Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsDiscussionReassessmentReport
↓ Skip to table of contents and archives ↓
Good article reassessment

Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to determine whether a good article (GA) still meets the good article criteria, and to delist it if does not. There are two types of reassessment: individual reassessment and community reassessment. An individual reassessment is discussed on the article talk page and concluded by a single editor in much the same way as a review of a good article nomination. Community reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. Where possible, editors should conduct an individual reassessment, while community reassessment should be used if delisting is likely to be controversial. Community reassessments can also be used to challenge a fail during a good article nomination. This is not a peer review process; for that use Wikipedia:Peer review.

The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not. Many problems (including not meeting the general notability guidelines, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Content disputes should be resolved through the normal means.

Unless an article's issues are extensive, consider taking the following steps before initiating a reassessment:

  1. Fix any simple problems yourself. Do not waste minutes explaining or justifying a problem that you could fix in seconds. GAR is not a forum to shame editors over easily fixed problems.
  2. Tag serious problems that you cannot fix with appropriate template messages, if the templates will help other editors find the problems. Do not tag bomb the article.
  3. Notify major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects. Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.

A list of all open GA reassessment nominees may be found at Category:Good article reassessment nominees.

Articles needing possible reassessment

Occasionally, rather than initiating either individual or community reassessment, an editor will merely tag the article as possibly needing reassessment. These tagged articles are listed below and each needs the attention of an editor to decide if reassessment is required. To tag an article, {{GAR request}} is placed at the top of the article talk page. It is useful to indicate in the edit summary or on the talk page why you think a reassessment may be necessary.

Individual reassessment

When to use this process

  • Use the individual reassessment process when you find a good article that you don't believe satisfies the good article criteria and:
    • You would like to receive input from a community of editors who watch the article talk page
    • You believe the decision to continue listing the article or to delist it should be yours, at the conclusion of a good article reassessment discussion (unless you believe a decision made by you is likely to be controversial, then opt for community reassessment instead)
  • Use the individual reassessment process if:
    • You are confident in your ability to assess the article
    • You are not a major contributor to the article
    • You know the article has not been delisted before
    • You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war
    • You are logged in (unless you are not a registered user, then you may try asking another editor to reassess the article)

Note

  • Individual reassessments do not appear below on the good article reassessment page; those are all community reassessments.

How to use this process

  • The instructions for individual reassessment are:
  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 first bold link in the template to create an individual reassessment page (while the second bold link creates a community reassessment page). The individual reassessment page for this article is created as a subpage of the article talk page.
  3. Leave an assessment on this page detailing your reasons for bringing the article to good article reassessment. List the problems you found with the article in comparison to the good article criteria. Save the page.
  4. Transclude the individual assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and prepare to type at the bottom of the page. Paste in{{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}}. 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.
  5. Notify major contributing editors, relevant WikiProjects for the article, the nominator, and the reviewer. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=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.
  6. Wait for other editors to respond.
  7. After discussion, you must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria. You may close the discussion as well. An individual assessment may be closed after seven days of no activity.
  8. To close the discussion, edit the individual reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).
  9. 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, delete the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page and update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page.
    • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this, remove the article from the relevant list at good articles, remove the {{good article}} template from the article page, remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page, and update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (see example). Remove the GA assessment from project banners.

The user script GANReviewTool can perform most of these steps automatically.

Good article reassessment
Community reassessment

When to use this process

  • Use the community reassessment process when you find a good article that you don't believe satisfies the good article criteria and:
    • You would like to receive input from a community of editors who watch the good article reassessment page
    • You believe the decision to continue listing the article or to delist it should be the result of consensus, at the conclusion of a good article reassessment discussion (unless you believe a decision made by you is not likely to be controversial, then opt for individual reassessment instead)
  • Use the community reassessment process if:
    • You are not confident in your ability to assess the article
    • You are a major contributor to the article
    • You disagree with an earlier keep or delist decision
    • You are logged in (unless you are not a registered user, then you may try asking another editor to reassess the article)
    • You disagree with a fail at Wikipedia:Good article nominations (however, it is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for this; it is usually simpler to renominate it)

Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate. Wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment. If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered.

