Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:GAR)
MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsFAQDiscussionReassessmentReport
Reviewing initiatives:Backlog driveMentorshipReview circlesPledges
Shortcuts
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment

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

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

Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment instructions

Before opening a reassessment

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

Opening a reassessment

  1. To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
  2. The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment).
  3. Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.
Manual opening steps
  1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
  2. Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
  3. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
  4. The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
  5. Transclude the assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste {{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}} at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion.
  6. Notify major contributing editors, including the nominator and the reviewer. Also consider notifying relevant active WikiProjects related to the article. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.

Reassessment process

  1. Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them. Comments should focus on the article's contents and adherence to the good article criteria.
  2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
  3. Interested editors can indicate their intention to fix the article and give updates on their progress in the GAR. Commentators should periodically check the GAR and give additional comments when necessary. Wikipedia is not compulsory and editors should not insist that commentators, interested editors, or past GAN nominators make the suggested changes, nor should they state that edits should have been completed before the GAR was opened.
  4. If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion.
  5. If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.

Closing a reassessment

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

  1. GARs typically remain open for at least one month.
  2. Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
  3. If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time.
    • If there is no consensus, the reassessment may also be closed as keep.
  4. After at least one month, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
    • If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.
  5. If the article has been kept, consider awarding the Good Article Rescue Barnstar to the editor(s) who contributed significantly to bringing it up to standard.
Manual closing steps
  1. Locate {{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page.
  2. The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
    • If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
      • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
      • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
      • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (example)
    • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this,
      • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
      • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
      • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page, setting currentstatus to DGA (delisted good article). (example)
      • blank the class parameter of the WikiProject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment
      • remove the {{good article}} template from the article page (example)
      • remove the article from the relevant list at good articles (example)
  3. Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)

Disputing a reassessment

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

Articles needing possible reassessment

Good article reassessment

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

The good articles listed below have been flagged for the attention of reviewers for reassessment. If reassessment is appropriate, please open a community reassessment and remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page. For cases where no reassessment is needed, remove the template from the article talk page.

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

Articles listed for reassessment

Oblivion (roller coaster)

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The lead also needs to be expanded to include all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17th Special Operations Squadron

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

The Article's Mission section cites no sources. Citations to Craven and Cate do not specify which volume (see bibliography) they are to, and fail to credit the authors being cited. Part of the section on operations at Cannon AFB is uncited, and the statement that the squadron was activated there is tagged as disputed. Lineagegeek (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gunpowder artillery in the Middle Ages

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

Hello. I'm a gunpowder and weapons history researcher from Ukrainian Wikipedia, so I'm not sure, if I'm nominating the article correctly.

In my opinion, the article is full of wrong and ambiguous statements and has got inappropriate structure to be considered a GA. There is a good article History of gunpowder on this topic, which really gives a clear picture. Examples of mistakes:

  1. Early use in China and East Asia: «first documented battlefield use of gunpowder artillery took place on 29 January 1132» is wrong: it was the first substantial mention of a fire lance, which was more of a hand-held firethrower and by no means an artillery piece. It wasn't even huo chong, a later term for guns, it was huo qiang. And all the further history of artillery in China is absent, which is a clear violation of the «addresses the main aspects of the topic» criterion. The first true artillery pieces appeared around 1270s and were actively used in Yuan and Ming dynasties. Those are crucial facts. Battle of Lake Poyang is a very prominent example of usage, not even mentioned.
  2. Claims about gunpowder artillery in 13th century Islamic world are deeply controversial. There is no clear documental nor archaeological evidence for it. Again, fire lances were used and this view is present in many sources, e.g. Needham, 1986, which is even present in the sources list but for some reason ignored in the article. WP:NPOV requires if not the most convenient POV, then at least clearly attributed different points.
  3. «the use of "coal and sulphur" as the best weapon for ship-to-ship combat» has no importance for the topic, as it has no relation to gunpowder or artillery.
  4. Nothing is said about the development sequence. In the article bombards seem to appear from nothing in 15th century, while in fact they were results of Burgundian developments from 1370s. Nothing about wrought-iron guns, which were the most important. Nothing about revolutionary gunpowder manufacture technologies is said. Nothing about Hussites.

I can continue this list of examples, if needed. In my opinion, this is a mediocre article with many mistakes, much crucial information absent and not really good structure. RajatonRakkaus (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling Green State University

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

Cleanup tag has been up for 2 years KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 05:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney High School (Rocklin, California)

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

Poor sourcing, dated information, promotional overtones... A reassessment seems long overdue. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 05:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this be an immediate fail per WP:GAFAIL? cookiemonster755 (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quickfails are explicitly for GANs, not GARs. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the correction cookiemonster755 (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery of the neutron

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

I don't believe that this article qualifies as a good article. Today, I had to go through copyediting and neutrality editing that I would not expect to be necessary for a good article. I don't believe it fits the "approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication" standard used in the Content Assessment page. Here are some of the clearest examples:


"While this influential paper has stood the test of time, the ideas within it were so new that when it was first submitted to the journal Nature in 1933 it was rejected as being too speculative."

Missing two commas, and isn't formatted in a disinterested tone. Both missing commas and puffery were semi-common errors that I had to fix.

"In 1920 Rutherford gave a Bakerian lecture at the Royal Society entitled the "Nuclear Constitution of Atoms", a summary of recent experiments on atomic nuclei and conclusions as to the structure of atomic nuclei."

Missing a comma after "1920". Commas after dates and times like here were commonly missing.


These are just two examples, but there were significantly more instances of these errors that I had to fix. I would encourage anyone reading this to look at my edits to this article in the "View history" tab for a fuller picture. I doubt I've managed to fix everything, and believe that I've almost certainly missed many issues, as I'm just one editor. Because of this, I believe that the article should be reassessed to B-class or possibly even C-class so that these issues are fixed. I also believe that it should not be used as the example of a Good Article on the Wikipedia page for content assessment.


Specific thoughts on the Good Article criteria:

1) Well-written

Not met. There were too many grammatical and puffery errors.

2) Verifiable with no original research

Probably met. I didn't find any issues here.

3) Broad in its coverage

Met. I think it covered everything it needed to content-wise.

4) Neutral

Probably not met. I think the puffery keeps it from meeting this, unless I misinterpreted the criteria.

5) Stable

Met. There doesn't seem to be edit warring or anything of that sort.

6) Illustrated

Met. There are sufficient illustrations.


