Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsDiscussionProposal Drive FeedbackReassessmentReport

↓ Skip to table of contents and archives ↓

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

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

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.

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.

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

Closing a reassessment

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

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

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

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.

• 11:25:27, 24/03/2023: Tropical cyclone scales
  
• 04:46:38, 25/03/2023: Current date for reference

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

Articles listed for reassessment

Albany, New York

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

Result pending

Article is a bit out of date, and can use a lick of paint meet the GA standards

• Quite a few 2005-2010 stats (higher education)
  • I'm starting to work on these, especially in the economy, education, and demographics section. Could take a little time though, so please bear with me. Matt Wade 21:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
• one failed verification tag
  • Looks like two things: 1) a typo where the page reference said 24 when it was supposed to say 124, but the link in the ref points to the right page. I updated the ref and confirmed the source. Source says ...the legislature was migratory for many years—Albany, Poughkeepsie, Kingston, and New York having about equal division of the honors. And 2) someone added Hurley, which isn't mentioned in the ref. I looked it up and it sounds like it acted as temporary capital of the colony in 1777 after the burning of Kingston led the legislature to flee, but the phrasing of the sentence is "statehood till 1797" (not arbitrarily, that's the point of the paragraph) and New York didn't become a state until 1788. Likely a proud Hurley or Ulster County resident added this tidbit to ensure the list is "complete", but it's not really meant to be complete over the history of the state and colony, just the state. So I removed Hurley. Can we remove the failed ver tag? Matt Wade 17:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
• Not a GA issue, but a lot of WP:SANDWICHING
• Undue emphasis on crime
• Uncited: "There is a sizable Islamic community in Albany.."
  • I updated that section with some more current news articles about the Muslim population. Matt Wade 21:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Femke (alt) (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Tulip Festival

A few comments:

• The two panoramic skyline images should be stacked.
  • I think I intended the historical one to be at the end of 1800 to 1942 section (it matches the time frame better), which is meant to add to the prose by showing the dense neighborhoods, many of which would later be demolished for the Empire State Plaza and other urban renewal projects (covered as major aspects of the next section). The other was the introductory photo to an H1 section called Cityscape, which has since been H2'ed. So the intent was for the photos to be relevant in the distinct sections they're in, not to be stacked to show a one-on-the-other difference in time. Based on that rationale, do you still see the need to stack them? They don't take up that much vertical space themselves. Unless there's a new WP: out there that requires this (which could very well be the case!). Matt Wade 21:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Original topographic map that was in Geography section

• There are three maps in the infobox. Is the fourth map in the geography section needed?
  • I agree that the current map in the Geography section is redundant to the ones in the infobox. My original graphic was a topographic map to show the area's physical geography (right). I'd like to bring it back or see if someone can source an upgraded one. IIRC, I had reached out to the author of that image because they were known for their excellent cartographic submissions for articles. The date on the image upload to Commons is around when I was going full-in on this article, which makes my leaky brain feel more confident on the source. The down side was that the image is pixelated somewhat. A higher-quality replacement would be good. But either way, I think this image should go back because it adds to the prose that's there. Matt Wade 21:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
• Regarding the two photos in the "festivals" section. Neither shows much of the city, and are close-ups of people. I looked for a wider image of the pride parade online, but no luck. As for the Tulip Festival, may I suggest the image posted here replace it (there are several others on the Commons).
  • Big picture: I can't remember when these photos were added, but it was after the GA/FA reviews of Sep 2010. My thoughts had always been that a festival isn't a festival without people and culture. And photos included in a GA/FA need to be as good if not better than the surrounding prose. That may not be a universal opinion, but it's something I took away from my Featured Pictures days. The detail, then, in my mind, meant that the human element was the priority. And no better photos show off humanity than candid, detailed shots of people doing things. I think our views on what's expected in these instances are different and you're looking for justification that these photos happened in Albany at all because they could be anywhere. I think that comes down to a difference in philosophy given the sometimes limited ability to get great photos for our articles? Like, I'd love a drone shot of an exciting parade float coming down Lark Street with identifiable buildings in the background, but still with the people on the float being prioritized in the shot. But I don't see anything like that online that could be used (to your point) and without quality composition, lighting, colors on a wide shot, the detailed human shot is my preference. Some other thoughts on each photo, below. Matt Wade 21:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Tulip Fest photo: I took the tulip fest photo and while I admit I wish there were more tulips in said photo, I was going for the candid photo of a person enjoying the sights of the festival. If you're strong on the concept of needing evidence we're in the place it says, I'd suggest this photo of the King Fountain (unique to Albany) or this photo showing the Agency building in the background (unique to Albany). The photo you suggested is, yes, a photo of lots of tulips, but the composition, color, and overall quality isn't that which I'd expect in a GA. I would oppose the use of that photo. Matt Wade 21:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Pride photo: Personally I think this is a great photo and shows the diversity of the population with candid views of individuals showing various emotions, surrounded by color and in front of a typical historic townhouse in Center Square. Generally you don't get this level of artistry on Wikis due to photos like this usually being taken by professionals or news media, who aren't willing to part with their copyright. (I didn't take this photo.) Matt Wade 21:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Other photos: In re-reading the article, the photo of the fireworks at the Plaza in the Nightlife and entertainment section is out of place. Not sure why I put it there originally. That's not really "nightlife", plus the event is referenced explicitly in the Festivals section. We could always move that there and replace one of the two photos mentioned above (then get something appropriate for the Nightlife section). Matt Wade 21:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
• In the education section, is this sentence necessary: "Although considered by the state to be one of the lowest-achieving high schools in New York, Albany High was listed as the nation's 976th best high school in a 2010 Newsweek/Washington Post report." Being 976th isn't really notable, and the data is 13 years old.
• Would this photo be of any use?
  • I don't see much use for this level of zoom on the Plaza buildings. The GA/FA review version of the article had this photo showing construction of the Plaza, which was a major historic event of the 20th century (a literal out-with-the-old-in-with-the-new turning point). I'm not sure why it was removed and I felt it's a very valuable addition since it was something from that time period yet available from the copyright perspective. We don't want to over-represent the Plaza, so when we do show it, we need to make sure it's relevant and important to the context, yes, but the article as a whole, as well. Matt Wade 21:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Magnolia, thanks for working on the article! I agree that the two skyline images would bettter be stacked, and the fourth map can be deleted. No opinion on festivals. That education sentence is not clear and outdated, so can be removed. The museums section already has a picture of a buildingin the same style, so the Flickr photo isn't needed really. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi! As the main author back then and the GA nominator, I appreciate getting the heads up on the review. I'm going to take a read through and toss in some responses and other comments. You'll notice I don't edit much anymore (though I do use regularly), but I'm definitely interested in sprucing this up to keep the status. I'll be sure to respond to specific comments (especially if there is past context on the "why") and add my own. There are definitely some improvements I could see being applied already. Matt Wade 17:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments:

• Proposed removal of 1793 fire paragraph: This paragraph in the British Occupation to 1800 section seems unnecessarily detailed. If the aim is to point out that slavery was in place in New York in the 1790s, I'm fine saying that a major fire impacted a portion of the city, with enslaved people being the suspects. Otherwise, I suggest its complete removal. On November 17, 1793, a large fire broke out, destroying 26 homes on Broadway, Maiden Lane, James Street, and State Street. The fire originated at a stable belonging to Leonard Gansevoort and was suspected to be arson set by enslaved people. Three were arrested and charged with arson: Pompey, a man enslaved by Matthew Visscher; Dinah, a 14-year-old girl enslaved by Volkert P. Douw; and Bet, a 12-year-old girl enslaved by Philip S. Van Rensselaer. On January 6, 1794, the three were tried and sentenced to death. For reasons unknown, Governor George Clinton issued a temporary stay of execution, but Dinah and Bet were executed by hanging on March 14, and Pompey on April 11, 1794.
• Proposed removal of Lincoln funeral stop: I propose removing the sentence about and photo of Lincoln's casket visiting Albany following his assassination in the 1800-1942 section. Such a detail is not relevant to the general progression of culture and history in Albany and is more a piece of trivia. If anything, I think the photo has to go. That section talks a lot about banking and railroads, but has no photos of either. I could likely find a photo of one of those topics to expand upon the prose.
• Thoughts on neighborhood section removal? The GA/FA review version of the article had a reasonably detailed (one can argue too detailed) section on neighborhoods of the city. The current Neighborhoods section is so bad that it might as well not exist. I feel this added a lot of value and insights into the culture of the city in a way that was not covered elsewhere. Would you all be agreeable to bringing back this section? There is a dedicated article on the topic, which further supports inclusion if the article is notable enough to exist.