How to use this process

  • The instructions for community reassessment are:
  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 second bold link in the template to create a community reassessment page (while the first bold link creates an individual reassessment page). The community reassessment page for this article is created as a subpage of the good article reassessment page.
  3. Leave an assessment on this page detailing your reasons for bringing the article to good article reassessment. List the problems you found with the article in comparison to the good article criteria. Save the page. A bot will add the assessment to the GA reassessment page.
  4. Transclude the community assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and create a new section named "GA Reassessment". Paste in{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/ArticleName/n}}. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display the community reassessment discussion.
  5. Notify major contributing editors, relevant WikiProjects for the article, the nominator, and the reviewer. 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.
  6. Wait for other editors to respond.
  7. After discussion, consensus must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria. Any uninvolved editor may close the discussion (if needed, a request may be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure).
  8. To close the discussion, edit the community reassessment page of the article and locate {{GAR/current}}. 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, but it will have to be manually added to the current archive.
  9. 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, delete the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page and update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page.
    • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this, remove the article from the relevant list at good articles, remove the {{good article}} template from the article page, remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page, update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (see example), and restore any project assessment values on the article talk page (check history to see what they were).

The user script GANReviewTool can perform most of these steps automatically.


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 an individual or community reassessment and remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, remove the template from the article talk page.

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

See also

Articles listed for community reassessment

Railway surgery

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

Severely US-biased, confuses railway-operated hospitals with doctors paid by railway companies to represent them in legal cases involving medical matters, contains blatantly false statements like "in Europe, the majority of injuries were due to collisions, hence passengers rather than employees formed the bulk of the injured" that because of the way the article is written are very hard to remove without major rewrites or massive excisions. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The article is biased towards the US because the detailed sources are American. What's more, those sources explicitly state that railway surgery was espeially (even uniquely) developed in the US. The alleged blatantly false claim is what the source says. There has been a discussion on this on the article talk page, but new sources have not been offered. It may be untrue that US railway surgery was unique, but without sources showing that, we can only write from the sources we have. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work isn't it? SpinningSpark 18:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You can say that it's due to lack of sources, but a) have you actually looked for foreign sources, and b) that does not justify the confused presentation of the article that fails to clearly delineate between countries where railways actually provided medical care and those that did not. Second, the source for the blatantly false claim does not say what it you say it does - it divides railway injuries into four categories, but absolutely nowhere suggests that they are ordered by frequency, or that the author had any great knowledge about accident frequency in the first place. That you misread the source so badly makes me skeptical that you have represented the other sources accurately.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, I looked for sources quite extensively. I'm not very competent in languages, but did not turn up much at all outside the US except a few scraps in mostly 19th century sources. The Great Britain section (and by extension Western Europe) makes it very clear that railway surgeons in that country had a radically different role "...primarily as medico-legal consultant regarding injury claims rather than practical surgery." I'm at a loss to understand why you think it doesn't say that. India is the only other country with a specific section and there the emphasis is most definitely on treatment of the injured.
On the statistics, Bond does give an indication of numbers "Accidents belonging to the first class enormously preponderate..." That is, passenger injuries. That this is different in the US and employee rather than passenger injuries predominate is given in Herrick with some statistics. (Note I have just adjusted the page range in Herrick to include the numbers he gives). SpinningSpark 09:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've also reworded this to avoid the claim these classes are in statistical order. SpinningSpark 09:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have still kept the completely erroneous claim that passenger inujuries outnumbered employee injuries in Europe, which the source says absolutely nothing about. Further, with regards to countries, the article spends far too long talking in terms of a mythical international "railway surgery". Most of the article should be placed under a US heading. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tifa Lockhart