While the article is certainly well-done in its coverage of the topic information-wise, I believe that it needs further copyediting and neutrality adjustments to qualify as a Good Article. I respect the work that has gone into this article, and hope this reassessment can help it further. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your logic here. You say the article meets 5/6 of the criteria, then you made an edit that fixed the issues in the 6th category. So Thanks! but no GAR needed. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that isn't what happened. 4/6 of them were met, and I came across a lot of flaws with the other 2 by reading (somewhat skimming) the article, some of which were fixed. I missed others because I didn't inspect it too thoroughly, like this one:
"Conversely, the radiations were also recognized as tools that could be exploited in scattering experiments to probe the interior of atoms."
I just changed "exploited" to "utilized", but my point is that I didn't fix everything. I believe that the article could benefit from a significant copyediting and neutrality-rewording phase (probably for at least a week, maybe multiple) before reassessment as a Good Article. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I don't know why you leaped to a formal "Good Article Reassessment" before engaging in a normal Talk discussion! Seems unwarranted just now. You offer two criticisms, the first being punctuation, the use of commas particularly, the second being your opinion that the article frequently uses "puffery". Regarding commas, while I share your sentiments, as far as I know, the article follows standard usage with commas (In 1945... etc., no comma seems to be used). Adding them in as you suggest would be contrary to standard (as far as I know). Secondly, I disagree with your characterization as "puffery" (which itself is puffery!). The article accurately reflects the astonishing revolutions in neutron physics that occurred in the first half of the 20th century. To rewrite the article in a plain style would be to inaccurately describe the events that occurred. Rutherford's experiment was stunning, the discovery of fission was electrifying, garnering headlines around the world, etc. One danger is that many people know the basic facts already, hence take them for granted, whereas at the time the discoveries were astonishing - the article seeks to convey that history. So, no, I reject your characterization "puffery". The article was already reviewed some time ago, and has been stable for several/many years now - now suddenly its "puffery"? No one else has heretofore complained... Bdushaw (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me back up my points with more actual evidence.
1) Commas
First of all, you're correct in that the issue with sentences going like "In 1993 X occurred." instead of "In 1993, X occurred.". From what I've been able to pick up, this is more of a formality thing than an actual grammatical error. It still needs to be fixed, but isn't as bad as I thought it was, so I'll concede that. However, these aren't the only comma errors I came across. Take the first sentence I posted:
"While this influential paper has stood the test of time, the ideas within it were so new that when it was first submitted to the journal Nature in 1933 it was rejected as being too speculative."
I did put it there to illustrate neutrality issues, but it does contain, to my knowledge, a grammatical error with commas. It should instead be:
"While this influential paper has stood the test of time, the ideas within it were so new that, when it was first submitted to the journal Nature in 1933, it was rejected as being too speculative."
It needs commas after "so new that" and "in 1933". I had found several grammatical comma errors like these that were outside of the first type.
2) Neutrality/Puffery
I've found multiple areas that say that the neutrality/puffery issues are, in fact, a violation of Wikipedia's style rules:
WP:NOTESSAY
While this doesn't qualify as a personal essay that just states your feelings of the topic, it does specifically say:
"Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge."
WP:VOICE
This one more directly backs up my point, and it would probably be helpful to read through it. But it demonstrates that articles are supposed to avoid stating opinions as facts to such an extent that you can't even put "genocide is evil" on Wikipedia, and you have to put something closer to "Person A states that genocide is evil".
WP:PUFFERY
This is official Wikipedia policy. I didn't make this up.
Replying to specific statements you've made:
Even if "puffery" was itself puffery, it would still be fine to use it here, since this is a page for reassessment of an article and not an actual article itself. Writing the article more neutrally would not be inaccurate as long as the facts were correct. I'm not 100% sure why nobody has complained thus far, but my best guess is that it's because the article is very well-sourced and imparts information well, to the point that neutrality fell to the wayside a little bit. I understand and respect where you're coming from, but it misunderstands the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't meant to thrust the reader into what it was actually like to experience these incredible changes at the time, it's meant to give the reader the cold facts as neutrally as possible. Even the Wikipedia article for the Holocaust (which is also classified as a good article) just lists the facts of what happened neutrally without any emphasis one way or the other. This is a neutral encyclopedia, not a Veritasium video.
3) Formality
An issue that I failed to raise, but this was something else that I found semi-frequently. I had to make changes in this area, such as changing "what happens when" to "what occurs when" and "About the time of Rutherford's lecture" to "Around the time of Rutherford's lecture". I think adding this might help explain where I'm coming from.
Conclusion
I still think that this article needs to be reassessed. I'm not doing this to be a dick, I'm doing this because this article is being used as the example of a Good Article on the Wikipedia article for Content Assessment. I think that an article being used as the textbook example that only arguably meets the criteria at best and doesn't meet them at worst is bad, and think it should be fixed. Also, I don't see myself as nitpicking minor issues, like I believe that you think I do. Nearly all good articles have minor issues, hence why they're not featured articles, but that's not how I see this particular article. I've even said that the article could possibly be as low as C-class due to these issues, which isn't something that someone would say about minor issues.
I see these issues as inherently disqualifying, not minor issues or non-issues. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see or agree with what you are talking about - much of it seems to be just a matter of taste, seems to me, you have a different way of doing things that you want the article to conform to. For example, you have replaced existing text with the word "utilize" in various places - which sounds weird to me and changes the meaning of the sentences. The article has not changed that significantly, so you are in essence disagreeing with the original Good Article review process. Bdushaw (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The word utilize appears regularly in lists of word choices that indicate poor writing style. Garner's Modern English Usage says that utilize can be puffy ("Utilize is both more abstract and more favorable connotatively than use"). The original version of Wired Style says it's a 'Lame replacement for "use."' Follett's Modern American Usage said that utilize is a "bad habit" and that the word "can at all times be shown to be unnecessary".
Most of the complaints appear to be about personal stylistic preferences, and if these are "not minor issues", then they are opposed to Wikipedia:Featured article criteria #1a: "its prose is engaging". GAs do not have to meet the FA standards, but they should not be changed in ways that make them further from FA standards than they already are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest that anyone who reads this page is interested in having this article be as good as we can make it? Rather than a lot of generalities and wikipedia-isms, I think concrete positive suggestions work better. I am familiar with the physics and history covered by this article. I could not make changes based on your complaints here. Thus they come across as unhelpful.
I would make a completely different complaint about the article: far too much content is devoted to the pre-1920 events. To understand the discovery of the neutron we need to know the state of physics in 1920 that led to Rutherford's lecture. We don't need to know the names and deeds of physicist prior to that date in the great detail covered here. Those names and deeds belong in other articles. As an encyclopedia we need to get to the point. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re 1920, I could not disagree more, but this sudden "Good Article Reassessment" section is screwy and not the place to have that discussion. (Edits here do not appear in the article's Watch Page notices!) Bdushaw (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, two questions to actually bring a conclusion to this reassessment thread:
1) Do we:
a) Keep it listed as a Good Article and just leave it
b) Keep it listed as a Good Article, but improve it to let it meet the standards, avoiding the hassle of deassessing and reassessing it
c) Delist the article from its Good Article and improve it
2) Even if nobody here agrees with me that this article needs to be downgraded in its ranking, do we at least agree that my ideas of the problems are right?
I think it's time to bring this thread to a close, since I don't think it's going anywhere. I'm fine with leaving it if you guys want to, since it's really not that big of a deal at all. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a comma after "so new that" would certainly be incorrect. The other is a stylistic preference. In fact, none of your changes here are actual "corrections", and some are mistakes: one change reduces source-text integrity; "While this paper has still influenced physics today" is not correct English; removing the italics from Nobel Prize citation quotes is incorrect per MOS:CONFORM, etc. ... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PsyKat777 WasTaken, your assertions about commas after introductory prepositional phrases are wrong. While I personally prefer them, they're not required at all unless the phrase is at least four (some style guides say five) words long, and they don't "need to be fixed".
Does anyone know which WP:ENGVAR is supposed to be used in this article? The rules about when a comma is necessary depend on the English variant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but even then, commas before introductory prepositional phrases are inconsistently used. Sometimes they're there, sometimes they're not. And that IS a violation of the MOS, which you can see in the lead section:
"Where more than one style or format is acceptable under the MoS, one should be used consistently within an article and should not be changed without good reason."
Even assuming you're right (which is plausible, I'm not denying that), having it done inconsistently still violates the MOS. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PsyKat777 WasTaken, even if I agreed with you that the number of words in an introductory prepositional phrase was a "style or format", #1b in the Wikipedia:Good article criteria does not require compliance with the main MOS page. Only the listed subpages are required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist At first this article looks good, but every section I have looked in detail contains errors. I have been documenting these on the Talk page but repairs do not seem to be welcomed. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I've already given my reasons for why I think it should be delisted, and I believe that all attempts to explain why the article meets the Good Article Criteria have failed. I also probably won't come back here unless I'm specifically asked to or mentioned or something like that.PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invincible season 2

