, the demographics section is orange-tagged as needing updated with the 2021 census, and the economy section is largely out of date as well. Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've filled in the citations needed. Will have a look at economy and demography. MRSC (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Ravalomanana

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

Currently, the article says that he got in second place in the 2018 Malaysian presidential election, but no information about his campaign or policy proposals are given. For the 2023 campaign, even less information is given even though he came in third. I think this means that this article needs more prose about those events to meet 3a of the GA criteria. There are also uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s Malagasy, not Malaysian 😉 ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Béla H. Bánáthy

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

There's a COI orange banner at the top of the page from March 2024 which will need to be resolved. There are also uncited statements, including an orange "more sources needed" banner added in 2017. Z1720 (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University College, Durham

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Just a minor note: you keep putting reassessments of educational institutions in the "Culture, sociology and psychology" section instead of the "Education" section. The summary of the "Education" section says: "This includes education, educators, and educational institutions", so I think they would be better listed there in the future. IAWW (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@It is a wonderful world: I'm using the GAR helper script to nominate articles at GAR. Every GA has an "article history" template on the talk page with a "topic" parameter, which I think the GA bot uses to put articles in GA headings. Some articles, especially older GAs, have the wrong topic and are placed in the wrong heading at GAR. If anyone notices an article in the wrong location, please feel free to fix the parameter. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see. Thanks for explaining. IAWW (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bijeljina massacre

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

Since April 2024, the article has had several "citation needed" notifications in the lead and the body.

It also uses several primary sources from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. A significant part of the article is actually based on these primary sources, which goes against WP:Primary.

The primary source is the best source for its own contents; however, it is evident that undue weight was given to the primary sources. They are used as a source for significant information within the article. They act as a secondary source for the events instead of just being used for what they are—a statement from the ICTY judgement.

Also, per MOS:Lead, the lead section should not contain any citations, which should be reserved for the body of the article. Governor Sheng (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colt McCoy

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

Lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Uncited statements including an entire paragraph. There's a "more citations needed" orange banner at the top of the "Records" section. Z1720 (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outrageous Betrayal

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

This article was GA'd in 2007 [1] and was rather aggressively trimmed from its original GA state due to its creator and a very complicated arbcom case. While the original version did have NPOV issues and OR issues carving out large chunks of this article, particularly the reception, with little to replace it resulted in holes and insufficient broadness. I have concerns with the lead and GAC#3 in this state. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raël

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

This article has several maintenance tags and unreliable sources that have been unaddressed for a while, and uncited text. More fundamentally it massively overuses Rael's own writings as a source, inappropriate per WP:PRIMARY, in a way that goes beyond WP:ABOUTSELF and gives the article serious WP:NPOV issues. We cannot merely cut the content because it is being used to cite things that need to be said... with secondary sources. I don't oppose them being used for specific details/clarifications, but this is basing the narrative/structure around a primary source in a way we should not be given what sourcing is available.

I also have broadness concerns over this article's failure to cover major aspects of his person.... this is not anywhere close to covering major parts of his biography. This isn't a broad look at Rael as a person. There is barely any scholarly discussion sourced here at all, or even high quality news. There is plenty of scholarly sourcing on Rael! There is a full length book, that dissects him and we barely use it. Not to name the countless other academic books that give sigcov. The last GAR was closed as abandoned and never resolved. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Białystok

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Badajoz

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile, Alabama

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

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took another look and noticed lots of uncited statements, including the entire "2010 census" section. There's also some MOS:OVERSECTION in the sports section and I think some of the prose is too detailed for an article about a city (especially in the "Arts and Culture" section). Z1720 (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to take a stab at filling out the citations. I'll circle back to the sports and art issues you mention after inline citations are in place unless some kind soul hops in and takes it care of first, Rjjiii (talk) 04:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soliloquy