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

Simply put, the reception section of the article is overflowing with the often hated listicles (word defined here on Merriam-Webster). While they do come from reliable sources, they are generally poorly written and say little of the character. The reception section in general also gives undue weight towards her physical appearance and body. Outside of the reception section, a lot of the sources are WP:PRIMARY. Due to these factors, I believe it fails criteria 2b at its current state. Also, as a minor point, File:Tifa Lockhart art.png and File:Tifa Lockhart.png could have better fair-use rationale. (Oinkers42) (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I just wanted to also mention that it has been over 10 years since its nomination with no prior review. (Oinkers42) (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would argue given the character and the nature of most of the reception is towards the character's appearance and sex appeal, it's hard to argue Undue weight being pushed towards the character's appearance when that's the first thing most react towards. Also WP:PRIMARY is used in regards to no original research, when the sources are being cited directly for what they're stating in regards to the character's concept and role in the games: why would you need a secondary source to tell you what happens in the game or the developer's rationale for why they developed a character a certain way? And if you're going to do this GAR, at the very least cite specific things in the article to tackle in terms of certain references you may feel are weak or places you feel original research may be occurring, broad strokes like this make it difficult to work with you to bring it up to snuff.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is really difficult to point out specific sources as, like I said, the entire reception section makes heavy use of listicles, those being 65-68, 44, 47-50, 52, 54 and 55, 57-59, 70-72, and 75-77. Removing those would probably leave a massive whole in the reception section. Also, there are other things to talk about with the character: [1] [2] and [3] do not really focus on her sex appeal and would be good sources for reception. Finally, sorry if this GAR is lacking, as it is my first. (Oinkers42) (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Cleaned out a lot of those, and rewrote some of the others so they were actually saying something. I do feel list entries are fine to cite as long as they are actually saying something citeable for a person's reaction to the character. When the dust settled though it didn't carve out that much out of the reception section. As for the other articles you mentioned it's a bit harder to work those into the article on the fly, and that's generally better for something brought up on the talk page or with a cleanup tag, not really a GAR. I'll try and get them in there in a bit.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think the trimming could still go a bit further. Being on Complex's "16th-best-looking "sideline chick in games" neither noteworthy nor GA material. Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would disagree that it's not noteworthy, I would agree that a list of publications recognizing a character for their sex appeal amid other lists of publications recognizing a character for other reasons is not compelling prose, nor summary style. I think most of those types of mentions could be summarized in a line or two, rather than being listed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Right, I could see it being used as a source for a more broad statement on positive reception for attractiveness, but with a character as mainstream and popular as Tifa, with decades of attention and high level coverage, neither Complex nor "16th place" is particularly of note. As is, it's more of a "let's save this obscure character at WP:AFD" type addition, not a modern GA. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well if either of you would care to lend a hand I'm stupidly busy on my end. I think even Oinkers plate is full despite starting this GAR.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
    Reply[reply]

Cambodia women's national football team

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

My reasons for nomination can be seen at Talk:Cambodia women's national football team/GA2, an individual reassessment that I performed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delist per PCN02WPS's individual GAR, particularly their points re:1b/2a/2c/3b. I would actually probably fail this on 3a as well, as there is almost no coverage of, well, the team's actual competitive history now that they've competed in three tournaments. A {{trout}} to Sportsfan77777 for this as well, as these are not reasons why the individual GAR shouldn't be valid: #1/#5 are irrelevant, #2/#3 are contrary to policy, and #4 is untrue (PCN02WPS notified the relevant wikiprojects, and the main contributor is vanished). These GAs were all created in 2012 by the same author who is no longer monitoring them--they're the exact sort of article that a quick individual GAR is best for. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The article does have editors who regularly update the statistics. You just need someone to put those statistics into prose. It's not a lot to do. We have at the top of GAR instructions: "Do not waste minutes explaining or justifying a problem that you could fix in seconds. GAR is not a forum to shame editors over easily fixed problems." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. I fixed the main issues, and updated the recent tournaments the team has played in. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
    Reply[reply]