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

Per this discussion, it has been asserted that this article used AI. Namely, it is "article generated nearly entirely with AI (the article is primarily by one editor who has a pattern of confirmed AI use, and there are ChatGPT source parameters in some of the revisions here), which has major problems that persist to the current version." No articles created with AI should be stamped with a GA seal. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98
There hasn’t been any confirmation that I mainly use AI. I've already informed the nominator in the past that I use Grammarly, so I’m not sure why you’re assuming I used AI to write the article. Yes, I do use ChatGPT sometimes to assist in searching for credible sources, but never to write the article itself. That would make no sense I’d never hand over full control of my writing to AI. am happy it was norminated for reaccessmen. so we can put an end to this AI disvussion once and for allt Afro 📢Talk! 14:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not AI was used, this article has significant issues. Nearly all of the "Production" section is sourced to interviews with the showrunner and excessively detailed, forming the basis for the bloated promotional tone. Especially egregious are the "Writing", "Filming", and "Animation style and techniques", which read more like a PR release than an encyclopedia article. Then you have the reception section, which if not created by an AI, looks like it was written by someone looking solely to advertise the show. As it stands the article clearly violates WP:NPOV, and should be delisted as not meeting GA criterion 4. The solution, as always, is to remember that an encyclopedia summarises information. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This may have been written with the use of AI" is not in and of itself a reason for delisting. What is a reason are the many flaws of AI generated text which fail our GA criteria for things like well-written and MOS compliance. The reason many people are averse to AI use in Wikipedia writing is that it doesn't care to write in a way that follows our policies and guidelines, key ones being "don't make shit up" and "don't write like a PR intern". In essence, I agree with Airship's comment above mine. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of cleanup has been done. You can take a look at the article again and cross-check it when you have some free time. @AirshipJungleman29 @Bgsu98@Trainsandotherthings Afro 📢Talk! 14:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look at the first paragraph of "Writing" shows that whatever cleanup has been done is hardly sufficient. I repeat: "The solution, as always, is to remember that an encyclopedia summarises information." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Waitangi

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

This article contains cleanup banners that are unquestionably valid (per WP:GAFAIL) Enoryt nwased lamaj (talk) 10:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The finger

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

This article is a quick fail under the good article criteria due to the valid cleanup tags. It is not fairly broad and the sections are all over the place, such as sections for the US and Canada (which can definitely be expanded, and the US section has uncited and badly formatted parts).

The Canada section only includes the one court case, which is definitely not enough for an entire section. The first citation is cited multiple times in the lead, and "Early appearance in films" doesn't warrant an entire section. HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 15:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I got this to GA 13 years ago. I will see what I can do to keep it there. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted version here. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...well that version's United States section looks much better. First thing to be addressed though is that cleanup banner, as the page has 5 citation needed tags. I would suggest that the United States and Canada pages get rewritten, cited, and moved into the "In popular culture" section. HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 13:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine Greeks

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

This is an immediate fail per Wikipedia:Good article criteria, as the article has {{POV}} tags.

Generally, the article fails GA criteria #2 Verifiability and #4 Neutrality.

Some of the issues are discussed in these topics:

Some editors acknowledged the issues [1][2], and some were willing to work on it (Talk:Byzantine_Greeks#Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment), but I guess they didn't have the time Bogazicili (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The main dispute that inspired the POV tags by the proposer above concerns whether this constitutes an ethnic group, which is sensitive because it determines whether certain people in the modern day have a claim to land. It is complicated by the fact that the terms "Byzantine" and "Greek" have disputed interpretations on scope.
There is no scholarly dispute over the name of these people in the Greek language, which is Ῥωμαῖοι (Romaioi), functionally defined as medieval Greek-speaking Calchedonian-Orthodox people, initially of the Roman Empire when it was based around Constantinople (better known now as the Byzantine Empire). There are inconsistent scholarly references to these people in English, such as Byzantines, Byzantine Greeks, Romans, East Romans, and related. There is a debate on when this group became an ethnic group. The leading scholars who debate this topic are Pohl, Kaldellis, and Stouraitis.
A consensus on this issue is needed, I believe, at a substantive level before interpreting the POV tags as a basis of an immediate fail. The proposer is the sole person who has challenged the GA status of this article, which is not to say they are wrong, but a decision on the article's name and definition is needed first. Biz (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
POV tags are in the article because there is a neutrality issue. Neutrality is a Good Article criteria.
The article currently does not meet GA criteria.
After reassessment, decisions such as you mentioned above could be made. You could consider reverting to the 2009 version that passed GA review, and update the article from there with newer sources such as those from Anthony Kaldellis. That might be easier. Bogazicili (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Parker

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New England Patriots

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

Over the previous months, this article has seen improvement after editors addressed concerns on the talk page. Unfortuantely, work seems to have stalled and the article needs a few more things addressed before I would recommend that it keeps its status. Specific concerns are listed below:

  • There is uncited text, including entire paragraphs
  • At over 10,000 words, the article is WP:TOOBIG and should use more WP:SUMMARYSTYLE for readability.
  • Long sections, such as "History" should be subdivided with level 3 headings.
  • The "Controversies" section should be merged with the "History" section as information that is too detailed should be spun out.
  • Image captions are too long
  • This article doesn't need a list of everyone who has ever been an offensive or defensive coordinator and I recommend removing as too much detail.
  • The article lists many people in the personal section. This has the danger of getting outdated very quickly and most of these people are not notable. I recommend that this is removed as too much detail.

Hopefully this GAR will jumpstart improvements that can make this article better and help adhere to the GA criteria. Z1720 (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun working on some of it, and hopefully will have the concerns addressed by the end of the week. Conyo14 (talk) 05:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720, your final point about the personnel section is about a template. Removing seems like it would require a TfD. Conyo14 (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiz (film)

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

Uncited statements in the "Songs and score" and "Casting" sections. Z1720 (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on many older articles I would make an educated guess that the text is probably covered by the already mentioned references, particularly Quincy Jones biography, but back in the old days editors did not usually make the extra effort to use WP:NAMEDREFS and repeat references multiple times or make multiple specific page references. So it probably needs clearer formatting rather than any deletions. -- 109.79.166.62 (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Missattributed reference
Please note that the article contains the following reference (and has done back at least as far as 2018) <ref name="cultclassic1">{{cite news | last = Han | first = Angie | title = NBC Teaming With Cirque du Soleil for 'The Wiz' Live Musical | work = [[Slashfilm]] | page = N01 | publisher = [[Slashfilm]] | date = March 31, 2015 | url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44409-2005Jan28.html | access-date = 2015-04-06 | archive-date = January 22, 2021 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210122083256/https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44409-2005Jan28.html | url-status = live }}</ref>
Although the reference URL clearly points to the WashingtonPost.com, but the reference work and publisher parameters both claim it is a reference to Slashfilm. The temptation might be to quietly fix the error but this looks like a case of an editor over writing a preexisting reference with a new link. Editors might want to look into the article history and unscramble the mess. Usually I would try and find the source of the problem but I don't have time to look at this further at the moment. (I already spent some time tracking down(diff) and fixing some fan cope.) -- 109.79.166.62 (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonlance

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

Lots of uncited statements, especially in the "Video games" section. Z1720 (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @AFigureOfBlue who worked to get this one to GA back in 2009 under a different username. BOZ (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping; unfortunately I'm much too far removed from D&D proper these days to be able to dig into this in a particularly useful way (I'm still into TTRPGs, just... haven't touched anything actually D&D-specific since the release of 4e or thereabouts). 🔹Blue (talk/contribs) 17:00, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the basis for your reassessment is criteria 2 "verifiable with no original research" of the Good Article Criteria, and specifically the "Video games" section? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AugusteBlanqui: No, my basis was with 2b, which states "All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)". While the biggest block of uncited text is in the "Video games" section, there is also uncited text elsewhere. Z1720 (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can find the citations. Do the Novels and Setting sections need to be cited as well, given that those are plot summaries? Both would probably be the most difficult to find secondary sources for. I'm fairly confident I can find references for the rest of the article. --FlairTale (talk) 03:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anything you can do would be awesome. :) BOZ (talk) 05:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles R. Forbes

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There's also a "lead is too short" orange banner from February 2024 that needs to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that this article needs work. It certainly is not too long. As far as I know, this article was put together piecemeal, there apparently being no biography on Forbes. Most information is derived from bios on Warren G. Harding. I would have to read through the article to decide whether the article is not a good one. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Critchell