Matt Wade 17:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Hi @MattWade, Femke, and Magnolia677:, where does this stand? Do y'all think this meets the GA criteria? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  With this essentially stalled for a month, and nobody outright calling for a delist, I'd like to close this as a keep, but I see three citation needed tags and two tags indicating verification issues. If those aren't addressed soon, I'd be inclined to close as delist. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• @WP:GAR coordinators: for your attention please. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC) yes I know TAOT is here already

  what TOAT said. If we can cite those bits I'll be happy enough to retain. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well, at least we know the ping template works! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
  

---

Battle of Gettysburg

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

Result pending

 Work is ongoing, and might take some time.

Article requires a bit of work to retain GA status:

• There are quite a few cn tags
• Doesn't always use summary style. For instance, it uses a quote of almost 400 words
• It uses some unreliable sources like history.com. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I will see what I can do and will bump working on this to the top of my pile of wiki-work. This won't be a quick fix, though, so I request that I allowed a few weeks on this. Hog Farm _Talk 19:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course, no problem. Thanks for your willingness to tackle an important topic :). Femke (alt) (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: @TwoScars: Pinging those already commenting. I have 50 books on Gettysburg and the Gettysburg campaign as well as overviews of the war such as Eicher and McPherson. I have bought these books mostly used over a considerable period of time. I was actually surprised at the number when I counted them - although I knew I had way more than I have on any other Civil War topic. So with these sources I should be able to help. I was pleased that an effort on another article could be done without much rewriting and in small chunks. My immediate limitations are mostly due to health and physical condition, which are improving but still need work. I have a second eye surgery on Monday, shoulder rehab, etc. (And real life!) As a result, I am embarrassingly behind on work on a few other articles that I promised to improve. I hope my pace will pick up after another month or two. Hog Farm is right about the size and scope of the article affecting how fast this can be done. He and Two Scars note the possible need to review numerous sources. I intend to make at least some progress, hopefully, without too much delay. I think many readers may rely on this article without necessarily reading other Gettysburg articles so I think it is important to have a good one. Donner60 (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

More specific list of problems

Mainly for the benefit of me and anyone who wants to help me out

• Need to check for dubious text like "Most were loaded, some had more than one bullet in them. It is not known why." - From what I've read, this is generally attributed to misfires or people forgetting that they'd already loaded their guns in the heat of battle. I don't remember where I've seen this, and will need to hunt for a source on that
• There's currently 7 CN tags, and a few bits of other text that should be sourced as well
• Cleanup of pop culture/coinage & postage stuff (IMO should largely be nuked)
• Unreliable sources:
  • brotherswar.com
  • hmdb
  • americaslegacylink
  • Could probably do better than Camp Chase Gazette
  • HistoryNet is mixed - the article by Petruzzi is reliable via its author, but some of the others probably ought to be replaced
  • thoughtco.com
  • history.com
  • civilwarmed blogspot

If we start running into source-text integrity issues, then I'll have to bow out of this. Of the sources listed in the 'references' section, I only have Bearss, Busey & Martin, Catton, Eicher, Foote, Glatthaar, McPherson, all three by Pfanz, Sears, Tagg, and Wert. I also lack the energy to do a top-to-bottom rewrite here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Some suggestions for the Battle of Gettysburg:

• Intro should be only 3 paragraphs—it is too long right now.
• Does it really need to have citations in the Intro and InfoBox?
• Drop the three War Department maps—they do not help. Hal's maps look good. They should have a book or atlas listed in the map's Summary in Wikimedia so one can have more confidence that they are correct.
• Background has one giant paragraph in Military situation section, and way too many paragraphs in the Initial movements to battle section. Needs less text or more section dividers.
• Perhaps the background should have a sentence mentioning the Battle of Hanover. It delayed Stuart from linking with Lee.
• Don't need the picture of commanders in the Opposing forces section, or have only Meade and Lee. Maybe some of them could be inserted in the narrative. Do Orders of Battle ever have images?
  • I've removed the galleries, a more reasonable number of images can be added back if thought necessary. Hog Farm _Talk 02:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
• The giant quote from Longstreet is too much.
• Maybe it is me, but I have never liked the "Commemoration in U.S. postage and coinage" and the "In popular culture" sections in any article about a battle. Maybe they could be moved to Gettysburg Battlefield, somewhere else, or dropped.
  • I've removed the postage/coinage as irrelevant with a link back to this discussion. (This section got nixed at the Featured Article Review for Sherman, I'm not sure why that information is getting added everywhere). I'd recommend rolling the popular culture section into something else - the reunions can be briefly mentioned in a sentence or two, and the film/The Killer Angels is probably worth discussing briefly, especially if we can find a source discussing the film's effect on the popular portrayal of the battle. Hog Farm _Talk 02:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
• The whole article is too long (yes, I have the same problem when writing articles), especially since there are plenty of other articles (Battle of Gettysburg, first day etc.) that go into more detail.

This is what I see without recently having read any good books on the battle. The only books I have that cover the topic are Eicher and McPherson, and those books try to cover the entire war. Also have Shaaara's Civil War Battlefields book that has about 33 pages for Gettysburg. TwoScars (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Also "tons" of duplicate Wikilinks, although it may be better to fix these last. TwoScars (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I have made numerous edits to article on February 17, 18, 19. Citations have been provided at all citation needed and the templated unreferenced section. I have made some corrections, further explanation through two substantive footnotes and summarized Longstreet quote except for last key sentences. I will be delayed in helping improve the article for much or all of the next few weeks due to eye surgery and another health issue. But I will continue working on it along with TwoScars and Hog Farm and anyone else who wishes to help as time permits. Donner60 (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
    • I have deleted three unreadable old map photos and Hancock photo, and moved and reformatted a few other photos, tightens up text, full reasons and explanation in the edit summaries just now on Feb. 27. Donner60 (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• • • I am putting in here because it was a little earlier: that I made some additional edits and additions to the Pickett's Charge subsection in particular, and split the text footnote under Lee's Plan into two. I also deleted the sentence on the draft riots affecting the pursuit for the reasons I put in an earlier section on the talk page. The changes on that date are summarized in the edit summaries that I posted. Donner60 (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

For what might be the first time in my editing career, I'm going to invoke WP:BLUE on something. I'm working on fixing one of the better source needed tags, and the source I'm using, Wert's "Gettysburg: Day Three" doesn't use the name "Pickett's Charge" directly at the point I'm using it for. I think " in what is known to history as "Pickett's Charge"" is something so obvious that it doesn't need to be cited, but will hunt down a ref if there's a belief that one is needed for the name Pickett's Charge. Hog Farm _Talk 03:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: I think that better source needed tag was just put there by me a day or two ago. The cite for the entire paragraph, or most of it, is from HistoryNet, which has the attackers at 15,000 if not other wrong or suspect statements or omissions. I have the better sources. I even thought more than one might be needed. My eyes were starting to blur and I think it was late and I was tired so I put it off for a few days. Some modern historians, in particular, now often call it the Pickett/Pettigrew/Trimble charge. Pickett was supposed to be in charge of the whole operation once it started. Pettigrew and Trimble were also division commanders, filling in for wounded permanent ones. I wonder whether he thought he was or tried to co-ordinate the attack. I did not make a note but I think I saw one or more sources talk about it. I wonder whether it is worth a footnote to point out the naming credit now often given to Pettigrew and Trimble. Instances can be easily found. I don't disagree that "Pickett's Charge" is well referenced enough not to repeat it in another sentence. It makes me wonder whether that is the point Wert was driving at, that Pickett's charge is the usual name but it could be that a different name might also be proper. Or not. Donner60 (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Donner60 and TwoScars: My exam is this afternoon, so once I get back from the exam (with a Braum's milkshake if things go badly) I'll pull together all of my Gettysburg sources to have a better starting point (they're scattered across four bookshelves). The more I think about it, a sentence or two discussing the naming of Pickett's Charge vs Pickett-Pettigrew-Trimble Charge is warranted either as a footnote or in the main text, and I'll sort through all my books sometime this evening. Hog Farm _Talk 15:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Remember that there is already a Wikipedia page called Pickett's Charge, and it starts with "Pickett's Charge (July 3, 1863), also known as the Pickett–Pettigrew–Trimble Charge, was an infantry assault ordered by Confederate General Robert E. Lee against...." TwoScars (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