Madagascar women's national football team

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

My reasons for nomination can be seen at Talk:Madagascar women's national football team/GA2, an individual reassessment that I performed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll get to this one. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I updated the article. That constituted getting rid of the empty lists (where the information is not known), and adding three tournaments for the main national team (COSAFA from 2017 to 2019). I checked if the youth national team participated in any events since the most recent one mentioned and I don't think they have. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Some of the other points that were raised in the individual reassessment (which I was believe was poorly done) do not disqualify the article from GA status per the instructions "Many problems (including not meeting the general notability guidelines, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for delisting". Also some of these changes are simple enough to make yourself per the instructions "Those who add an article to good article reassessment should feel free to fix problems with the article; this is not regarded as a conflict of interest". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think this is sufficient to close the article as keep. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Also, I saw Indy Beetle's concern about whether there is too much information about football in Africa in general. I don't agree with that. We have hundreds of "small countries at the Olympics" articles that do basically the same thing (i.e. repeating more general information) for the background section, and it looks fine in those articles. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks for implementing the improvements, Sportsfan77777. I made a couple of minor tweaks. I think that the general information about football in Africa is likely to benefit readers. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
    Reply[reply]

Buckeye Manufacturing Company

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

The information about the demise/closure of the company is on this page and another related GA page, Lambert Automobile Company, is inconsistent.

  • Buckeye Manufacturing Company was nominated for GA and accepted on 6 June 2022 ([4]) and has defunct in 1917 in the infobox and under "Demise" says that that is when they stopped making "Lambert vehicles" and they were a defence facility from 1917 to 1919 then renamed "Lambert Incorporated".
  • Lambert Automobile Company was nominated for GA and accepted on 3 July 2022 ([5]) (which itself said defunct in 1916 in the infobox and 1917 in the text) says that Buckeye Manufacturing

Company stopped manufacturing automobile parts permanently in 1922.

These may be the only errors or there may be other issues with these pages but I believe that it is worth re-evaluation. Gusfriend (talk) 07:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Another clusterfuck. Let's start with the facts that Lucendo is self-published, Donald Sackheim and Robert Rosenberg are not "historians", and many of the other sources are old primary newspapers and suchlike. EEng 09:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I hadn't made the connection about Lucendo so I have now moved it into the further reading and it is no longer a citation. Gusfriend (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This has Coldwell's usual problem with copied or lightly paraphrased text. For instance both this 1966 newspaper clipping and the current version of the article include "was known as the longest building in the world devoted to the manufacture of automobiles", as well as several shorter and modified but still-recognizable phrases. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
    Reply[reply]

Haskelite

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

There is nothing in the article about anything post World War II and it gives no indication whether or not it is still being manufactured (although I suspect that it isn't). It also doesn't include information about what happened to the product when the Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation was split up. Also, was it ever produced by Haskell Manufacturing Company? The Haskell Manufacturing Company says that it is but this page is unclear about it. How did it relate and compete with other plywoods? There is only a single reference after 1965 which I suspect is part of the issue. Gusfriend (talk) 04:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The bulk of the final paragraph, from "One of these airplanes..." forward, is lightly-rephrased copyvio from the cited Chicago Tribune source. e.g.

  • Our article: One of these airplanes received a commercial license to fly daily, and 500 hours of testing proved its worthiness.
    Source: One of these ships has received a commercial license and is flying daily. More than 500 hours has been flown in the plane and it is proved to have superior performance.
  • Our article: The fuselage was molded in 2 hours 35 minutes, which was 1⁄30 the time required to construct an ordinary fuselage.
    Source: The fuselage of the plane was molded in 2 hours 35 minutes, about one-thirtieth of the time taken to construct an ordinary fuselage.
  • Our article: It was without longitudinal or cross bracing.
    Source: It is without longitudinal or cross bracing and is very light.