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

There is an "update needed" orange banner from 2017 at the top of the page, and a Google search gave post-2017 events from his biography that should be added to the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Wilder

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

The article has some uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There are some sections that are very long that make the text hard to read on mobile such as "1967–1974: Collaborations with Mel Brooks" and "Semi-retirement". This can probably be solved by merging one-sentence paragraphs and adding extra headers. Z1720 (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness

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

Lots of uncited statements, especially in the "Land use disputes" section. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hafnium

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look later today. The Precautions section could also be updated to be in line with other elements (ex: having a hazard infobox). -- Reconrabbit 11:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Current state of affairs: I believe the rest of the "geology" paragraph is backed up by Kinny 2003 but I can't read the full text to check. Otherwise I should be able to find the few missing citations in Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. There are some production methods listed there that I don't think are represented in the text here but I can't determine what's useful to include and what would end up repeating what has already been said. Once done with re-referencing I will add more to the leading paragraphs which are rather short. -- Reconrabbit 17:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the minimum work has been done to correct the initial issue (uncited statements) and the article has been expanded in notably deficient areas (the leading paragraphs, safety and toxicity). -- Reconrabbit 14:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you work on the article. From a quick scan, I'd like to see the one-sentence paragraphs consolidated, but otherwise I don't see a fail of any of the GA criteria. I think this is very close to being kept. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Traffic

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

There is a yellow "inline citations needed" banner at the top of the article from 2021. This might be referring to ref 8, "Gibson, Jon M.; McDonnell, Chris (2008)" which is cited multiple times but it is unknown which page numbers correspond to which information. There is also uncited information in the "Home video" and "Music" sections. Z1720 (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, is this the only major issue? article doesn't seem too long (actually i'd be surprised if there wasn't quite a bit more written on the subject). i'm a little busy over the next week and a half but i may be able to find time to deal with this.--Plifal (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Plifal: These are the only issues I can identify. Feel free to ping me when ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco Bay Area

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

There is uncited prose, including entire paragraphs and sections. At over 12,500 words, the article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. I recommend that information be spun out, summarised more effectively, or trimmed. The "Demographics" section needs to be updated with the 2020 census information. Z1720 (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOBIG states that articles between 9,000 and 15,000 "Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." Personally, I think the scope of this topic warrants the material. I do agree that many parts of the article could be trimmed (history paragraph in lead, history section, marine wildlife subsection, birds subsection, economy section), and sports section. I did a little bit of trimming myself, particularly in the culture section.
Refs are missing, particularly in the demographic section and regional governance subsection.
Gb321 (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gb321: Similar arguments were made for Shanghai. Editors were able to reduce it to just over 10,000 words, then I further reduced it to 8,409. Articles that are too long are less likely to be interesting to readers and make it difficult to find the most important information. I suggest spinning out large sections (like "Demographics", "Economy", "Education", "Government and politics", and "Sports and recreation" sections), reduce redundancies (WP:REDEX helps with this) and remove information that is too much detail. Z1720 (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 Totally agree it can be trimmed significantly, maybe not to 8400 words but probably to under 10,000. My reply was to state that I do not think the article should be divided, but it should absolutely be trimmed significantly.
As to the sections you mention could be spun off: "Education" and "Government and Politics" don't seem that long and already have significant portions spun off; "Sports and Recreation" already has an article spun off; "Demographics" I guess could be spun off could also just be trimmed, as much of that info I personally think belongs in the main article, and "Economy" I think should be trimmed with only the COVID effects spun off, as that info doesn't need to be in the main article per WP:RECENTISM.
That's just my thoughts. I already did some trimming. Hopefully someone else can do a lot more.
Gb321 (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greenville Bridge

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

There has been an "update needed" orange banner in the article since 2017. The article also doesn't include any traffic information, even though the bridge has been open for over 10 years. Z1720 (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed, this definitely needs some work. The article is missing some post-construction history, such as its use as a major detour routes for the Hernando de Soto bridge in 2021 when that bridge was closed. There are also some formatting and grammatical errors, particularly in the lead and history section. If this were a nominee, I might not quickfail it, but I would definitely raise a lot of issues that would take a while to resolve. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Tranmere Rovers F.C. season

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

Uncited statements, including the entire "February" section Z1720 (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chard, Somerset

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. "Demographics" section (or something similar) is missing from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

This is just a plot summary; no reception & analysis (fails GA criteria #3 "Broad in its coverage"); as such it can be tagged with {{notability}}. Main creator pinged, discussion on talk since few days ago but nobody has volunteered to improve it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:01, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Torchiest is not heavily active at this time, but hopefully he has a chance to respond in the near future. BOZ (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it brings you joy to delist it, go for it. It absolutely passes WP:GNG though. —Torchiest talkedits 03:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of completeness, while there is a majority of plot summary, there are other types of content interspersed: Creative origins here, here, and on duergar here; bits of reception by Rob Heinsoo reported by Tresca, and on duergar by Gavin Sheehan; bits of commentary by Ilan Mitchell-Smith as well as on gully dwarves; and I've added a bit on legacy now. Some secondary sources for future improvement are listed on the talk page. Daranios (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bart vs. Australia

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

There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The "Reception" section does not speak very much about the episode's reception from television critics, and most of the section is devoted to its reception in Australia. I think this is incomplete and should be expanded upon. The lead is too short and does not describe all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Dewar

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon Harley and Keith H99: As information - if you have not seen this yet. Donner60 (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I now see you are notifying authors or major contributors to GAR military history articles when you can identify them. I will discontinue looking at these unless they are articles that I think I can work on and might wish to notify a few others in addition to the notices on the military history project talk page. Kudos. Good work. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Junkers Ju 87

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

There are some uncited statements in the article, mostly entire paragraphs. The article, at over 15,000 words, is WP:TOOBIG and too detailed: some of the information should be moved to other articles or summarised more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a first step, I've deleted the listings of the various prototypes. It really needs to be rewritten.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think operational history could be spun out into its own article (which then could even be further expanded given the sheer volume of WW2 literature out there). A concise operational history section would let the article focus more on the design, variants, and production history. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shaktism

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and the "Vasant Panchami" section (which also looks underdeveloped). Z1720 (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 I can help with this. Asteramellus (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Asteramellus. Yes, you can help out there. Fade258 (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to give a quick update here - I fixed some of the uncited statements, and have tried fixing other areas. Will find sources and look into developing "Vasant Panchami" section next. Asteramellus (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am done here with the concerns noted here. Asteramellus (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 Thoughts? Tarlby (t) (c) 18:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phineas Flynn

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

Uncited statements in the "Characterization" section. Z1720 (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Hi, I went with an easy option by removing all the uncited text (~three paragraphs). This source says Phineas had a hard time without gadgets, but I think calling it an addiction withdrawal is too much and it happend only in one episode (as far as I know). This and this sources talks about P&FxMarvel crossover, but don't mention Phineas' anger. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 09:19, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LastJabberwocky, you should ping Z1 so that they see this. Tarlby (t) (c) 18:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: this has been done. Do you have any other concerns? Gommeh 📖   🎮 16:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QuackShot

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

An IP has requested that a GAR be opened for this article. Relevant comments include:

"This article is outdated, and its analysis in the GAR section wasn't very thorough. It has the following problems: first, there are many primary sources in both the "Gameplay" and "Plot" sections. I know that these types of sources can be used sometimes, but it should be balanced and include much more professional sources. Second, in the "Development" section, there is no mention of how the game was created, nor the destra team, or how something came about; it only mentions its release and re-releases. In short, this article has too many problems to maintain its GA status, which is why I'm including it in the GAR."

"I'd also add that the "Plot" section is unnecessarily long, as it explains in detail what happens in the game. And this shouldn't be the case, given that this is a platform game. The best thing in this case would be to summarize the plot better without having to go into obvious details."