True enough. Donner60 (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

As info, I only know personally one person who passed the entire CPA exam on the first try. TwoScars (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I think I am too late to say good luck, which you likely don't need. So I'll say I hope it went well. I can't say much about the exam or passage rate but from what little I have heard, the exam consists of three parts, each of which has to be passed individually. And it is a rare person who can pass all three parts the first time. I think I heard that if a person passes one part, that person at least does not need to pass that part again. FWIW. Donner60 (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

It's four parts (AUD, BEC, REG, and FAR), and you have an 18-month window to pass them all in. Took my two tries to pass REG, but I got BEC and FAR on the first attempt. Hopefully AUD went well today. Hog Farm _Talk 03:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Good. You seem to be well on your way. Donner60 (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Donner60 and Hog Farm: As info, I did some editing on the cavalry section. It appears that it may have been copied from this web site, unless the web site copied from Wikipedia after the article was written—resulting in a circular source. I ran Earwig's Copyvio Detector on the whole article, and had some hits ranging from 99.4% to 13.0%. I have not used this software much, and some web sites may simply be copying Wikipedia (so of course they will have some similarities), but I thought it would be good for everyone to be aware of this potential problem. We all know there have probably been bits and pieces added over the years since the original version.TwoScars (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I've got a moderate amount of copyright experience and will take a deeper look after work to see if this is a copyvio or circular copy situation. Hog Farm _Talk 23:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

They definitely copied us - compare the older internet archive copy of that page (October 2017) to our article as of December 2016. Of the copyvio check links, the 99.4 copied us, the 42.5 appears to have copied our reference section, the 32.9% is just shared proper names and common phrases, etc. Hog Farm _Talk 03:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The battlefields.org one concerned me a little more, but our content is from Hlj in 2006, while their content I can't find from before 2019, so I think that's them copying us too, which surprises me as I thought that was sometimes a decent source. Hog Farm _Talk 03:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Before the change of name, the American Battlefield Trust was the Civil War Trust. The web site may well have had a different name. I contribute to the Trust and have been on events with them. They always have first rate historians including the Kricks, Chris Mackowski, Kristopher White, Park Rangers such as the chief ranger at Richmond and others that I can't call to mind off the top of my head. They had Ed Bearss giving tours at an earlier time. Gary Adelman is an in house historian. He was one of the commentators in the Grant miniseries recently rerun on the History Channel. I have found the Trust's on-line material to be good but I have only cited it in the preservation section of the Gettysburg article and would look for sources among historians first. If the Trust copied Wikipedia, it was probably much earlier and may actually have come from the historians or perhaps at least been vetted later by one. The Trust also could have had something similar up even before Hlj wrote his text if the Civil War Trust web site went back that far. FWIW. Donner60 (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe the American Battlefield Trust is a good source now, better than the National Park Service, and have used it before. No matter what the original source for the cavalry section was (Hlj, a web site, or another party), I have altered it a little and added a little. I plan to alter the first and second (especially) paragraphs of the Confederate retreat section, to mention Fight at Monterey Pass and Battle of Williamsport (currently labeled as rear guard action at Falling Waters). TwoScars (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: @TwoScars: It has occurred to me that I saw on Hlj's personal web site photos of his attendance at Civil War Trust events, including one in which he had a photo of him with a small group including Ed Bearss. So Hlj, who may have already been known for his map making, was directly involved with the Trust at an earlier time. Perhaps he even contributed to the write-up that coincides with his text. Donner60 (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Good work on the cavalry section and in pointing out possible copyright vios. As I have time, I plan to see if some other sections need tweaking or additional sources. I don't especially like the Culp's Hill on the second day subsection. I thought it was somewhat random and did not give a clear picture of what happened. Of course, we don't want to make it too long. I will have even less time than recently over at least the next ten days. I have been trying to spare my eyes but as I noted before, one gets bored staring into space. I have mainly been online in small spurts. My right eye seems quite good after 6 1/2 weeks but the left eye still needs some healing after 2 1/2 weeks. Donner60 (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Astronomy

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

Result pending

Honestly, pretty good but there's uncited statements and problems here being

• Theoretical Astronomy is a mess of section with possible uncited statements in there.
• Topics also studied by theoretical astrophysicists include Solar System formation and evolution; stellar dynamics and evolution; galaxy formation and evolution; magnetohydrodynamics; large-scale structure of matter in the universe; origin of cosmic rays; general relativity and physical cosmology, including string cosmology and astroparticle physics. (Not so sure about this one)
• The discipline is an overlap of astronomy and chemistry. The word "astrochemistry" may be applied to both the Solar System and the interstellar medium. The study of the abundance of elements and isotope ratios in Solar System objects, such as meteorites, is also called cosmochemistry, while the study of interstellar atoms and molecules and their interaction with radiation is sometimes called molecular astrophysics. The formation, atomic and chemical composition, evolution and fate of molecular gas clouds is of special interest, because it is from these clouds that solar systems form. Studies in this field contribute to the understanding of the formation of the Solar System, Earth's origin and geology, abiogenesis, and the origin of climate and oceans.
• The entire Interdisciplinary studies section.

and that seems to be it. There may be more problems but I haven't identified them yet. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Noting that the review was opened properly on March 14th, to avoid overloading editors, rather than on February 15th, as indicated by the signature date. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks now like everything still tagged as uncited is big-picture stuff about the nature of the scientific process and things like that. If it can't be sourced, it can probably be cut or rewritten into something that can be. XOR'easter (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Electricity

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

Result pending

There's some uncited information being

• Faraday's disc was inefficient and of no use as a practical generator, but it showed the possibility of generating electric power using magnetism, a possibility that would be taken up by those that followed on from his work.
• The Electrochemistry section
• The Electronics section
• Thus, the work of many researchers enabled the use of electronics to convert signals into high frequency oscillating currents, and via suitably shaped conductors, electricity permits the transmission and reception of these signals via radio waves over very long distances.