That took 30 seconds to identify, and there's no good reason to trust the policy compliance of other text in the article. To the contrary, if this is what we see in the easily checked sources, we might safely assume that the sources we can't easily access have been treated in the same way. A ground-up rewrite is probably necessary simply to comply with our basic copyvio policies, regardless of any other issues. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have been wondering if the best approach is to propose a 3-way merge between this page, the Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation and the Haskell Manufacturing Company. This would give us a single longer page with more information and rewriting to deal with at least some of the copyvios as they were all largely written by the same editor. Gusfriend (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean, if you want to stubify the articles, RD1 the copyvio, redirect two of the titles to the third and write the article from there, sure, sounds great. This article's essence could be captured in no more than a paragraph or two, I would think, which means it would fit tidily in a company article's "Products" section. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 04:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have proposed a merge from Haskell canoe into this one as a starting point for future work. Gusfriend (talk) 10:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this can actually be a 4-way merge between Haskelite Manufacturing CorporationHaskell Manufacturing Company, Haskelite, and Haskell canoe. It appears that we have four articles about what may be, at most, two notable subjects:
  • Haskell Manufacturing Company, which formed a subsidiary called the Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation - although the Haskell building may merit its own article if it has a history that's substantially separate from the company
  • Haskelite, from which Haskell canoes are made
However, it seems that Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation was the main or only manufacturer of Haskelite. Furthermore, the Haskell canoe could be easily merged, given that it's a minor product from the Haskell Manufacturing Company that was made out of Haskelite. The Haskell canoe article has a grand total of five sources (three from specialized trade journals and two from local newspapers), which don't really convince me of its notability. Even when the canoe article passed GAN, it was sourced mainly to wood-related trade journals, plus an archive collection and a local newspaper.
That brings me back to this article. To be honest, I'm not sure that Haskelite is notable, either. Even if the article did not contain copyright violations, there are only two paragraphs about the type of wood itself (even in the version of the article that passed GAN). The rest of the article is about the products made from this wood, which go into extreme (and arguably even excessive) detail. I think this article should be delisted on copyright concerns alone. Nonetheless, it seems like the reader would be much better served if these four articles were merged into one, more comprehensive, page. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My slightly longer term plan is a 4 way merge starting with the canoe and this one and then the two companies then all together but I am doing it bit by bit to try to avoid overwhelming the GAR and other processes. I think that you are probably right about the building being worthy of a standalone article as it is on the NHRP. Gusfriend (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's becoming more and more clear that we need a special process to deal with DC's creations. It's more than just a question of GA delisting -- everywhere I look it's WP:TNT for copyvio, nonnotability, misuse of sources, etc. Part of me feels bad for the guy but his defiant IDHT at ANI makes it hard to be sympathetic. EEng 00:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having seen a 1920 reference supporting "the largest plywood sheet ever produced", related GA articles saying different things, statements not supported by references and more I agree. There needs to be somewhere that we can table all concerns and tick things off when they are done and it seems to be outside the scope of the CCI work and the GAR. I would be happy to be involved but have no idea where I would start suggesting it. Gusfriend (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have created a page for the building at Haskell Manufacturing Company Building as a stubish level article. Gusfriend (talk) 08:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Haskell canoe has been merged to the Haskelite page. Gusfriend (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delist Clearly nowhere near meeting the requirements for broad coverage. That, plus the copyvio, means this requires a total rewrite or even merge as suggested above. Regardless, clearly not fit for GA status. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
    Reply[reply]

2b2t

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

There is the "context" template at the top of the article, saying that it provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject. So, I believe that the article now fails the GA criteria. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Also, the reviewer, No Great Shaker, was blocked. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment. It appears NGS performed a good-faith and normal review. His block was not due to incompetence but rather sockpuppetry, which is unlikely to impact the quality of a GAN review he did. So I'm not convinced that this particular complaint is a problem. SnowFire (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think sufficient context is provided, and some edits have been made to the lede since then. I think the maintenance template can be removed. "2b2t is a Minecraft server" is as simple as it gets, with the link to Minecraft server. If someone doesn't know what Minecraft is, or what a multiplayer game server is, they can and should simply click the links. Specific terms like "griefing" and "hacking" now have explanations in footnotes or parentheticals. @Trivialist: Are there further concerns about insufficient context? Leijurv (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - Gave the article a skim, and maybe my two cents isn't worth much, but I honestly probably wouldn't pass a GAN that uses so much direct quotation. It's kind of jarring to read; is there any reason these couldn't be paraphrased in prose, especially the two quote blocks down in Reception? ~Bluecrystal004 (talk · contribs) 01:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
    Reply[reply]