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

As recently noted by theleekycauldron at WT:DYK, this GA contains significant amounts of poor sourcing, especially for a subject with as much scholarly coverage as this. Alongside citations to homework sites like SparkNotes and LitCharts are ones to WordPress, LiteraryTerms.net, TheatreHaus, and numerous other questionably-reliable sites. This article currently does not meet GA criterion 2b); I hope it can be improved up to the level necessary to remain a GA. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 I’ll try to find better sources in time, but the best option may be just letting it go for now unless someone else wants to help. I’ve got a lot going on right now. MallardTV Talk to me! 11:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Kombat: Deception

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

Lots of uncited information in the "Gameplay" section. The last paragraph in "Chracters" is uncited and seems to talk about the development of various characters, which should probably be moved to "Development". Z1720 (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh holy cow I hadn't realized I'd even passed this back in 2009. What was I thinking?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist The approved version back in 2009 uses a number of unreliable sources such as GameChronicles, Gaming Age and Amazon listings, so even if we reverted it, it would have issues. It needs some work to get back Good Article status. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tiberius

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

Uncited statements, especially in the sections "Popular culture" and "Marriages and issue". Z1720 (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the missing citations on Marriages and issue. I would be more concerned about the overreliance on primary sources. We have biographies of this man; but instead the text is doing wildly inappropriate WP:OR with things like Had he died before AD 23, he might have been hailed as an exemplary ruler and citing this to Tacitus' discussion starting It is however, I think, a convenient opportunity for me to review [how that year] brought with it the beginning of a change for the worse in Tiberius's policy. Either way, delist. Ifly6 (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've put up a notice for some of the issues I identified in this edit. Ifly6 (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist numerous paragraphs do not cite any modern secondary sources, paragraphs that cite one are the exception. Psychastes (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking briefly at the Germanicus section, I see selective adoption of the narrative of primary sources with a touch of I, Claudius, with a secondary source cited at one point. There's no mention of his insubordination towards our subject, in command in Germany (with consequent disasters), in resisting recall, and in touring Egypt - contrast, say, the OCD on Germanicus. NebY (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Gets in the Game

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

Fails the GA criteria 1 for MOS:LEADCITE violations, 2 for most of the sources are primary ones and most of them are dead (the infobox cast list is also uncited), 3 for a lack of production info. Also I don't think this would fail the criteria but the critical reception over uses quotes and that's generally frowned upon in WP:TV Olliefant (she/her) 00:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Warner

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

Uncited statements and paragraphs, especially in the "Back to Carlisle" section. Z1720 (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the unsourced two paragraphs added later on. This took me about 15 seconds to do, much less time than making a GAR, since everything else in the article is appropriately cited. If there's more issues with the article then that's one thing, but if that was it a GAR really wasn't necessary. Wizardman 16:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grindhouse (film)

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

Article has not been properly maintained since its promotion to GA more than 15 years ago. Lead is thin for an article with 34,994 characters and doesn't adequately summarize key points of the film's production history, prose in most sections suffer from heavy quoting, with a whopping 86.2% copyvio detected, and some claims may be unsourced due to lack of in-text citations. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murali Kartik

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

There is no information post-2020, even though they seem to have a public persona as a cricket commentator. There are some uncited sentences, including an entire paragraph. I am happy to add citation needed tags if asked. Some of the sections are quite long: I recommend 3-4 paragraphs per section before a heading. There is uncited information in the lead that is not in the article body. Z1720 (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks — I think it would be helpful to add cn tags. Preimage (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Monk

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire sections and paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Straume

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

Much of the article's text is devoted to the character's arc. I think this is too much information (especially season 5) and should be reduced. There are some uncited statements at the end of paragraphs. The lead is quite short: I think it could use more information about the character's development by the show runners, as well as the character's reception. Z1720 (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Analogue filter

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

"Historical" overview section is uncited, as is the first paragraph of "Modern practice". Z1720 (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since the article is about passive linear analogue filters, most of the "Modern practice" section is off topic and could be removed.