And that's it. Should be relatively easy to fix unless other problems are noticed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• There are seven general references listed in this article. WP:V accepts general references as a valid means of verifying an aticle except for certain specific categories of information. The GA criteria do not impose any additional constraints. Despite the attitude of many reviewers that inline cites are always wanted, this has never been a requirement. Thus, lack of inline citations does not equate to uncited and is not a valid reason, in itself, for failing a GA. The OP states that this "should be relatively easy to fix." If the OP is not challenging the material, one has to wonder why they have not just attempted to fix it themselves rather than bring it to review. I note that most of this material was not in the article at the time of promotion, so worst case, it could just be removed again to bring it back to GA condition. The bullet point that was in the article is on the Faraday disc, which is not only an extremely well known fact, but as the OP said, is very easily cited [1][2][3]. SpinningSpark 13:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, but general references should at least be shown in the section it's sourcing in my opinion. The entirety of the Electrochemistry and Electronics section look unsourced. Where is the general reference for them? It's not in the section at all so i have to assume. Plus, when i say "should be relatively easy to fix." I say that because I mention that someone with enough knowledge can fix this. I can't because I'm not knowledgeable with energy related topics nor at finding sources for them. That's why i've opened this review, someone can help save the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  WP:GENREF, which are indeed perfectly acceptable, are almost always listed at the end of an article. When reviewing GAs, especially at GAR which can be demoralising to people, it's really important not to impose your own standards. Inline cites are better, but not required for a GA. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  I'm willing to tackle the generation section, which needs a bit of an update. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  "...general references should at least be shown in the section it's sourcing in my opinion". GA should be judged on the criteria, not on your opinion, which is ridiculous. If the reference was shown in the section, it would be an inline ref, not a general ref by definition. The question is not whwere is the general ref for those sections, but what part of them is it required to have an inline cite according to WP:V. SpinningSpark 18:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, I admit my fault. But regardless, you can't just say that there's a general reference that verifies the claims and not say what. I can't determine if there's a general reference that cites the electrochemistry and electronic sections if a general reference isn't pointed out. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  "you can't just say that there's a general reference that verifies the claims and not say what". Yes, you can. You'll need to assume good faith on the person adding it. The onus is on the GAR nominator to show that the general references are unlikely to cover the material at hand. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  I kind of disagree on that a bit, I personally am not finding what references would at least generally support the two uncited sections. I know I need to assume good faith but I'm not seeing what general references he's mentioning. There may be those references but I don't what they are. Plus, he himself admits that "I note that most of this material was not in the article at the time of promotion, so worst case, it could just be removed again to bring it back to GA condition." so the idea of those specific areas not containing general references since they weren't there from the original GA isn't completely far-fetched either. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  Hughes has a chapter on electrolysis, a chapter on semiconductors, and a chapter on electronic systems. Those cover at least the majority of the sections you identified as problematic. SpinningSpark 18:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• My issue with the way that general references are used in this article is that as a reader I cannot verify what source each piece of article content comes from. The article doesn't make it sufficiently clear. I think general references can work quite well in short articles but longer ones need some way of being able to match content with the source. Additionally, a check with WhoWroteIt reveals that content has been added by editors who didn't add sources nor did they say in the edit summary which source was used. It is possible that existing article references would support the added content, but is this really reasonable to assume, given the frequency with which well meaning editors add unsourced content to articles? And there are other issues such as needs update tags. (t · c) buidhe 18:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

  I placed the tags as a to-do list for me. Will work on this in next two weeks —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Chidgk1: why did you replace a high-quality source I just added with a think tank source that did not verify all the information? It only talks about climate change as environmental concern. These news articles are not ideal sources, as statements like "Demand increase is being met by renewable sources" will be untrue in a few years time. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Femke Ah sorry did not notice you had just added that source. However I have cited Ember before in other articles and it seems to be high quality and reliable. I think "Demand increase is being met by renewable sources" will remain true for decades to come. As for your point about not verifying all the info I will go back and check that if you and others are happy with Ember generally Chidgk1 (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  While I see no reason to think Ember is unreliable, it is a campaign organisation and should therefore be used with caution. Of course, we're writing a GA here, not an FA, so it's not an immediately problem.

  The sentence "Demand increase is being met by renewables" implied that renewables are not replacing existing demand. This is likely going to be false soon. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  Furthermore, the source you cited for storage does not contain any information about pumped hydro as a long-term storage, nor a mention of capacitors. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  And if you cite a 150-page report, please provide a page number.. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  Was having a slight technical problem searching or maybe I got the different reports mixed up while I was looking for the page - now using a much shorter cite which covers batteries and condensers. Will find another cite to add later this evening to cover the rest - if I forget fell free to tag/ping me Chidgk1 (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

NOTE: very sadly, Spinningspark has just passed away. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. Sad to see such a good editor pass away.

I'll work on this next weekend again. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately , real life is too busy I am going to have to let this go. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Femke: Just to make sure, you are calling for a delist? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I put in some work on the referencing. I think the page looks fairly decent at this point, but I don't know how other people feel it falls with regard to the GA criteria. XOR'easter (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Not having done a deep dive in terms of source-text integrity, I think the article is will be at GA level after the work on referencing in done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Joseph Dart

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

Result pending

As per WP:DCGAR, I am submitting this article for a reassessment so that it can be further scrutinised to avoid the automatic delisting. I originally did the GA review and have made a number of changes recently to reassess citations and explicitly verify that the prose is accurate, correct and not violating copyright (this remains ongoing). I have already replaced some unobtainable book citations, either with those I could verify or alternate online sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:46, February 16, 2023 (UTC)

Bungle please ping me when you have finished your cleanup effort, and I will have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

That's fine, I will (and thanks for signing for me, I wasn't aware the script did not do this automatically!) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Bungle I see you progess has stalled; update? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I have been making some notes on other bits (as I am not one for bit-edits), but also got distracted by an IP editor asking me on my talk page to develop numerous articles! That said, I wasn't aware we were on a specific time limit? You're more than welcome to check over the bits I have already scrutinised though, this doesn't necessarily have to wait until I have assessed the final sentence. If you identify any significant concerns on the earlier parts of the article, that may give pause to the whole thing, but if not, i'm happy to push on still. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

No concern; just checking :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

no deadline on this - I'm just checking through open GARs, there's no copyvio I found, so take your time. In terms of text, it seems fine, even if it could be cleaned up a little, It'll be on the verification of the sourcing that is currently there. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to try and get the remainder of the prose done over the next few days (that being, individual verification) so at least then it can be considered as to whether it can remain under the current designation. I am mindful as to the reason these GARs were raised and that we aren't needing to look at a WP:TNT situation or otherwise a total blitz - it's essentially just ensuring the expressed concerns relating to articles by DC in general don't exist.

From what I have done so far, nothing alarming is standing out to me and much of what I couldn't verify with the offered sources I could from elsewhere (and the few things I couldn't were of relatively insignificant value anyway). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not just about failed verification, and source-to-text integrity with DC content; copyvio of all sources has to be evaluated. Do you have access to Mingus? If not, all of that content needs to be WP:PDEL'd. The first source I checked (Smith p. 215) is closely paraphrased. While it may be public domain, we still have to get it right. Misrepresentation of source: "An example given by one report is of the schooner John B Skinner,". ... one report, unless I am reading the source wrong, is Dart's report, so that is misleading. This is not grammatical: He was the first person to make the application of elevating grain out of transporting ships using mechanical power and has since become the system for unloading freighters throughout the world. And it doesn't seem supported by the source. And, sourcing a statement about since throughout the world to 1879 is just wrong. So far, from what I'm seeing, this is a delist with the same problems as the others, and I haven't even started on copyvio checking other than the first Smith. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: You are of course very welcome to offer feedback during and after I have made various amendments. Whether it results in the status being retained or not, it'll still (hopefully) be improved further than beforehand (so either way, the process is beneficial). Mingus source is available as free page previews in google books, which I have been able to view without any special access. I don't think there are serious concerns over close paraphrase of PD sources, and where this is verbatim or close, we can note this appropriately (I think that's a fairly standard process). Of course there are some parts I haven't looked at again yet, and others I plan to take another look at (as you rightly point out, the note on the schooner sentence being attributed to the subject themself is reasonable and should be stated as such). Kindly reserve making an absolute judgement until I have at least made an effort to look at every element, but please don't refrain from helpful suggestions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

No problem; ping me when you're ready for a new look. I peeked today because your March 10 post poked my watchlist. It sounded like you were down to prose fine tuning, so I thought it time to check, and wanted to note there is much more than prose fine-tuning still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I am too far out on this now. I have pretty much gone through all the prose and verified the statements, while in large parts, I have entirely rewritten paragraphs and sections. All sources, even those so called "offline", I have been able to access freely and of the 4 book sources, one is PD-old and the other 3 have free pageviews via google books relevant to the pages cited. Others I have removed and replaced with open alternatives. I have worked on trying to re-paraphrase parts too, though many of the sources, particularly from newspapers already predate 1928 and thus would not have copyright restrictions attached (none the less, prose has not been copied verbatim). Earwig checker is pretty much clear, it's only flag being related to the direct quotation of the subject's own reflection, which is quoted and cited accordingly.