Hilaria Baldwin

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

This is not a good article. If it was only not-so-good while still meeting the Good Article criteria fine, but it's a terrible article. I get that "Good Article" has its own rubric, but I don't think a "Good Article" should be an actually awful article. This would be confusing to readers.

It's a bad article because a quarter of it -- the "Allegations of cultural appropriation" section -- is an egregious tabloid hatchet job. My recommendation is that the section titled "Allegations of cultural appropriation" be removed, and the material in it be cut down to a couple-few anodyne sentences and stuck at the end of the "Personal life" section, or something to that general effect.

This section probably doesn't violate either WP:BLP, exactly, or WP:NOTGOSSIP, exactly, but it sure does skirt close to it. Beyond that, it just sucks. It sucks to punch down at this private person, and it double sucks that other media have picked up on this article and spread the egregious and very detailed defamation we're engaged in here. If "a good part of the article double sucks" and "It is a Good Article, which we want to display to the world as some of our best work" can coexist according to our rubric, then something's really wrong with our rubric, and until and if that is fixed, we are not a bureaucracy here and let's fix this particular problem right now. I have more to say, at length, I'll hat it, but it's probably worth scanning if you want to engage.

More

Altho it's arguable whether the section in question truly violates WP:BLP, at the very least it's skirting the edge, and also the edge of the policy WP:NOTGOSSIP ("Wikipedia is not a newspaper... not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not:... Celebrity gossip...", altho the rest of that section does let you get away with it. The woman is not close to being a public figure, she's a rich man's wife who has done this and that and been on this or that show because she is, and wants to enjoy that. And BLP says "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restrain... Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures."

Sure, truth is generally a defense against libel, but I mean "We shred this person in excruciating detail, but not in a way which crosses the line of being actually criminal" isn't what you'd want to see in any article, let alone one we want to crow about.

Who gives a... gosh-freaking-darn... if people want to have some fun with their persona. Jeepers creepers, half the people you meet are like "Oh I have some Cherokee blood" or "My people came over on the Mayflower" or "Actually I'm descended from Eric the Red" or whatever. Who knows if its true. Probably not. People put on airs, people say that they played an a band with Trent Reznor years ago, people hide that their parents were poor, etc etc etc. We all have different faces. So? Who is this woman harming, with her chosen face. Spain is a first-world country for crying out loud. They can watch out for their heritage without our help I am quite confident.

But wait. It gets worse. There's a "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations" tag here, and the media says horrible things about this person which I don't even want to repeat here, and apparentlythey are getting this from us in part at least. We are actively popularizing and spreading this... shinola.... I mean, for marginally notable persons, we are the biggest part of their public face. We are the second google hit on this person, after her instagram. We describe her to the world much more loudly and widely than any other source. And for centuries, maybe.

We are a huge, huge organization read by millions of people and which helps shape the zeitgeist. She is just a little person, a marginally notable person, who has her own inner life and her own reasons for doing things. Writing stuff like this at detailed length is punching down, punching way down, and it's not a good look. Let other people be egregious... scamps... and revel in shaming people. Let the National Enquirer do it. We don't have to. We really don't. We are free people on this earth, and we don't.

You know, there's a lot of facts and other material that we don't publish. A lot. See WP:NOT. We don't have to publish this.

I have been here a long time and I know the counterarguments. You can make them again and will. I know that I didn't hardly cite any WP:RULES. I know about beep beep boop boop, so I don't expect to win this one. But I'd be ashamed if I didn't try.