FYI the editor who did the most work on this is deceased. North8000 (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The abandonment of passive filters for lower frequencies is surely relevant to the topic of passive filters. catslash (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Route 33

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

Uncited statements, especially in the "History" section. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Third Anglo-Maratha War

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs (especially in the "Maratha-Hyderabad Relations" section). Z1720 (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Nine Angles

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

This article was GA'd in 2016, and has been updated little since then, with the exception of piecemeal and low quality additions of news sourcing of various Incidents members were involved with, which has now been split to another page.

So that problem is solved, but what remains is much more difficult, which is that this article incorporates no scholarship in the past 9 years, when in that period the group has become far more notorious and many more high quality writings on it have come out since then than in the whole of the period before it. [2] versus [3] to give an example. Entirely absent from this article is content and high-quality sources relating to the period where the subject has become the most notable.

It therefore fails the GAC#3, the broadness criterion in missing out on an entire decade of the group's history and all modern sources on it. I mentioned this on the talk page but it remains unaddressed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I completely support the idea that more recent sources should be integrated into the article, and am happy to set about doing so. Accordingly, I see no need for the Good Article status to be removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now made a start on integrating material from some of the post-2016 academic publications into this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is much better. Thank you. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Highlanders (rugby union)

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

Uncited statements at the end of the "2006-2014" section. No post-2015 information. Z1720 (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orkney

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

Uncited statements, including two sub-sections in the "Islands" section. Text seems to have been uncited when it was promoted to GA. Z1720 (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have now added cites to these sections. Ben MacDui 13:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ben MacDui: I have added citation needed tags to the article for some uncited statements. There were already some cn tags in the article that also need to be resolved. The "'Freedom of the Island" section needs to be expanded upon. Z1720 (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: All done I believe. Ben MacDui 07:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ben MacDui: The "demographics" section is quite short. Any information from the most recent census about the population (religion, age, language spoken, etc.)? Z1720 (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason it is so short may be because it is a drive-by addition added by someone who had not bothered to read the article. There is already a section on population trends higher up. I'll merge them and have a look and see what data is avaiable from the last census asap. Ben MacDui 15:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Data added. There is a lot of census information and the results are likely to be similar to other island groups and rural mainland areas. There is some difficulty innvolved in both finding it and in providing a clear source but hopefully what I have done passes muster. Ben MacDui 07:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Argonauts

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The "History" section does not have much post-2017 information. Z1720 (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might you perhaps add {{fact}} on the errant statements? -- Zanimum (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanimum: I have added citation needed tags to the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced their 2022 and 2024 grey cup wins. TBJ10RH (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Döblin

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

Uncited statements in the "Legacy" section and a "more sources needed" orange banner for the "Selected bibliography of works by Döblin" section since 2017. Z1720 (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fastra II

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

As I noted on the article's talk page in April, a fair bit of this article's content is unsourced. Most of what is sourced is sourced only to the company that made this product's own publications, or to web sources of uncertain reliability. I do not believe this article meets the current sourcing expectations for GAs. The original nominator was blocked for socking several years ago. Hog Farm Talk 04:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Pelosi

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. At over 14,000 words, the article is too detailed and information needs to be spun out or trimmed. Z1720 (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Watson's Hotel

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

There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs (especially in "Design"). The "History" section stops at 2005 and should be updated. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presidio of Santa Barbara

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. If anyone wants me to add citation needed templates to the article, please ping me. Z1720 (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this briefly, the article seems to be missing an architecture section, even though it's about a building. The structure's architecture is briefly touched upon in the "History" section, but otherwise this may not meet WP:GACR's broadness criterion. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish American wars of independence

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. At over 11,000 words, some information should probably be moved to other articles or trimmed if too detailed. Z1720 (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Waterloo