I think I can still do another read-over and possibly reword and reconsider a handful of parts here and there, but nothing substantial. I did have some concerns that the article was perhaps disproportionally representing the concept for which an article already exists, so I have tried to bring some focus back to the subject. Authorship stands at over 50% myself and 43.7% DC, although this should not be referred to as an indicator, particularly as I think this includes infobox, ref, cats etc for the latter. WWT shows in large parts my own amendments. Hence at this time i'd welcome feedback or expressions on anything that stands out as being particularly problematic, assuming it's not catastrophic. I am broadly hopeful that the article will largely be judged on the merits associated with one being judged "good", without excessive emphasis on its original primary contributor (understanding that the degree of scrutiny expected will no doubt be higher than a typical GAR). At the very least, I hope I have done enough to secure the article's safety from pre-emptive copyvio concern deletion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia and Lee Vilenski: Does this now need to posted somewhere so others are aware it should be reassessed? Who ultimately, given the circumstances, will take a lead on that and indeed the ultimate decision? Have these processes already been agreed upon? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The way GAR works is that if you are satisfied that the issues brought up that started the GAR are now resolved and that the article still meets the GA criteria, you can close and retain the article at any time. We do now have co-ordinators for this process, of which I am one, so if you are unsure, I can take another look through and see if there is anything additional that requires a look.

Realistically, we are looking to be convinced that plagerism (both direct copying from source and close paraphrasing) and that the info being cited is actually based on info in the cited claims (IE Verficiation). Traditionally the GA process has been quite loose on looking these pieces up, but with the claims about DC in tow, we need to make sure that this article meets both of those items before retaining. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks for the quick response. I think given the backdrop of the circumstances resulting in the need to open a GAR in the first place, it would be inappropriate for me to self-close without someone uninvolved also concurring with that outcome. Therefore I think it's best someone takes a look over to make that decision. The vast majority of citations here are all in public domain, so while I have made efforts to remove and not reintroduce any close paraphrasing, if anything of this concern is raised relating to a PD source, it shouldn't be a major concern to address or acknowledge in some way. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Albert Einstein

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

Result pending

To accomodate constraints on topical editors, this review is put on hold until April 17

It looks like there's some uncited text and other problems including If one end of a wormhole was positively charged, the other end would be negatively charged. These properties led Einstein to believe that pairs of particles and antiparticles could be described in this way. Later, after the death of his second wife Elsa, Einstein was briefly in a relationship with Margarita Konenkova. Konenkova was a Russian spy who was married to the Russian sculptor Sergei Konenkov (who created the bronze bust of Einstein at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton).[67][68][failed verification]*the Einstein-Cartan theory section The equations of motion section The Adiabatic principle and action-angle variables section In "Über die Entwicklung unserer Anschauungen über das Wesen und die Konstitution der Strahlung" ("The Development of our Views on the Composition and Essence of Radiation"), on the quantization of light, and in an earlier 1909 paper, Einstein showed that Max Planck's energy quanta must have well-defined momenta and act in some respects as independent, point-like particles. This paper introduced the photon concept (although the name photon was introduced later by Gilbert N. Lewis in 1926) and inspired the notion of wave–particle duality in quantum mechanics. Einstein saw this wave–particle duality in radiation as concrete evidence for his conviction that physics needed a new, unified foundation. The matter waves section Although he was lauded for this work, his efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. Notably, Einstein's unification project did not accommodate the strong and weak nuclear forces, neither of which was well understood until many years after his death. Although mainstream physics long ignored Einstein's approaches to unification, Einstein's work has motivated modern quests for a theory of everything, in particular string theory, where geometrical fields emerge in a unified quantum-mechanical setting. The other investigations section Einstein suggested to Erwin Schrödinger that he might be able to reproduce the statistics of a Bose–Einstein gas by considering a box. Then to each possible quantum motion of a particle in a box associate an independent harmonic oscillator. Quantizing these oscillators, each level will have an integer occupation number, which will be the number of particles in it. Many popular quotations are often misattributed to him.[example needed] and possibly more. Though some of these could have been general referenced and I missed it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC) Seems rather odd to open this without editing the article yourself or raising any issues on the article talkpage first. --JBL (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Automatic scorer

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

Result pending

As part of WP:DCGAR and as the original GA reviewer in 2020, I am placing this article nominated by Doug Coldwell up for GAR in order to keep its status as a GA. During the original review I was involved questioning some of DC's claims, finding new sources, and shaping the focus of the article. Now prior to this DCGAR process, I have gone through the article again. Regarding copyvio issues, there was nothing egregious but there were a few borderline too-close paraphrasings, which I have now reworded. Regarding text-source correspondence, again there was nothing really bad but I have fixed it up in a couple of places. In sum, I believe the article corresponds to the GA criteria and its status should be kept. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

WTR, there are no offline sources here, so we don't have to worry about that.

Have you personally examined every one of the newspaper clippings, since Earwig can't detect copyvio or too-close paraphrasing from them?

On the oft-expressed frustration about DC's haphazard citation style (me, EEng and XOR'easter), might you correct article titles, etc, while you're in there? For example, a better title for this newspaper clipping might note the nature of the source: 777-Help Wanted, Male Salaried Jobs, Technician, Service Engineer. That would make it easier for people to question whether, for example, that classified ad should be used to support "AMF and Brunswick each had their set of Customer Service Engineers in a territorial area that repaired the computers."

I have found cases where the citation style obscures a non-RS, eg, throughout the Cartier articles, leaving out that sources were written by a Cartier, and the misrepresentation throughout the Ludington articles that the Willis Fletcher Johnson Memoirs were published by Ludington's family. So additional scrutiny on making sure the citations are written correctly is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes I did examine every source, and I considered all or most of the points being raised here and I came to different conclusions from others here. Re the article titles point, it is now moot since XOR'easter has taken out the classified ads. Which I don't quite agree with, but am not going to argue. If there are any other cites that you think the formatting of should be improved, let me know. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• This is just one more article that could be a good, small article, on topic with good sources, turned into a sludgepile by DC with his ridiculous sources. I remember seeing and fighting about this particular article before -- maybe at DYK? -- including the moronic use of a classified job ad. It looks like somehow nothing ever got fixed. How can we go on like this, article after article? Everything he created should just be TNTed, with a few exceptions where for some reason we can be sure that, through some miracle, the article's not a timebomb just waiting to make us all look like fools sooner or later. EEng 18:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Having been pinged here, I took a look and immediately noticed problems, so I think this needs further scrutiny. XOR'easter (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I looked at one sample:

• California was considered a good prospect for making early sales since there bowlers were obliged to pay for human scorekeepers during league competitions.

  From https://www.newspapers.com/clip/55273065/

  Another indication that DC just did not know how to use sources correctly, and WTR, you need to read every single source. This is some guy in New Jersey entering a maybe sorta kinda speculative statement in his editorial column. It doesn't belong in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The California paid-human-scorers angle was real and it gets discussed in other sources too, for example this 1970 story that was already used as a cite. Now that story says that California would be less like to use the automatic scorer, not more, so I need to do some more research on this angle before putting anything back in. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I trust you will get it sorted ... all of this was just a reminder of how carefully you have to scrutinize all-things-DC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

PS, a likely reason we end up with this kind of rubbish in all DC articles is word count is padded up to meet DYK expansion. Newspapers.com was not a good thing in DC's hands, and his research methods were flawed. I noticed another citation where this same guy was the author. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the next sample from the same author (which by the way, is the same article under a different name):

• The automatic scorer was first field tested at Village Lanes bowling center, Chicago in 1967.

  From https://www.newspapers.com/clip/55746317/ and |work= The Record |page= 56 |location= https://www.newspapers.com/clip/55203954/ Read those two sources carefully to discover DC's (hint: he was quite a fan of cooking up "firsts" for his DYK hooks, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: On this last point, I have to respectfully disagree. I think the two sources together state that Village Lanes in 1967 was Brunswick's first field test of the automatic scorer. And I've found this story from 1970, three years later by a different author in a different paper, which says that Brunswick "installed the first test models in Village Lanes in Chicago in 1967." So unless you object further, I plan to restore this to the article with the 1970 cite added. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Where do you find support for the "first"; this is a classic DC issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

PS, I'm fine with restoring it if you simply omit the word first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I got 'first' from one of the 1967 sources because it said the field test, singular. And the 1970 source confirms that. But I get that you are burned on DC and firsts, so how about if I say 'initial field test'? Wasted Time R (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

You don't really need to add an adjective ... it works just to say it was field tested there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I have added this back in, with no adjective. And I realize that in my haste to type responses last night, I gave the wrong link for the clip of the 1970 story! No wonder you were still puzzled. Arrrgh. This is the right one. Reminder to self, always double-check posts on Talk pages ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Another DC classic (that is, because he struggled to paraphrase, meaning was frequently distorted):

• Automatic electronic scoring was first conceived by Robert Reynolds, who had expertise in modern electronics and their use in calculations.