Anyway, I'm sending this article back for reconsideration until the nothingburger "cultural appropriation scandal" (yes, this Good Article says that, and in our words) is removed as a section and cut down to a couple-few anodyne sentences at the end of the personal-life section, or something to that general effect.

Herostratus (talk) 06:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So the reason you want this article reassessed is because "People put on airs... She is just a little person... who has her own inner life and her own reasons for doing things"? The article passed GA review after an extensive review with updates to the prose, sourcing, and formatting. This reassessment is basically an IDONTLIKEIT argument, as it's not based in policy whatsoever. WP is not a reputation management company; it's just the facts. --Kbabej (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we're not a reputation management company, why are we going so far out of our way to manage this person's reputation? Herostratus (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We aren't. Your suggestions would be. This article was written to cover the subject's life in full, not keep information out that could potentially embarrass her. It's weighted well, and passed GA review with that information included. --Kbabej (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are so. If we put in information out that could potentially embarrass her, on purpose and at this length and level of detail, we are managing her reputation, just in the the other direction. It's out of proportion and its POV. If she'd been convicted of a serious crime that'd probably be different. But she hasn't. Heck I'm not sure that even Grey Owl gets raked over the coals like this. Herostratus (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Reply[reply]

North American river otter

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

Swath of outright copy and pasted content from a PDF source; it was either GA'd before scrutiny for CV or the reviewer AGF'd on the source. It probably has other issues, and unless someone wants to rewrite the article it fails to be broad enough. Sennecaster (Chat) 13:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both the nominator and the reviewer are long inactive. Sennecaster (Chat) 13:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Reply[reply]

Kitch-iti-kipi

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending
  • I was the one who reviewed this article for GA originally, but in light of issues brought to light here about Doug Coldwell's tendencies in the GA area, I went back to have another look. In retrospect, I do not think I should have promoted this article in its current state. There are minor prose and formatting issues, but the bigger problems are with sources. I accepted Doug's half-baked justification for using ExploringTheNorth.com, a site of unknown reliability that the article heavily relies upon. UpperMichiganWaterfalls.com is also a poor source that is clearly promotional and probably unreliable. The article should be delisted as a GA. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Within the critical eye brought on by the CCI issues for the author the wording in the second paragraph in the Native American legends section is a little too close to that at Exploring the North for my liking. Gusfriend (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    Reply[reply]

Batted ball

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

My 2nd ever GA, I'm now taking it to GAR myself. When I wrote this at the beginning of my content-writing career, I was too naive/stupid to realize the source I used the most was user-generated. Those refs have since been removed and replaced with CN tags. As I don't have the time/energy to fix this myself, I think it needs delisted unless someone else is willing to pick it up. Hog Farm Talk 00:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Reply[reply]


John W. Rogers Jr.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

There are currently three unsolved issues with the article's sourcing as shown at the top of the article inside the {{Multiple issues}} template. Because of this, I believe that the article could no longer remain a good article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Reply[reply]


Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

There is a maintenance template at the top of the article that says that the article contains self-published sources. Because of this, I believe that the article could no longer remain a good article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Reply[reply]