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

This article contains several uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. At over 13,000 words, the article is WP:TOOBIG and too WP:DETAIL. This includes too many quotes and block quotes (which should be summarised instead) and an excessively long lead. Z1720 (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Agree that the article should be shortened and more info moved into child articles. That said do not agree with comment on quotes - this is a stylistic preference, not a GA criterion. There are good articles with no quotes, there are good articles with lots of quotes. It's not so quote-heavy as to be a quote / react farm, for sure. SnowFire (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • With an article that is already so large, I think there are many quotes whose inclusion should be reconsidered. I do not think the article needs two different accounts of Hougoumont, an un-introduced quote at the top of "Charge of the British heavy cavalry" and a block quote for "The blows of the sabres on the cuirasses sounded like braziers at work." Instead, I think it's more effective to paraphrase the information. Z1720 (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

26th Infantry Division (United States)

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

There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The "World War II Memoirs" section seems to be an indiscriminate list of external links. Perhaps this should be prose and moved to "Legacy"? Globalsecurity (ref 12) is considered an unreliable source (WP:GLOBALSECURITY) and should be replaced. Z1720 (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Bozon

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

The article fails criteria 3a "addresses the main aspects of the topic"; The "Professional" sub-section of the "Playing career" section has not been updated with any information since September 2020, meaning more 50% of Bozon's professional appearances to date came after the dates covered in the article, and the "International play" section only covers information through the 2019 World Championships, no mention of the 2022, 2023, 2024, or 2025 World Championships that Bozon represented France, again meaning more than 50% of Bozon's international career is not represented in the article. This missing information is important since Bozon's ice hockey career at professional/club and international level is the reason he is notable. Joeykai (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aberdaron

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

The "demographics" section has not been updated since the 2021 UK census was released. There are also uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was only four years ago. There are only a few citations needed. Not worth opening a GAR just for this. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Blofeld: Agreed that the last census was in 2021. However since the information has not been updated, the demographics information is from 2011, which is 14 years out of date as of this GAR. I think Wikipedia's status articles (like GAs and FAs) should not have information that is that far out of date: if an active, professional athlete's biography was missing 14 years of information, I would recommend a GAR. As for the citations: it might be a few that are needed, or it might be more depending on how much information the sources verify. The citations would have to added to the article before I recommend "keep". Would anyone like me to add "citation needed" tags to the places I think are uncited? Z1720 (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Markussep if he can update with 2021 figures. Demographics are just figures. Hardly an apt comparison to 14 years of missing career prose in an athlete's biography given that they only come around every ten years. I agree that it should be updated asap. The article looks pretty well sourced to me, but there may be a few more citations needed, feel free to identify them. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Blofeld: I added citation needed tags to the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

English Reformation

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

Uncited text, including entire pargaraphs. With over 10,000 words, some of the text should be considered for spinning out into other articles. Z1720 (talk) 06:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix (mathematics)

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

While some of the statements could be cited to the mathematical data included in the article, other prose (such as in the "History" and "Electronics" sections) needs to be cited. Z1720 (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There were not before the GAR was opened and still are not any cleanup tags on this article such as [citation needed]. The only actual error category on the article is the newly-instantiated ISBN-date mismatch. Therefore, to me, starting the cleanup process by immediately opening a GAR seems like an excessively strong first measure. Maybe it would have been less confrontational to have tried placing [citation needed] tags first, and then waited enough time to see whether they were addressed, disputed, or ignored before opening a GAR? Even now that the GAR has been opened, you could still place those tags. Doing so would make it more clear to editors what you think is inadequately cited rather than this vague wave which leaves much to the imagination and makes it impossible to determine whether any steps one might take would satisfy you.
To put it another way: the preferred outcome of a GAR is to restore an article to deserving GA status, not to delist. If cleanup tags can head off a GAR before it starts, that would be even better. And telling us that the article is inadequate without providing specific-enough guidance for why you think so is a step towards the non-preferred outcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 can you provide some citation needed tags and other tags for describing the problem you have listed? As for a quick note, I am pinging @Jakob.scholbach as the nominator in 2009. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @David Eppstein: Some editors have described the addition of citation needed templates as disruptive, which is why I only add them when asked. I have now added some where I think they are needed and I see that other editors have also added cn templates to the article. If any editors are concerned about my conduct in GARs, please open a new thread at WT:GAN where the conversation may be more appropriate. Z1720 (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did open a thread about WT:GAN, not about you specifically but about whether it is reasonable to expect that an article not tagged for any problems to suddenly come under GAR. And in that thread, you deflected again, saying that you would rather be pinged than discuss things there. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Jakob.scholbach appears not to have been active for almost a year. Fortunately, matrices are a basic enough topic that any other mathematician should be able to contribute, without requiring any special expertise. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, lest this GAR appear inactive: improvement to the tagged missing citations has been ongoing on the article itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I was inactive on Wikipedia for some time, but by accident I stumbled across this GAN. I am not convinced this GAN is actually warranted, but I will try to allocate some time to resolve the citation needed tags. Any help is of course appreciated! Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jakob.scholbach Since the nominator, again, did not provide further comments, I should have intervened as well. @Z1720, I will take over the nomination, hope you do not mind. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedhert.Jr: Happy for anyone to help. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions or if this is ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