"I must clarify for any user that, while the problems can be solved, it will take a lot of work and many sources to save the article. The "Plot" section needs a summary; it's already too long. The "Development" section should include information about how the game was created, like the Castle of Illusion Starring Mickey Mouse article on the Russian Wikipedia. I don't see the need to split the reviews into "Contemporary" and "Retrospective" sections; they should be combined for a more coherent reading. In any case, I'm republishing it on GAR because the article needs a lot of work."

"...regarding gameplay sources, I found one from VentureBeat and Sega-16 (although you can use sources from that era, such as Computer and Video Games, Sega Pro, and Console XS). As for development sources, I found the following: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] (from Newspapers.com) [8] [9]. In addition to these two items, the "plot" section also needs to be cut down, as it's too long for a platformer." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CooperCool23, I've noticed you've trimmed down the plot significantly. Would you be interested in saving this GA? You can get a fancy barnstar! Tarlby (t) (c) 18:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tarlyby i'd definitely be down for that! I'll try and get a start on the other stuff for the GAR throughout this week. COOPER COOL 23 user page 21:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Day in the Life

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

I am placing this article up for GAR because I believe it contains multiple quality related issues that do not make it deserving of GA status in the modern day. I posted concerns regarding this articles GA status about a month ago (here), and my extended rationale can be found there beyond this summarization of key flaws. I intentionally waited an extended period to see if anyone would respond to the quality concerns without having to take one of the most famous and well-regarded songs of all time here. Furthermore, because of the song's status, I was worried that, as someone who works on music articles of a significantly lesser caliber, I could be missing some deeper reasoning for the article to be like this and I may not be experienced enough to make such judgments. One month later, and the only comment responding to my post was one by Binksternet (talk · contribs) which agreed with my concerns. So, here we are.

Again, a deeper rationale can be found in my initial reasoning. This is a mere summary of the big problems.

  • Addressing a major elephant in the room for starters, this article was promoted in 2008 when it was effectively a completely different article (the article in the state it was promoted in can be found here). This means that, arguably, the article we see before us now may as well have never been reviewed by the community proper for its quality.
  • The article writing is extremely fractured and doesn't flow together well. As Binksternet put it, it's a "patchwork construction with unrelated thoughts butted up together". And in my personal interpretation, it feels like this article, especially in the lyrics and musical composition sections, expects people to already know what "A Day in the Life" is. It jumps into analysis of lyrics and specific elements of the song without giving background information or describing the song. To make an article understandable to even those unfamiliar with the subject is not only a crucial aspect of writing about a work, but just about anything, if you want the article to be "good". I also think it at times delves a bit too much into trivia; does listing out all differences between the versions of the song really help anyone beyond diehard fans?
    • Multiple sentences across the article do not make sense either. The two most confusing ones, to me at least, are "Crosby later expressed surprise that by 1970 the album's powerful sentiments had not been enough to stop the Vietnam War" (I presume this is refering to the legacy of Sgt. Peppers but what's that have to do with the song?) and "In a 2017 article for Newsweek, Tim de Lisle cited Chris Smith's recollection of him and fellow art student Freddie Mercury "writ[ing] little bits of songs which we linked together, like 'A Day in the Life'", as evidence to show that "No Pepper, no 'Bohemian Rhapsody'". Binksternet also brought up how the Orchestra section of the article gives this sentence: "The orchestral portions of "A Day in the Life" reflect Lennon and McCartney's interest in the work of avant-garde composers such as Karlheinz Stockhausen, Luciano Berio and John Cage.", which is followed by an explanatory footnote that talks about the Beach Boys and has nothing to do with what the note is implicitly meant to back up that sentence at face value.
  • There are numerous questionable approaches to section organization, such as separate Legacy and Reception sections existing, which in theory would do fully separate things for such a well regarded song, but instead bleed into each other for a rather poor reading experience. To just copy paste what I originally put, "why would we go from information about the song inspiring the start-up sound for the Macintosh, to rankings of the songs in retrospective commentary? And then why is a Grammy nomination randomly tossed into the rankings before going back to rankings? Why is retrospective commentary regarding the song the only thing given attention here beyond that Grammy? Was there no reception regarding the song at the time? I doubt that was the case. Surely there was something about the song that newspapers or critics said at the time".
    • Regarding what I put for the Legacy and covers: "You'd think [the Legacy section] on paper would cover things such as the Macintosh start-up thing. But it's effectively a non-section. It covers how the song was performed by Paul McCartney, a certification, and how the original hand-written lyrics to the song were sold at auction. Was this really all of the impact the song left on the world outside of critical acclaim? This song itself is listed as a vital article, so I doubt this is all that there was". "The cover versions section borders on trivia and doesn't feel cohesive at all. Some of the entries in the list aren't even covers (e.g. the statement that David Bowie used a lyric from "A Day in the Life" is not the same as a cover). Just because it can be proven with a reliable source that a musician/band covered the song doesn't mean it's relevant for inclusion."
  • Multiple sourcing issues. While most are relatively minor and the article does incorporate lots of literature, it still raises eyebrows regarding quality. Genres are not sourced in the article at all, rather in the infobox (which I'd personally argue fails MOS:LEAD), while the genre of experimental rock is fully unsourced. Sites such as the open-source music production blog that corrobates information regarding the Macintosh sound effect, as well as rockcritics.com, are probably not reliable sources. Where the personnel is cited from directly, while more likely than not the liner notes, is not made explicitly clear and should have some sort of citation to signal where it comes from. Otherwise, this could be interpreted as original research. Several citation needed tags exist in the article alongside two unreliable source tags, which would result in a quickfail on its own if brought up to a modern GAN review.

I do not believe this article meets the good article criteria at present and should likely be improved drastically or demoted. I maintain that, if this article were brought to GAN today, it would fail immediately based on both sourcing and writing. If an improvement effort for this article begins here, I am willing to be involved in the ways I can. However, this song is definitely not anywhere near comparable to what I am used to working with on Wikipedia, so any significant clean-up work wouldn't be coming from me. But, in full honesty, my faith that this article could feasibly be rewritten and fixed within the confines of a GAR is low. λ NegativeMP1 00:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist – You might as well go ahead and delist. All the WPBeatles members are gone, and the ones who are left hardly work on Beatles stuff anymore. Imho there's no way this will reach current GA standards without proper sources, and given that "ADitL" is one of the most discussed Beatles songs ever, that will be extremely difficult. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Walker

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

Big MOS/WP:V failures as identified by @MIDI: at both the DYK nom and the talk page. Launchballer 10:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya @Launchballer, the problems mention above appear to have been resolved by Meganenohito. I'm happy to do additional source checking, but is there anything else you're specifically looking for in this reassessment? (Also, for the record, the only parts of the MOS required by the good article criteria are MOS:LEAD, MOS:LAYOUT, MOS:WTW, MOS:WAF, and MOS:LISTS). Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for dropping this. I still see large amounts of quoting in the article, for example (In an interview with KKBox, he explained his concept, saying, "At first we were thinking about ideas like how can we promote Alan Walker as an artist, but then we started creating symbols that anyone could do, and anyone with a hoodie and a face mask could do it. You can become a 'Walker' right away, and we are all equal."[230] In an interview with NRK, when asked why he used a mask, he said, "It's to keep a low profile while maintaining the image we've given myself [...] The starting point is taken from the computer world, with a focus on anonymity. Anyone can become Alan Walker, and the masks are meant to show that they can be anyone."[60] In an interview with The Hindu, he said he didn't wear the mask "to be some mysterious icon" but rather "I wanted people to focus on my music rather than who I am as a person.") That alone would require {{overquoting}}, and there are lots of instances like this. Also, a lot of the quotes that had been reworded, such as "it blew my mind", I would actually remove from the article altogether on WP:SUMMARY grounds, although I'm not sure if that's part of the GA criteria.--Launchballer 20:46, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply! Definitely agree with your comments. I'll see what I can do :). GoldRomean (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be better to move the Artistic Image subsection of Artistry to the Public Image section? Meganenohito (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for missing this! I agree, sounds like a good change. GoldRomean (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim–Muslim ticket

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

(I've never done this before so apologies if I am doing it wrong.) I believe this article was generated by AI, an issue that goes back to the first version. While the article creator has denied using AI for at least some tasks, there are just too many indicators -- and not just involving language quirks, but larger issues of puffery and synthesis. While we don't have a policy prohibiting using AI in articles, I do not think this meets Good Article standards as it currently stands, and I don't think it met them at the time either.