  From https://www.newspapers.com/clip/55210290/democrat-and-chronicle/ which actually says that:

  Robert Reynolds, a West Coast electronics calculator expert. Somehow, DC gets from calculators to expert in modern electronics and their use in calculations. Every Single Source Needs Scrutiny. I really want to stop at three, but it's hard to avert one's eyes from these trainwrecks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

You can blame me for this one, in this DCGAR edit, I thought that DC's wording was too close to the source and so I rearranged/reworded it. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Rather than try to figure out a better paraphrase that isn't too close, I've now just quoted the source. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

That's about where I usually end up :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Summary, having looked now at scores of DC articles, it will be hard to convince me that any article that is still 80% DC content can be GA-worthy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Shearonink, for example, is trying to save similarly save Thomas Johnston (engraver) at WP:GAR, and has had to completely rewrite (reducing DC content to a third). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Speaking in my capacity as a (newly-elected) coord, I have to agree with Sandy. It's down to 64.8% Coldwell content now, but that's still entirely too high. Coldwell content must be scrutinized extremely closely and in most cases requires total rewriting. Not just for copyvio, but for failed verification, original research, and poor writing in general. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings: I have to respectfully disagree with your conclusion here. I have scrutinized the DC text for copyvio, text-source correspondence, any DC-introduced notions, and so forth. I do not think the article has to be completely rewritten and I do not think the percentage of DC content is, by itself, a suitable metric for this GAR.

Note that this is not the 'normal' DC composition, both due to the subject being more contemporary/accessible and in particular due to my heavy involvement in it during the initial GA review. A number of the sources that are in the article are sources that I found at the time of that review and that I verified at the time that he was accurately using when he incorporated them into the article text. Many of the points that the article makes were influenced by my review, and if you look at that review you can see that we went back and forth on several points and almost lost patience with one another. Now as part of this GAR, three different editors – myself, XOR'easter, and SandyGeorgia – have had at the article to identify and fix outstanding DC-related problems.

I put a lot of work into the original GA review, and I have put a lot of additional work now into this GAR. So if possible I would like this to be judged not on a 'guilty until proven innocent' basis but rather on the more normal basis of 'does this article meet the GA requirements'. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree there is much to be said about this article compared to other DC content because of your involvement at the GAN level. Some of the GAN reviews I've seen were little more than a word tweak here or there. Nonetheless, it's good progress that the article is now at 64% DC content (from 80 the last time I checked in :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to close this since I've commented on it, but I just reviewed the Coldwell content using Who Wrote That and I remain concerned. I can see you've done a lot to improve the article, but there are a few paragraphs almost entirely unchanged. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Those would be cases where I looked at the DC text and didn't see any problems with copyvio, erroneous claims, mistaken attributions, etc. I'm not going to rewrite the text just for the sake of rewriting it. The point of what I am doing is to try to preserve a little bit of what DC did, not completely replace it.

Because in human terms, this is the worst calamity I've seen in my 18 years as a Wikipedia contributor. Imagine that you are retired and you decide take on a full-time volunteer position with an organization that builds structures. You get really into it and build lots and lots of structures. The organization seems to like what you are doing; it highlights hundreds of your structures on their web page, and then gives a lot of them awards as good structures. Then after more than a decade of doing this, the organization suddenly says that you've been building these structures all wrong. It revokes the good structure awards and even worse, it tears most of the structures down. How do you think you would feel? Wasted Time R (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not a great metaphor. It's a fundamental policy of Wikipedia that plagiarism is not acceptable. Every contributor should be aware of this, let alone someone who was here for 15 years. It wasn't some massive surprise that people finally wised up to the massive issues with his content. I could go on and on about the multiple failures of oversight and excessive deference to established contributors that led to this disaster, plus the lust for shiny icons on his userpage that pushed Doug to shit out massive quantities of shoddy articles, but this isn't the place to do so. I'm not actively opposing, but I cannot actively support keeping this GAN either. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Immediately delist and send to WP:CP for deletion and/or replacement with a new, untainted article. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 18:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Vami IV: I believe your stance is not in accordance with the instructions given by WP:DCGAR FAQ #2 and #3 to the original GA reviewers: "If you believe the GA status might be retained ... you need to be willing to open an independent GAR ... and able to verify all content cited to online and offline sources ... Re-evaluate the content" per the problem areas listed in FAQ #1. That's what I've done, and I believe the current article is free of all of those listed problem areas. If someone points out an issue that remains, I will fix it. But nowhere at WP:DCGAR does it say that an article has to completely replaced with a new article. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Vami, I don't think that assessment is in line with the article status. I am not yet ready to declare a Keep (mostly because I have never understood what makes a GA), but if any copyvio remains, it would help to know where. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

---

William Rath

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

Result pending

As part of WP:DCGAR and as the original GA reviewer in 2020, I am placing this article nominated by Doug Coldwell up for GAR in order to keep its status as a GA. During the original review I was involved in looking at some of DC's sources and shaping the focus of the article to give a more chronological treatment. Now prior to this DCGAR process, I have gone through the article again. Regarding copyvio issues, there was nothing egregious but there were a few borderline too-close paraphrasings, which I have now reworded. Regarding text-source correspondence, I've gone back and looked at all of DC's sources. There were some issues that got missed in the original review, but I have corrected them. So at this point, I believe the article corresponds to the GA criteria and its status should be kept.

P.S. The 'Fountain of Youth mural' image is up for deletion at Commons; during the original review, I tried to get DC to retake the photo to be truly de minimis, but alas he didn't quite understand what was needed. So I fear that image is doomed, which is a shame but should not affect the GA status. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

WTF, to XOR'easter's and EEng's great frustration, DC's haphazard citation style (which I have taken to ignoring as it's so awful) has made copyvio checking even more difficult. As long as we're here, it may be worthwhile to get that sorted. I questioned you elsewhere about Cabot, which you had checked, but what about this mess:

• Ludington Daily News 1997, p. 11.

  Ludington's Carferries: The Rise, Decline & Rebirth of a Great Lakes Fleet. Ludington Daily News. 1997. p. 11. ASIN B000FKPTF6.

Were you able to access that, and can anything done to make the citation style more consistent? I realize that may not be part of WIAGA, but what a mess throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

oops !! Well, the F is exactly below the R on the keyboard ... one of my better typos :) Sorry ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that was a great typo ;-) I did also verify the Ludington Carferries content. I have fixed up the cites for inappropriate page numbers in the bibliography and for its 'harv' name being easy to confuse with the newspaper cites. I have also tried to further normalize some of the other cites. Let me know if there is anything else that you see in this regard. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

As an experienced editor, you can be trusted to get that; no need for me to recheck. By the way, see WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

In this case, I thought the Find-a-grave entry helped illustrate the time and place of the subject, so I left it in. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

PS, for the record, I was stuck with the WTF typo above when Wikipedia went down at 14:00. [4]. Else I would have corrected it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The citations were a mess (I believe I've cleaned them up now), and the writing still reeks of DYK word padding; could still use some tightening. Why is this DUE (that is, what secondary sources mention this)?