  • I never heard of , or , is used in place of as a symbol for square matrix, although it is used in some StackExchange's posts. If this is often, then more sources are preferable use them at all. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is getting technical as scrolling down, starting from Linear transformations. Another one is in the infinite matrices, where is not very well-known to strangers.
I agree this section was not well done. I have removed most of it. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are many algorithms for testing whether a square matrix is invertible." Should you add some more algorithms?
  • I will add some citation needed tags in some places, but I will also help to supply the requested citations.

That's all, and I'll check again after this. My time is short now. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the "Matrix groups" section has a confusing (and maybe redundant?) footnote that refers to "the general linear group" before general linear groups are defined. Footnote 95 just says "See any reference in representation theory or group representation." As I understand the culture here, that should be replaced with a specific book.
I think it is fine this way, especially given that is just a footnote. There is a tradeoff between keeping the focus and being correct (or even pedantic) here. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The section heading "Linear combinations of quantum states" seems rather obfuscated. Why not just call it "Quantum physics" or "Quantum mechanics"? The text is also somewhat confused. Density matrices aren't an example of "matrix mechanics" as Heisenberg developed it in 1925; they were introduced some years later. 64.112.179.236 (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I changed the quantum physics paragraph. I think bringing in "eigenstates" was also confusing. That was just one more unfamiliar and undefined term. 64.112.179.236 (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are there rules for what goes in the "See also"? It looks kind of like a junk drawer. I mean, why "Bohemian matrices", of all things? 64.112.179.236 (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, these items should mostly (or all?) be removed.Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's been trimmed now; I think the present status looks OK. 64.112.179.236 (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote to Mehra & Rechenberg (1987) needs a page number. Those are pretty big books. 64.112.179.236 (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ISBN given was for the wrong volume (Part 1 of Volume 5 is about Schrödinger's wave mechanics, not the Heisenberg–Born–Jordan matrix mechanics). I replaced it with a reference to the relevant pages in B. L. van der Waerden's editorial introduction to Sources of Quantum Mechanics, which is probably easier to get a hold of anyway. 64.112.179.236 (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few references in response to the citation needed tags. My overall impression is that the large majority of these requests are quite overblown: especially when it comes to the more survey-like sections, a look in the corresponding sub-article will practically always bring up references etc. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • When I saw some of the cn tags removed on my watchlist, I checked and agreed that they could be removed. If I disagree, I'll post below. Regarding the latter part of your comment about "corresponding sub-article will practically always bring up references": Information in the article needs to be referenced in the same article, as Wikipedia does not expect readers to click on a wikilink and find the information in a sub-article to verify the information (WP:V). Of course, Wikipedia articles can use the same sources: if the source is in the sub-article, the referencing can be copied and pasted into this article. Z1720 (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have resolved on more cn tag (which again, IMO, was pointless), and have asked the Chemistry and Physics "departments" for help with two others. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the statements in the 'Electronics' section with something general, but at least it serves to point to the application. The previous content was logically incomplete (when would one multiply matrices?) and likely incorrect not matter how one fills in the blanks. Hopefully we do not need a more specific example here for a GA. —Quondum 18:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do see that this GAR has stalled over the last 10 days. I would like to ask where the consensus is on whether the article still meets the good article criteria now that edits have been made to address the concerns made in this GAR? Gramix13 (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gramix13: Editors are still making changes to the article, and this has been ongoing for several days: when the changes are complete I am happy to re-review if pinged. I think this can stay open for a bit longer. Z1720 (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ebbw Valley Railway