The bulk of the text was created in 2023 and originates in diffs like this, and much of that text still remains; citations were added later. The prose displays many tells of LLM use, particularly the ones -- e.g., undue emphasis on symbolism, editorializing, superficial analysis -- that inherently imply WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problems. There are too many examples to list here, but as an example, the article claims that a political party's choice of candidates was reflecting the ongoing discussions about religious and regional balance in politics. The source it's cited to does not mention anything about "ongoing discussion," being a largely analysis-free news update; literally, its only mention of religion is one word about the party platform. This kind of thing is just all over the place; elsewhere, the article asserts The nation's diversity is its strength, but the persistent use of such tickets can strain the delicate fabric of unity as a fact despite being an opinion attributed to no one, and the article it is cited to does not mention anything about diversity or unity, primarily mentioning media coverage and election logistics. A statement that the choice of one candidate was seen as a strategy to appeal to the northern regions is cited to a short news brief that, once again, mentions nothing even slightly related. All of this is very characteristic of trying to source synthesis after the fact.

As far as the good article criteria, WP:QF #3 doesn't count since I was the one who added the maintenance tag. But the issues above suggests the article doesn't meet criteria #2 or #4, nor did it at the time. Arguably it does not meet #1 because stuff like the nation's diverse socio-political fabric, revolves around the delicate balance, underscored the persistent debate, etc. is cliched puffery and also not concise at all (another issue brought up in the original nomination). Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnomingstuff Thank you for raising concerns. I am keeping this based on my fixes and improvements with additional (academic) sources. Kindly take a look and let me know what you think. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gnomingstuff, have you had a chance to assess the edits to the article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hamnet Shakespeare

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

Lots of uncited statements, including several entries in the "Popular culture" section. The lead is also quite short and does not summarise all major aspects of this article. Z1720 (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done I added missing citations and copy-edited the page. In regards to the lead section I couldn't come up with any missing points. It mentions Hamnet's death and its potential influence on Shakespeare's work. His "life" section has +2 more paragraphs but I don't think there are too important for the lead. We can mention the 2025 film about Hamnet, which is rather popular? —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 08:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone

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

Uncited text, including entire sections. MOS:OVERSECTION in the "Mesoscale" section. Z1720 (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will be fixing it up shortly, would hate to see this get demoted. EF5 15:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5: Do we think the mesoscale section might benefit from a section-transclusion from the main articles? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 15:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sounds like a good idea. EF5 15:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No longer any uncited text. Ce'd a lot of it. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 13:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720, EF5, and Chicdat: is everything resolved here? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5 and Chicdat: The article has uncited text because it uses text excerpts from other articles. These excerpt templates should probably be removed and the text replaced with prose that is cited and specific to what is needed in this article. Z1720 (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subsections in Cyclone#Mesoscale go against MOS:OVERSECTION since they're all very short. "Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheadings." Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Folk metal

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

There are uncited statements in the article, including most of the "Americas folk metal" section. Unreliable sources used in the article, including www.metal-archives.com, www.spirit-of-metal.com, and ONSP. Z1720 (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would delete the "Americas folk metal" section, as all it adds is a load of redlinks. I’ve only left it because this discussion is taking place. --Northernhenge (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems TenPoundHammer has removed the problematic section in question. mftp dan oops 03:44, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Almost Full

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

Uncited statements, including most of the "2007 mini-tour releases" section. Z1720 (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist – I know it's early to say but I'm honestly surprised this became a GA to begin with. The reviewed version was practically the same as it is now. However, the entire "2007 minitour releases" section was absent: I assume that was merged into here from a previously deleted page. Even without that though, critical reception has only had one review in prose since its promotion (unacceptable even by 2013 Wikipedia standards); the general prose, although thoroughly sourced, isn't exactly sourced by quality ones. The article realistically needs a complete overhaul to keep GA status by today's standards, and I don't have the interest in doing so. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to check out what Z brought forth, once again at the behest of the now-retired nominator, but after zmbro's points I don't know if I have it in me to fix the whole thing. mftp dan oops 12:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, I have some time on Saturday afternoon (EDT) to address whatever concerns there are with this. Doesn't look frightfully difficult. But you can expect me then. mftp dan oops 17:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken some time to look over this article. I have significant expansion prepared for the critical reception section which will be implemented tonight. Unfortunately, the unreliable sourcing present in this article is rather pervasive, particularly variants of the one zmbro listed above. I don't have the energy or ambition to fix that much. An aside, most of that mini-tour stuff could probably be axed, but not all of it. mftp dan oops 00:03, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've added all but one of the existing table reviews into the article's reception section. PopMatters I'll need to think on how I want to fit that one in, but it's one I'd like for sure. It also probably could be organized better per WP:RECEPTION, but the main objective here was expansion and I've done just that. (Many more reviews from reputable publications exist for this article which hadn't already been included, I haven't considered these yet or if they're better than what's there at the moment. The ones initially present are perfectly acceptable.) mftp dan oops 02:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Z1720: What is your take on this article now? Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:27, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Berkhamsted

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Article is over 11,000 words and could be summarised more effectively. Demographic information is from 2011 and needs to be updated. "Sites of interest" section seems to have a promotional tone. Z1720 (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, There's a lot of work to be done on this. I will chip in as soon as I've finished getting another UK delisted GA done (currently waiting on the reviewer's close). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've already given the lead a very brief CE, and updated the Wikilinks. However:
• It is verbose, the language is not sufficiently succinct
• It contains too much detail that should be in the body (the lead should summarise what is to come in the article)
IMO this probably reflects much of the style of the rest of the article. See a snapshot of its its listing as GA in February 2019. A further 539 new edits made since. Although the article has not been delisted, the scope of the work to be done is possibly as much as a full GAN. I'm not the assessor but for anyone who also wishes to help out, I'm posting this basic GAN checklist of possible items to be addressed. If you make any improvements, to avoid duplication or edit conflicts please add a {{done}}, or {{fixed}} or a {{doing}} template, plus a brief description and your signature (~~~~). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 There is massive duplication in the lead and the main sections. There is so much detail in the history it would be preferable to split it off into a separate page History of Berkhamsted, and leave a shorter, summarised history in the parent article. There is no miniumm size requirement for GA and with a little bit of work this article will retain its GA status. As a consequence, I have removed the huge history from the lead and redistributed its parts to the relevant history sub sections. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added citations to most of the previously uncited statements. Dormskirk (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dormskirk, thank you enormously for addressing all those sources and updating them. The demography section is proving to be quite a challenge because first of all it is vastly over-detailed for a Wikipedia article and I'm not sure all the house price information is strictly relevant. - what do you think?
Secondly, the ONS has changed their format of reporting census information and in their endeavour to make it more transparent, and providing new tools, they have made it harder to use. I am working offline on completely rewriting the section which I will add as soon as possible but RL is getting in the way at the moment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I would be pretty ruthless in removing any remaining poorly sourced material (as well as the over-detailed house price data). Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 21:38, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist


Yankees–Red Sox rivalry

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There are some unreliable sources used in the article like sbnation, PR newswire and a wordpress source. At over 13,000 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. Can any of the information be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed as too much detail? Z1720 (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article definitely needs a lot of refinement and editing. I'd be happy to work on it, but as it's so large it wouldn't be overnight—whether that affects or does not affect the reassessment, I'm not sure. I'm assuming that if good article status was removed it could then be added back once the article is at a higher standard? PunkAndromeda (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PunkAndromeda: Thanks for offering to work on this. A GAR will remain open while edits are ongoing. Feel free to ping me if there are any questions or ths article is ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PunkAndromeda, do you still intend to work on this? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do! I currently have my final finals of my degree coming up in 2-3 weeks, but after that I'm planning to bite into the article in full. If the status needs removing in the meantime, that is fine. PunkAndromeda (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One concern I have is the "most recent game", "most recent streak" statistics. Are they being updated consistently and on time? As of today's game (Sep 30), there was quite a delay in updating. JDiala (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Age of Comic Books

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

This article, which was promoted in 2009, has since then accumulated a number of maintenance tags related to uncited material, with several of those tags dating back to 2010 and 2011. In its present state, the article does not meet the WP:Good article criteria (in particular, 2b). Pinging editors involved in the original GAN review that led to promotion and some additional major contributors: @Cirt, Peregrine Fisher, BOZ, Hiding, Casliber, EyeSerene, Tenebrae, Clayton Emery, Kchishol1970, Kaijan, and Mark Staffieri:. TompaDompa (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added citations for all of the tags. FlairTale (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am always wary of adding citations to uncited material—as opposed rewriting and adding citations—as experience shows that it is often something of a cosmetic fix. A brief spot-check reveals that this is also the case in this instance. Citing Wikisource:Comic book code of 1954 for the statement To address public concerns, in 1954 the Comics Code Authority was created to regulate and curb sex, drugs and violence in comics, marking the start of a new era. is not adequate. Likewise, the source added to the passage Ajax/Farrell Publishing's 1954–55 revival of the Phantom Lady; Strong Man, published by Magazine Enterprises in 1955; Charlton Comics' Nature Boy, introduced in March 1956, and its revival of the Blue Beetle the previous year; and Atlas Comics' short-lived revivals of Captain America, the Human Torch, and the Sub-Mariner, beginning in Young Men Comics #24 (December 1953). In the United Kingdom, the Marvelman series was published from 1954 to 1963, substituting for the British reprints of the Captain Marvel stories after Fawcett stopped publishing the character's adventures. only covers the Marvelman stuff. Those are just the first two newly-added citations I checked. TompaDompa (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few checks later, it is obvious that there are still massive sourcing issues here. TompaDompa (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I might also add that the "Collectibility" section contains a list of various magazine issues (presumably collectibles) without any clear inclusion criteria for that particular selection of issues. TompaDompa (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the paragraph about counterculture (which I am in the process of rewriting) all remaining failed verification tags have sources that verify exactly what they say, such as the population grow and science/magic sources for example. FlairTale (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The cited sources for the parts tagged as failing verification do not verify that particular content, hence the tags. This source does not say that this rise [in juvenile crime statistics] was shown to be in direct proportion to population growth as our article does, it says that The juvenile delinquence rate is not increasing. It is decreasing, and has been decreasing for the past 5 years (i.e. the second half of the 1940s). Likewise, this source does not verify [science-based explanations for superhero phenomena and origins in the Silver Age were] inspired by contemporary science fiction or the Golden Age, which commonly relied on magic or mysticism [to explain superhero phenomena and origins] on the cited page, it only says about the Silver Age that This age of superheroes was primarily of the Science type. The reworked versions of JSA with the Flash and Green Lantern had more scientific than magical underpinnings. This also includes the Marvel Silver Age [...]. As I keep making spot-checks, I keep finding instances where the article goes beyond what the cited sources say (and other kinds of issues—I have added some tags). The "Collectibility" section, as noted, has no clear inclusion criteria, and when I spot-checked a sample of the cited sources in that section they did not verify that the issues in question are collectibles. TompaDompa (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll state for the record that my position is (still) that this should be delisted. There are issues relating to sourcing that mean that the article does not meet the WP:Good article criteria, and it does not appear that it is being actively worked on. TompaDompa (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All comic books are collectibles. The list seems to be of the most expensive silver age books. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:59, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That could be the case. It could also be a subjective selection of issues deemed important—as suggested by the text The following comics are sought after by collectors due to their historic significance. that was present when this GAR was started (it was removed by an IP editor on 7 September). That's the problem when a list does not have clear criteria: there is no way for us to tell how the selection was made. If these are the most expensive ones, that's not something that the sources that are currently cited verify. If it is instead a list of issues "sought after by collectors due to their historic significance" (as the article used to say), then the question is still "why these specific ones and not a bunch of other ones?" since as you say all comic books are collectibles, and the sources still don't back up the selection of these particular issues on those grounds. TompaDompa (talk) 04:15, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Medal of Honor

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

The "Evolution of criteria" and "Revocation" sections have long bullet point paragraphs that is difficult to read, especially on mobile. These should be broken up with headings, summarised and trimmed of excess detail, and split into paragraphs. There is an "outdated" orange banner at the top of the "Legal protection" section. There are external links in the "Authority and privileges". Instead, this section should use prose to describe the information. There is some uncited text in the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Foxtrot5151 has been heavily editing the page. I see five remaining examples of uncited text: first Each Medal of Honor recipient may have his or her name entered on the Medal of Honor Roll (10 U.S.C. § 1134a and 38 U.S.C. § 1562) so long as they qualified for the medal under modern statutory authority., second some text under the "2013" section, which should probably be renamed "Stolen Valor Act", third The first action by a black man to eventually earn the Medal of Honor was by William Harvey Carney. He earned the Medal during the Battle of Fort Wagner, but was not presented with it until 1900., fourth text about double medals, fifth text about uncle-and-nephew recipients. The final section should be removed as it is redundant to the hatnote at the top of the page. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:46, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to correct all the deficiencies and bring the article up to par. On the MoH Roll claim, the citations in the text are sufficient (no need to list the same section of the US code as a footnote when it's already there and hyperlinked).
In re: "2013," earlier dates also reference the Stolen Valor Act, since it was substantially overruled by SCOTUS and then a new bill was passed into law with the same name. So probably could add it to the header but would have to clarify that you're talking about the 2005 versus 2013 version of the act, which of course is materially different.
In re: Carney, I added several citations to support those claims. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First paragraph. Delete MOH which is one of several abbreviations including MH and my favourite MofH and if it is not mentioned elsewhere in the article discuss the issue. After ‘is awarded to’ delete rest of sentence and replace with ‘service personnel for acts of gallantry above and beyond the call of duty.’ Delete the word ‘normally’ since all awards in the last 40 years have been approved by the President, and with one exception been announced and presented by the President at the White House. I would reverse the last sentence saying the ‘official name of the award is the "Medal of Honor" but is often referred to as the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Second paragraph. Delete first line and replace with ‘There are presently three separate Medals of Honor; US Army, US Navy and US Air
Force awarded to service personnel.’
Third paragraph. In 1917, no MofH was revoked, and no recipients were required to return their medal or medals (if they had both original and Gillespie medals) or were prosecuted for wearing the MofH that had been officially awarded. The 911 names were stricken from the pension roll and were not included in subsequent lists of recipients except for the six restored awards. Anthony Staunton (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the 1917 revocation claim, to clarify, you are correct that they were never required to return the medals, but they were effectively revoked. The statute simply did not use that exact terminology--it said their names would be "stricken permanently from the official medal of honor list," and if still in the Army, "required to return said medal to the War Department for cancellation." They were not stricken from the MoH Roll (the pension list), because this was a separate list and the revocation statute didn't impact it. The Army TJAG reviewed that particular distinction and ruled that the names would simply be removed from the official circular listing, not the pension list. To illustrate this point, William Cody had his medal revoked for being a civilian, but his name was still added to the MoH Roll pension list almost at the same time. Almost no authors understand the distinction between the circular listing and the MoH Roll, particularly because the Roll became automatic for all recipients in 2013, but when enacted in 1916 it encompassed only about 10% of prior medal recipients on account of the 65 year old age threshold, the bar on military retirees already in receipt of a pension, and higher eligibility restrictions (actual conflict with enemy, distinguish conspicuously by gallantry or intrepidity, at risk of life, above and beyond the call of duty), as well as the requirement for the recipient to petition for it.
References: 39 Stat 53, 214, at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/STATUTE-39
In re: MOH acronym, I don't like that one myself because I don't think it makes any sense to capitalize "of", but the DoD started doing that a few years ago in the awards manual, 1348.33, so that's where it comes from. Thus, that is the official acronym currently in use by the government. See https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/134833_vol1.PDF Foxtrot5151 (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Faisalabad