• His estate was the subject of two lawsuits.[20][21] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I've looked further at these two lawsuits. The first, Ludington State Bank v. Estate of Rath, does have secondary source coverage. But it took place in the 1930s, after Rath's widow died, and became interesting only when a normal probate case involving William Rath's bequeathings upon his wife's death got intertwined with Michigan's new emergency banking act (a forerunner of the national one at the start of the New Deal). It ended up going to the Michigan Supreme Court for a decision. But it really has nothing to do with William Rath in a biographical case. The second, Cartier et al v. Hengstler (or the other order, the final name was a countersuit), has to do with allegations of fraud against Cartier and Rath by someone who felt cut out of a real estate arrangement. It has very little secondary coverage and ended up being dismissed on appeal on grounds of statute of limitations and laches. So while this one does have something to do with Rath biographically, it isn't significant enough to include. So I am removing both of these from the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

WTR, the bigger issue is that it's just so hard to understand, particularly after reading through so many sources during the copyvio check, how bits were chosen for inclusion in articles. There are due weight issues and even POV everywhere (it's only in reading the sources for this article did I discover pov at James Ludington). The most random bits of unencyclopedic trivia make it into articles; in that vein, I just couldn't see why those lawsuits were added ... with no context, such insertions render a very odd flow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm done all I can for now; can you find a way to lower the number of paras beginning with Rath? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Have done this. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

EEng do you have a moment to glance over this short article to see if any other absurdities stand out? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Removed silly and misinterpreted stuff. EEng 06:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  Some of your reductions/removals I agree with; some I think make the article a little less interesting but will not argue; but some I think removed important biographical points. Those I have attempted to restore, but with completely rewritten text that tries to explain things better. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm all for articles being interesting, but not by stuffing them with pablum like saying someone's success in the lumber business eventually made him a lumber baron, where lumber baron means someone really successful in the lumber business, and anyway redirects to business magnate, which is just another way of saying he was successful, which is where we started. EEng 13:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Noting that a paraphrasing check is still needed, because although it was cited to a different source (Powers), this wording was taken directly from this source. This is a frequent feature of DC's work (text taken from one source but cited to another). It is insufficient to check individual sources relative to the text they cite; everything has to be evaluated versus the entire body of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Spit (album)

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

Result pending

Although most of this article is good (i.e. the reception, composition, etc), I have several issues.

1. The page has suffered from an increasing amount of bloat since the original GA review in 2017; sometimes feels like sections have been copy and pasted around. And poor writing, no straight narrative (or chronology; you understand what I'm getting at); i.e.

"Kittie was formed in 1996 and got signed by NG Records after the band approached Jake Weiner, the record label's second-in-command. After seeing Kittie play live, Weiner signed the group to NG during the summer of 1999. NG was then acquired by Artemis Records toward the end of 1999 and Kittie recorded Spit at EMAC Studios in London, Ontario during the summer of 1999."

...among other really confusing repeats of stuff to do with NG's acquisition and whatnot, and influences. just hard to read

2. having done some extra research, page has several inaccuracies with dates or lack thereof (resolved those) which have created additional chronological difficulties. More sources are needed. Sources are still being found.

3. page lacks any details regarding things like "the legacy/reappraisal" of the album as one of the best of the nu metal genre; it, and some of its songs, have received accolades, with the most recent being a spot on Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Metal Songs of All Time list. (ask what citations, i'll give you them) The lack of acknowledgement makes the page feel unfinished to me (and yes, I will do something! I'm not asking for someone else to find them, so don't ask)

Notify: @Tbhotch:, 2017 GA Reviewer, @Statik N:, biggest contributor Chchcheckit (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

---

John A. Hilger

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

Result pending

Extensive copyvios. Earwig reports substantial exact matches from http://www.veterantributes.org/ and https://www.tshaonline.org/. This was noted on the article talk page last May, and it looks like somebody did some "cleanup" which consisted of minor edits to change exact matches into close paraphrases, so the actual extent of the problem is far worse than a naive reading of the Earwig report would lead you to believe.

Talk:John A. Hilger/GA1 has no discussion of the copyvio issue, which leads me to wonder if it was examined at all. Either the review did not include a scan for copyvio problems, or it did and the level of problem found was considered acceptable. It is unclear which alternative is more disturbing. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Definite close paraphrasing issues: Hilger enrolled at the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas in September 1926 pulled pretty much straight from the source as well as an air assault on an enemy stronghold near Sinuiju, North Korea, (both the copyrighted TSHA source), and concerns with the other source as well (although some of what Earwig flags is just really long proper names that can't be rephrased as it's the name of an organization). Looks like a expedited delist to me. Hog Farm _Talk 00:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I have to put my hand up as the GA reviewer, I was so focused on assessing other obvious issues that I identified, including source reliability, that I overlooked the copyright problem. That said, as HogFarm has noted, a lot of the overlap is in unit names/job titles and there is limited ability to alleviate this since copyright is around the expression of information, rather than the information itself. Zawed (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I have eliminated much. The rest is long titles and military jargon which cannot be removed. Bruxton (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

There is certainly going to be a lot of Earwig hits from things like "Operational Training Unit Bomb Group"; that's the name of a unit and clearly shouldn't be changed. But I understand that and that's not the problem. @Hog Farm gave one example above. Here's some other examples from the revision that passed the GA review:

• "In Chungking on April 30, Madame Chiang Kai-shek presented medals and posed for pictures with Doolittle, Hilger, and other crew members."
• "On April 30, in Chungking, Hilger, Doolittle and other crew members were decorated by Madame Chiang Kai-shek."

Earwig doesn't say anything about that, but it's clearly a sentence that was copied and then the word order shuffled around a bit to make it not show up in an automated scan.

• "Running low on fuel due to the early launch of the raid, the sixteen bombers failed to reach any of the designated safety zones in China. Although one aircraft and its crew landed in the Soviet Union and was taken prisoner, the crews in the fifteen other B-25s were forced to bail out of their planes before they crashed. In bailing out of his aircraft, Hilger was jolted from the opening of his parachute and suffered some sprains and minor injuries. Crew fourteen survived the ordeal. Of the eighty airmen that made up the Doolittle Raiders, the majority were rescued by friendly Chinese."
• ". Running low on fuel due to the early launch of the raid, the B-25s failed to reach any of the designated safety zones in China. Hilger and his crew bailed out over the city of Shangrao in Jiangxi Province, China. While bailing out of his aircraft, Hilger was jolted from the opening of his parachute and suffered some sprains and minor injuries. He and his crew linked up after the bailout and were helped through Japanese lines by Chinese guerrillas and civilians"

Earwig flagged bits and pieces of that, but between the bits Earwig flagged, there's more which is clearly copied and shuffled around a bit.

• "In retirement, Hilger accepted a position with the Atomic Energy Commission and lived for a time in Las Vegas, Nevada. In early 1982 he returned to Texas to live at the Air Force Village in San Antonio. On February 3, 1982, Brig. Gen. John Allen Hilger died at the age of seventy-three at Lackland Air Force Base. In accordance with his wishes, Hilger was cremated and his ashes scattered off the coast of Newport Beach, California, in the Pacific Ocean."
• "After his retirement from the military, Hilger served with the United States Atomic Energy Commission and lived for a time in Las Vegas, Nevada. In early 1982, after his full retirement, he settled at the Air Force Village in San Antonio, Texas. Hilger died on February 3, 1982, at the age of 73. In accordance to his wishes, his body was cremated and ashes scattered in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Newport Beach, California."

Again, bits and pieces noted by Earwig, but in between those bits and pieces are more text that's just the original source text warmed over and rearranged into two paragraphs instead of the original one. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I tried my best to make sure that the article did not suffer from copyright issues by paraphrasing the lines and information without from the source website. I paraphrased to make sure all the information was included especially all his military positions in order to pass GA-article status. I will try to reedit the mentioned paragraphs and any required editing so that it won't encounter any copyvio issues. Toadboy123 (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Toadboy123 before you do that, I suggest reading Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#Substantial similarity. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I will read it and hopefully it will contribute to my understanding regarding close paraphrasing. Toadboy123 (talk) 05:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Regarding, "I paraphrased to make sure all the information was included especially all his military positions in order to pass GA-article status.", I should point out that "including all the information" is not a GA criteria. Wikipedia:Good article criteria says:

• Broad in its coverage:
  • it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
  • it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

If you're trying to include every assignment, every promotion, every posting, every available facet of his private life, that's going beyond the "main aspects", and may well be treading on "unnecessary detail". This is specifically called out in the explanatory note to WP:GACR: The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

---

2008 Summer Olympics

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

Result pending

An article that's reported to have "Potentially dated statements (2008), ... (December 2018), Unsourced passages need footnotes (July 2021)" on the good article cleanup listing page. Some uncited material looks to be