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

"Update needed" orange banner at the top of the page since April 2022. Uncited statements in the article. Z1720 (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to make some improvements this week. Cremastra (u — c) 02:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you still have plans on improving this @Cremastra? Tarlby (t) (c) 15:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, no. I was busy last week and knew I would not be able to work on it but as I am now sick I don't think I'll be able to take this on. Sorry. Cremastra (u — c) 15:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inside No. 9

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

An "Update needed" banner in the "Viewing figures" section from 2019, as well as uncited text. Z1720 (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Could you clarify where the article has uncited statements?
Overall I am a bit concerned if GAR was actually needed here; the rest of the article meets standards, and patching up a few loose uncited statements and updating one section does not seem difficult, and could easily have been performed by one editor. If no one else does it, I can probably take a look at it myself sometime in the next week or two, but I do believe this should have been patched up by the nominator before it was brought to GAR. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999: Please see WP:GAR #3, which states "Wikipedia is not compulsory and editors should not insist that commentators, interested editors, or past GAN nominators make the suggested changes, nor should they state that edits should have been completed before the GAR was opened." I have added cn tags to the places where they are needed. I have no interest in fixing up this article although I will re-review when an editor thinks the article meets the GA criteria again. Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 Ah, apologies, I'm confusing this with another guideline. Sorry about that. Thank you for the tags! I'll let you know when I get to these. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pokelego999, are you still intending to improve this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Nightmare Before Christmas

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

There are uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. The "Legacy" section is far too short and should be expanded. Z1720 (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be WP:BOLD and just drop this legacy section in its current state. It currently goes against MOS:POPCULT (Cultural references about the article's subject should not be included merely because they exist. Cultural aspects of the subject should be included only if they are supported by reliable secondary or tertiary sources that discuss the subject's cultural impact in some depth.) and WP:PROPORTION, (an article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject). In short, these articles just mention that characters are mentioned or have extremely brief appearances in single episodes of a television series. Without context for these statements, they shouldn't be included. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to tidy it up, but if anything, the merchandice and legacy sections are often citing YouTube, Toy Manfacturer websites, or books citing that they themselves exist with no context or third party notices. This section is a bit of a beast to re-write, but requires a lot of fixing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I've already reviewed the article and added sources where there weren't any. I don't know if this is enough to save the article, but please let me know what you think about the sources I added and if they're reliable. 191.106.17.100 (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some concerns remaining include "better source needed" tags, a "citation needed" tag that I added just now, some unreliable sources like IMDB, and poor formatting in the "Books, comics, and manga" section. Z1720 (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a look at this. The lead could do with some tidying up, and I can see some unsourced statements on first pass. Will look more closely and check out previous review for further inspiration. Rodney Baggins .talk. 09:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article can easily be saved as GA with a bit of work, which I'm slowly getting on with. I've been making some improvements to the prose and sourcing, with more planned. I do think this is quite an important article in the grand scheme of things and as I'm a member of WikiProject Olympics, I'm happy to take it on. In terms of meeting the GA criteria, I think the following needs doing:
  • Tidy up lead section, source any miscellaneous statements not expanded in main article, e.g. Beckham at closing ceremony
  • Medal count / doping issue in lead needs to be expanded/explained more clearly in body.
  • In Medallists section, the medals not covered by ref.7 need to be separately sourced, i.e. the 4 bronze medals awarded at a later date in athletics.
  • Check all sport sections are sufficiently sourced, add new sources where necessary.
  • Swap in a few alternative sources to reduce over reliance on BBC (as mentioned in initial GA review).
I've rescued the "Official Results from the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games" source (in References, General) and cited both parts ("– Archery to Handball" and "– Hockey to Wrestling"). As these constitute a general reference that can be used to verify the numbers and names of Team GB participants in each discipline, as well as all the results, I thought rather than cluttering up the article with ref/rp tags, I could instead add a useful note to help the reader locate the relevant info, e.g. below the first: "Contains results for the following disciplines: Archery (page 1); Athletics (page 55); Badminton (page 415)..." and below the second: "Contains results for the following disciplines: Hockey (page 1); Judo (page 352); Modern Pentathlon (page 414)..." Rodney Baggins .talk. 14:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I think I'm on the home stretch now, and I want to try closing this GAR by end of next week if at all possible. I've not had a huge amount of spare time to do this lately but have been making steady improvements and tried to keep the momentum going. In terms of GA reassessment, still to do... Finish work on lead section (done a lot of this already); Clear [cn] tag in cycling section intro (already found sources, just want to work them in properly); Make sense of sports not contested/football section & rm [cn] tags (this might be the most difficult bit); Finish work on media coverage section & rm [cn] tag. I will probably have to remove the beautiful sentence at end of Athletics intro ("When these four medals were redistributed, Great Britain's 2008 athletics total of eight medals was its most successful since the second world war.") – it's no doubt a fact, but I just can't find it explicitly stated anywhere (will have another look). I've cited lots of new sources and tried to dilute the over-reliance on BBC. There are some other improvements I want to make afterwards, including additional sourcing, but that's over and above what I think is needed to retain GA status. Rodney Baggins .talk. 17:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodney Baggins: I will not have time this weekend to review the article, but ping me anyways when its ready and I will take a look when I can. Hopefully we can have this closed by the end of next week. Z1720 (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of Lexington and Concord