Henry Ludington

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

There is a maintenance template at the top of the article that says that the article contains self-published sources. Because of this, I believe that the article could no longer remain a good article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support The article relies heavily on the 1907 work by Johnson which mentions being written by their relatives and is said to be unreliable. Gusfriend (talk) 05:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm inclined to agree on a second look. Hunt's commentary is particularly convincing about the reliability of Johnson. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eddie891 in defense of your GA review, at the time you passed the article, Johnson was listed as being published by Harvard University, so it appeared to be a reliable source, but the citation as written was misleading. The archive.org version was uploaded from Harvard library, although the title pages state it was published by his grandchildren. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for noting this. Very interesting. Thats... still frustrating to me. I will endeavor to be more careful in the future. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eddie891 I don't see any way that you could have been expected to pick this up; we are somewhat dependent on AGF, this was not easily uncovered, and it was the editor who wrote the citation and the article that should have taken greater care. I only became aware of the debacle that Wikipedia has created throughout the Ludington family series after seeing reports about Sybil Ludington as the "female Paul Revere" on Facebook that didn't pass the duck test, and discovered from there Wikipedia's role in promoting that meme. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS, for the same reasons, Shearonink might want to have a fresh look at Ludington family, another GA in this series. (I haven't looked closely at it for undue promotional statements based on Johnson's book and followups to his work.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SandyGeorgia - Taking at look at all that article's sources, the Ludington family article does not primarily rely on the (somewhat/basically/charming but not reputable?..) refuted source of Johnson's "memoir". The Sybil section should be re-written according to editorial consensus and Johnson's memoir cite removed from other sections but at this time I think the Ludington family article should retain its GA designation. Am happy to reassess more in-depth though if needful. Shearonink (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shearonink I'm quite swamped IRL right now, so apologies for the brevity. If memory serves, I already corrected at Ludington family the worst parts of Sybil, but what I don't know is whether other sources used at that article are just parroting the dubious Johnson work (as are some of the sources in this article). A deeper dive in to some of the other sources might be warranted, but I really haven't taken the time to look closely. My recollection aligns with your impression (that the GA there is not in jeopardy). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Due to the issues with the nominator of the Luddington family page (who also nominated this page and a number of other GAs that are being re-examined) I suspect that a more in depth analysis there will be required if only from a CCI perspective. Gusfriend (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OH, dear. I had forgotten that there is a CCI on the original editor <sigh> ... I fear that my extensive corrections already throughout the Ludington family suite could have obscured any original copyvio that might have been there before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With a very heavy reliance on a source that is not third-party or independent, and is not viewed by historians as neutral, I don't believe this article should be a GA. Further, as described above, several of the other sources used also rely on Johnson.
According to Paula Hunt, writing in The New England Quarterly in 2015, Johnson's Colonel Henry Ludington: A Memoir was published privately by his grandchildren, Charles H. and Lavinia Elizabeth Ludington. (Hunt, 2015, p. 192) The biography, according to Hunt, "offers a laudatory account" of the colonel's life; Hunt states that it "was certainly not of the order of Johnson’s usual projects", noting that it was omitted from his New York Times obituary. (Hunt 2015, p. 193) She writes that the New England Historical & Genealogical Register reviewed it as a "charming, simple memoir", which she says was intended to "remedy a belief that the Revolution-era militia and its officers had not received the recognition they deserved and to ensure the colonel's place in American history", citing page vii of the Memoirs. (Hunt, 2015, pp. 193–194) She characterized the work as a "not wholly reliable source". (Hunt, 2015, p. 189)
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delist - Johnson shouldn't be used and the (lightly-used) waymarking isn't really a RS either. Hog Farm Talk 13:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
    Reply[reply]

U.S. Route 1A (Wake Forest–Youngsville, North Carolina)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

There is a maintenance template at the top of the article that says that the article contains self-published sources. Because of this, I believe that the article could no longer remain a good article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find that template to be curious and wonder if it was placed in error. These "self-published sources" are from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and its predecessor agencies. Such sources have been generally accepted as appropriate on highway articles, even at the FA level. Imzadi 1979  20:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The tag appears to have been corrected now. --Rschen7754 03:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Imzadi1979: All SounderBruce did was that they replaced the "Third-party" tag with the "Primary sources" tag, but the article still could not meet the GA criteria regardless of which maintenance tags the article contains. Do you now agree with the updated tag? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
    Reply[reply]

New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

The factual accuracy of this article is disputed. The claim that this locomotive set a speed record is widely contested in reliable sources, but this article treats it like an undisputed fact. In addition, this article was created by Doug Coldwell who habitually included major instances of close paraphrasing in his articles. An article which utterly fails to consider all viewpoints in reliable sources cannot be said to meet the GA criteria. This should be delisted unless someone is willing to put in significant work to improve the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did some tidying up on the related pages but I had left this one alone. Needs major copy editing to tidy up the record or to be delisted. Gusfriend (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Reply[reply]

Subpages