• The 2008 Beijing Olympics caused traditional Hutong neighborhoods to be cleared to construct modern Olympic stadiums. In an effort to ensure success for the Games, the government invested billions in building new infrastructure, although clearance to tiny, outdated neighborhoods in Beijing called hutongs resulted (Petrun). Jim Yardley, a New York Times reporter interviewed Pan Jinyu, a 64-year-old local resident: "They [the government] don't want foreigners to see this scarred old face." Feng Shuqin and her husband, Zheng Zhanlin, had lived in their house for 50 years, and the family had owned the property before the Communists took control in 1949. The government, trying to clear the area, offered them to move with a compensatory sum of US$175,000, but the family insisted the land was worth US$1.4 million (Yardley). Michael Meyer, an American who lives in the hutongs, reported that 500,000 residents were relocated from their homes before the Olympics began (Meyer).
• the Uniforms and Officials section
• Look of the games sections

among others along with the legacy section reportedly needing updates. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

---

San Marino national football team

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

Result pending

A GA from 2010. Has been tagged for "This article or section appears to be slanted towards recent events. (May 2022) This article needs additional citations for verification. (May 2022)" for almost a year. GA cleanup reports "Unsourced passages need footnotes (May 2022), ... (May 2022), Unsourced passages need footnotes (May 2022), Link rot cleanup (June 2022)" Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the page generally needs more citations overall. If needed, I can help retrieve adequate sources in Italian. Oltrepier (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

so, there are three CN tags that need addressing and a few uncited paragraphs in the section above. The latest fixtures and competitive records need citing. I also believe the "all time record" section is CRUFT and needs removing. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski I agree about the competitive records and the paragraphs. The fixtures should already have citations, though, and the "List of matches not lost" could still be relevant, given San Marino's competitive history... Oltrepier (talk) 10:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Curtis Joseph

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

Result pending

A GA from 2008. Lots of things in the article look unsourced like

• Joseph broke into the NHL in 1990, playing for the St. Louis Blues. In the off-season following the 1990–91 NHL season, the Blues signed Brendan Shanahan from the New Jersey Devils. Shanahan was a restricted free agent, and thus the Devils were entitled to compensation. The teams could not agree on what the compensation was; the Blues offered Curtis Joseph, Rod Brind'Amour, and two draft picks, while the Devils wanted Scott Stevens. Joseph seemed to be the answer the Devils were looking for in goal, but the case went to arbitration, and a judge ruled that Stevens was to be awarded to the Devils in September 1991. Joseph remained with the Blues until 1995. The 1992–93 NHL season was his most successful season, as he played a key role in the upset of the Chicago Blackhawks, the reigning Clarence Campbell Conference regular season champions; the Blues swept them in four games in the first round of the playoffs. The Blues then faced the Toronto Maple Leafs in the second round, and though the Leafs prevailed, the series went to seven games thanks to Joseph's play. Because of his efforts, he was nominated as a finalist for the Vezina Trophy that season, finishing third in voting behind winner Ed Belfour and Tom Barrasso. After a disappointing first-round exit in the 1995 playoffs, St. Louis Blues coach and general manager Mike Keenan declined to re-sign Joseph and traded his rights to the Edmonton Oilers.
• On March 1, 2008, Joseph moved past Terry Sawchuk for fourth place in all-time NHL wins with 448 in a 3–1 win over his former team, the Phoenix Coyotes. On April 13, 2008, Joseph replaced Miikka Kiprusoff less than four minutes into the first period of Game #3 of the Flames' first round series of the 2008 playoffs with the San Jose Sharks. Joseph backstopped the Flames to a come-from-behind 4–3 win after initially falling behind 3–0. This win made him the first goaltender to win a post-season game as a member of five different teams: St.Louis, Edmonton, Toronto, Detroit and Calgary.
• His autobiography, Cujo: The Untold Story of My Life On and Off the Ice, was released in 2018.

and many more. Also, the article looks like it needs updating since it seems to end at 2017. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

---

152 mm howitzer M1943 (D-1)

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

Result pending

A GA from 2008. I can't exactly tell if the many paragraphs with no citations are actually uncited or if they have general references (aside from the better source needed and citation needed tag). I will say, however, that the sources cited do not label any page numbers what so ever which makes it quite impossible to verify. Also, I'm not sure if this article is broad enough at all. GA cleanup lists states "Unsourced passages need footnotes (July 2016), ... (October 2022)" Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delist The many uncited paragraphs alone would cause me to quick fail it if I was the reviewer--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delist - Lots to fix, and no editor has yet volunteered to do this. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  

---

Urban heat island

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

Result pending

It became a good article many years ago and is an important subject which could do with checking Chidgk1 (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

More citations are needed and almost all the examples section is about the US. So formally I am saying that I am not sure it now meets number 3 in the GA criteria. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this process. I also think it probably needs to be delisted and then re-assessed (or the other way around). I have also written about it here. Basically, the current article is very different to the version that was assessed in 2009. I think it would fail this criterion: "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". (Although perhaps the recent culling and condensing activities that I performed solved some of that problem). It's a very important topic that will get more into the news and limelight as climate change will amplify the urban heat island effect more and more (at least for those cities that currently have a pronounced urban heat island effect already). EMsmile (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Another issue with this article is coverage. A major cause of the effect is not cities per se but the large concentrations of cars (particularly ICEs) and car infrastructure (parking lots, roads, and other paved areas). The article barely mentions this. (t · c) buidhe 17:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

---

The Tale of Peter Rabbit

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

Result pending

Same issue as the others from Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime where a sock wrote about 2/3 of the article including all the important stuff, it was passed without a real look at anything, and will require a lot of work to return to GA status. Wizardman 01:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I've extended and cited the Publication history (moving the refs out of the lead), and am adding a Reception section now. The Plot section is probably acceptable as it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Given the work done so far and the comments here as well as at the talk page I'm leaning towards withdrawing the GAR, though I'll try and read through the full article first before doing so to be on the safe side. It helps when multiple people who I trust more than many on the site are giving it a clean bill of health. Wizardman 00:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. I'm happy to do more if there's anything that people want. I've asked VictoriaEarle if she'd like to join in with any of the text she checked and reworked way back when. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Zarina Diyas

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

Result pending

a GA from 2021 interestingly enough. Main problem i've noticed is broadness, specifically a lack of updates. The sections on 2021 and 2022 are entirely empty. So unless those get filled in then this will fail broadness. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• I noticed a couple of things and fixed some. If possible put the pronunciation clutter in her life section. It's not all that relevant to the lead. Also you should not have to reference anything in the lead since everything in the lead should already be referenced in prose. You have her ranking linked in the lead but nothing about it in the prose section. Remember the lead is simply a tiny synopsis of everything in the main body. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not intrested anymore in this, so don't count on me. JamesAndersoon (talk) 09:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Happy to help out with trying to fix this article. I've put something in the 2021 and 2022 sections. I don't think that citations in the lead, or it containing information not in the body are fatal. With bold emphasis added by me: "the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents" (MOS:LEAD); "the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body" (MOS:LEADCITE). Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't mean to suggest that it must be done, only that it is usually handled that way. We try not to link in the lead and we try to make sure that whatever is in the lead should be in the main body. Since this is going for GA I thought now would be the time to make it as good as possible. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
  

---

Tyrant (Resident Evil)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Evil)/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

This article has been neglected for decades. Most of it written for Mr. X only (especially at reception sec) and the reception section is full of listicles only with short development/concept creation section with no additional information whatsoever. GlatorNator (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delist - I reviewed this over a decade ago and am perfectly fine seeing this delisted. GamerPro64 16:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Could the article possibly be merged from the franchise article? Most of the sources are coming from X and not the tyrant species. GlatorNator (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delist Appears to be a lot of WP:SYNTH involved here. Nemesis and Mr. X are more notable as individual characters than the "Tyrant" is as a whole, and most of the sources talk about the characters individually. I'm not even sure if anything from here can be merged, it might need to just be deleted wholesale for failing WP:GNG. I should add that it doesn't technically fail the WP:GA criteria; an article can be non-notable and still pass, but WP:IAR because it would almost certainly fail a Good Article check in the modern day. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
  

---

Economy of Ohio

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

Result pending

A GA from 2008. There looks to be some uncited statements and sections. Along with that there may possibly be some areas that need updating. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

---

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