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

The article has uncited statements. It is also quite long, at over 10,000 words: I think some information can be spun out or removed because it is too much detail. The article has many block quotes, which are not needed for the reader to understand the context and contributes to its long length. Z1720 (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important subject. I'll at least take a look. Hog Farm talk 04:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly this article appears quite notable, rated as high importance for US history, in that context I don't think I find its length objectionable or unmanageable.
Some quotes could be removed and summarised;
"We ... find that a part of your Majesty' s subjects, in the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, have proceeded so far to resist the authority of the supreme Legislature..."
"Whenever the army under command of General Gage, or any part thereof to the number of five hundred..."
--
Whereas I would oppose the removal of the quotes from participants in the battle that seems more relevant to the article at hand, without some other reason to suggest they represent a POV that should not be included, I think they are fine.
--
I am unable to find any statements in the article that are not cited at least at the paragraph level some uncited paragraphs exist but these appear entirely unobjectionable at least to me and the GA criteria are
> reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is some touching-up that could be done here. I'm busy with work but I'll try to make a library run either this weekend or next weekend. Some of the tags confuse me - I don't know what needs further explanation about "Nearly a hundred barrels of flour and salted food were thrown into the millpond". I have doubts about the free license status of the Franklin Mint medal and have nominated it for deletion on Commons. Hog Farm talk 16:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would adding citation needed templates be helpful in identifying the uncited text? At a minimum, every paragraph (except the lead) should have a citation at the end of it, verifying the information that proceeds it. Z1720 (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. As it has turned out, real life, for the most part, including preparation for a meeting, has delayed my work on the article. With any luck, I'll have time to start working on this in earnest, (in addition to one earlier minor edit), over the next few days. I'll be looking for any text that needs citation as well as doing some rewriting and summarizing of other wise helpful long quotes. Donner60 (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LeChatiliers Pupper, Hog Farm, and Z1720: I have cleared the citation needed tags. I think the quotes from participants are useful in this article. I usually use few if any blockquotes in writing or editing articles, sticking with summaries or shorter quotes. A possible option would be to summarize the quotes in the article but put them into a footnote. I think the blockquotes can be reduced and melded into the text in some cases, if required, but not all.
The footnotes that are not just citations but text might be separated into a separate section as they are in some other articles. Battle of Gettysburg for example. It would reduce the size of the main text but would no doubt increase the total number of bytes - as did the new citations - but it would reduce the number of words in the main text. Perhaps a few points might be made more smoothly. I am not sure that is a big benefit because I think the subject of this article is enhanced by participant views. Historians as well as the participants don't agree on some key facts.
I don't find the length objectionable as it is. It is well written and gives interesting details. Breaking this article up does not seem as useful as it might be in other circumstances. The whole affair took place over the course of one day. It was a running battle over a large distance. In that way, it was unlike a campaign or most other modern battles. The continuity is integral to the story. Also, the lack of agreement on some facts should be noted for completeness and inclusion of valid differing views.
I will give some more attention to this over the next week or so. Further comments by interested editors would be helpful in deciding what and how much still should be done and what seems the best approach based on the different types of edits and structure that I have mentioned. Donner60 (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have started to summarize blockquotes which eliminates some bytes and words. I will continue to work on this. Much as I think the quotes are helpful, I am now leaning against adding a footnote section that would state them in full. That also could suggest that some text notes now in the footnotes should be moved to the separate section. That would likely take even more time. I suppose that would increase the word count, but they would not be in the text of the article which perhaps would not conflict with the objective of the work on the article. Donner60 (talk) 05:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Donner60: My opinion is that quotes should be used as little as possible, whether in the article prose or footnotes. While interesting to the editors who write the articles, readers are more likely to want an overview of the topic and will skip quotes as being too much detail. Z1720 (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue to summarize the quotes and not repeat them in footnotes. Donner60 (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Donner60 - Thank you for doing the work here that my library just doesn't have the sources for. Please let me know if you'd like me to give it a read-through at any point; I appreciate the work you're doing here. Hog Farm Talk 21:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

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. The article uses lots of block quotes, when Wikipedia recommends a summary style. The article is quite long: removing some of the block quotes might help with this, but there might also be places where the prose could be shorter. Z1720 (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in helping, although the timeline of GARs may be on the fast side relative to what I can contribute. I've put this and the article on my watchlist, and I'll see what I can do. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in helping also. Remsense ‥ 论 07:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek: GARs now typically stay open for a month (or will be closed as "keep" early if concerns are resolved). If there's ongoing improvements it will remain open past that one month. Z1720 (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek and Remsense: are you still willing to work on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if they are still interested, but I will start addressing the uncited text and excessive block quotes now, so I would appreciate keeping this review open for a few more days. Thanks! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 20:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I have done the lead, Section 4, Section 5, and Adoption sections with some big cuts, mostly along Z1720's opening remarks that the prose is excessive, especially in block quotes to SCOTUS cases. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 04:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overhauled the Citizenship Clause, Privileges or Immunities Clause and Due Process Clause! Still have the Equal Protection Clause, state actor doctrine, Section 2, and Section 3 left to go. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 19:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done with Section 3 (Insurrection Clause), which I am particularly happy about since it was the impetus for the entire amendment. Furthermore, the old prose seemed to be a play-by-play of 2021-'24 disqualification cases rather than succinctly stating what Section 3 does and how it has been used. Still chugging along! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 04:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking in @ViridianPenguin: are you still working on this? If you are, no rush whatsoever. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the check-in and apologies that this is now the longest-running open GAR. Since my last update, I finished the state actor doctrine and Section 2, and I'm close to finishing with the Equal Protection Clause. Currently reading Eric Foner's The Second Founding to round out my thinking on the key cases to include. Hope to finish within a week, but see above for my earlier naivety that I would finish the whole GAR work within a few days 🤣 ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 18:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, feel free to take your time; we're all volunteers here and any improvement is good. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment&oldid=1225482527"