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

GA from 2016. Multiple uncited sections and general article structuring issues. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I might try to work on it. Probably beyond anything I can do. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 13:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chicdat: There are still uncited statements in the article, and your last edit was Sept 1. Are you or other editors reading this still interested in addressing concerns? Z1720 (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging MSLQr who is certainly far more of an expert in this area than I and who has been doing some work on it. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 14:08, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MSLQr Any further plans on working on this? Your last batch of edits here were in late September. Tarlby (t) (c) 21:56, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, busy in life, I think I will not be available (this month). In turn, pinged Atsme, the major contributor to this article. MŠLQr (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of going through the painstaking reassessment process because a few citations are needed, how about taking a few minutes to simply add the citations? Atsme 💬 📧 15:40, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Real life is more important than a green checkmark. Give MSLQr time, or you can take on the job instead if you want. Tarlby (t) (c) 18:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ski flying

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

There is lots of uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. At over 12,000 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. I suggest that information be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed. Z1720 (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Curator" of the article here. Won't argue any of that in the slightest. It's been a decade and a lots of material has been added since. I did originally mean to spin off the History section into its own article but never got around to it. Would that be a good first step? As for detail, any particular sections that should be trimmed? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mac Dreamstate: Spinning out the "History" section might be good if the article on its own would be notable (I suspect that it is). I usually prefer subject-interested editors to review the article's prose first because they often have a better sense of what is the most important information. However, I think spinning out/reducing the amount of text in the History section will probably solve most of the too-detailed concerns. Z1720 (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I'll get to work on that. Also, could you point to the paragraphs of uncited text—those should be easy to fix. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mac Dreamstate: I have added citation needed templates to the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mac Dreamstate: Maybe it should be considered to move some of the content from the "Rules and technique" and "Scoring and judging" sections to the Ski jumping article? Since most of it applies to both ski jumping and ski flying, and the coverage on these topics in the other article is less detailed. Rewording the Ski flying article in such a way that the common regulations are only roughly outlined and the focus is given to the key differences. Maybe it would prove to be more friendlier than laying out every detail of the combined regulations in a unified fashion? Dżamper (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That could work as well. At the time of writing, I was more enthusiastic about fleshing out the ski flying article to notice that the ski jumping article was sparse in comparison, and written—in part—by non-English speakers. What I'll focus on first is addressing all the cite tags, then creating the History article, and finally seeing what I can do about transplanting some of the Rules and techniques content to the ski jumping article. I will say, however, that a lot of the techniques described are specific to ski flying, so it's not a simple copy-and-paste job. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another suggestion, having dealt with a decent amount of cite tags: rather than create a separate history article, would it be sufficient for bringing the page size down if the content from the abovementioned Rules and techniques section (as well as Scoring and judging) were instead incorporated into the ski jumping article? I'd much rather summarise the latter than write up new truncated prose for the current History section. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll continue on that. I certainly haven't been trying to stall to game the system or anything like that. It's just been a busy few months, and it is a lot of content to sift through. I've also significantly cut down my activity on WP this year. A smidge more time would be appreciated before a de-listing occurs. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mac Dreamstate: I struck out my delist below. I do not think you were gaming the system, just wanted to provide an update an update (and sometimes a declaration encourages editors to address concerns). If you have a question for me, or this is ready for a re-review, please WP:PING me as I sometimes miss updates on my watchlist. Z1720 (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mac Dreamstate: I am sorry for the delay in response. I have added citation needed tags to the article. These will need to be resolved before I can recommend a "keep" declaration. Z1720 (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant

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

Uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. At over 14,000 words, the article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. Some prose should be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed as too detailed. Many sources listed in "Bibliography" are not used as inline citations and should be moved to "Further reading". Z1720 (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, this article has already been reduced in size, to allign with the Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower article. Grant's presidency was detailed, as it included 8 years of turbulent Reconstruction, Native American, Domestic, and Foreign Policy. Second, Grant's presidency article, should not be a reduced format historical article format, when the Eisenhower article receives ample article size. This is Wikipedia. Articles should be detailed, supplied by reliable sources. Important issues such a civil rights, prosecution of the Klu Klux Klan, should have detail. Both Grant and Eisenhower, deserve equal importance and equal size. As far as sources, not used in the article, I have no issue with them being removed. Third, I think this article has already been improved, and deserves GA standing. I am not sure why Grant is getting this attention all of a sudden. The article appears to be written in a neutral format. Why now? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmguy777: Wikipedia is a general knowledge encyclopedia, and not all details will be included in an article. If the level of detail is important, the information can be spun out into a child-article. WP:DETAIL outlines examples of how much detail an article should have, and states that "Some readers need a lot of details on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate subarticles)." The last part, linking to separate articles, might be what is best for some aspects of this article. WP:TOOBIG outlines that articles should probably be less than 9,000 words: at 14,000, this article far exceeds that. In a GAR, the current article version is evaluated on its adherence to the GA criteria and does not consider how much work has been done to an article, or how much it has been improved. The Eisenhower article is not a GA, so it is hard to compare the qualities (and size) of those two articles for this GAR. Z1720 (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, articles can be spun out. You have not mentioned anything specifically you want changed. What is it exactly you want changed? Again, I have substantially reduced this article before. Is there an exact rule of how long articles should be such as 9,000 words or less. What does "should probably be less" mean ? Anymore reduction in this article would reduce the reliability and needed context of the article, imo. Grant has a lot of biographers and biographies. Renewed interest has been taken in Grant's life, generalship, and presidency. Charles W. Calhouns (2017) book on Grant's presidency has 593 pages. What specific areas of the article do you find too long? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many notable people and topics have books that are hundreds or thousands of pages long. WP:TOOBIG has useful rules of thumb for article size. I usually do not recommend specifics at the beginning because I want to give a chance for subject-matter experts to make recommendations first. Since I have been asked, here are some suggestions:

  • In general, I recommend that a subject-matter expert do a copy edit of the entire article and remove redundant text, off-topic information about others, and sumarise text more effectively when possible.
  • First Presidency:
    • "Financial policy" Suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION. I suggest these paragraphs be merged and extra/too detailed information be placed in the appropriate article.
    • "Failed annexation of Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic)" could be too detailed and possibly trimmed.
    • "Native American policy" also suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION and, if the paragraphs are merged together, information can be spun out to the appropriate articles.
    • "Domestic policy" also suffers from OVERSECTION and not as much detail is needed for all of these individual aspects (especially the "Holidays law")
  • Second Presidency:
    • "Vicksburg riots" and "South Carolina 1876" spend at least a paragraph explaining the conflict before mentioning Grant. While a brief introduction is appropriate, too much space is given to this off-topic information and this article should focus on Grant's actions and policies.
    • "Foreign policy" suffers from OVERSECTION with the last three paragraphs: these should be merged and summarised.
    • "Reforms and scandals" Lots of oversection, it is better to merge the information and give a wikilink than have a whole paragraph explaining each topic.
    • "States admitted to the Union", "Vetoes" and "Government agencies instituted" can be moved to the part of the article most appropriate to his presidency. "Memorials and monuments" can be moved to Grant's main article.

This is not an exhaustive list, and there can of course be disagreement. None of this negates the uncited paragraphs in the article, which also need to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those spin off articles have not been created. The Presidency of Barack Obama article 13,915 words. I found that on XTools. Is this correct? You can verify that. The Holidays Laws is important. They are national holidays created by Grant and congress. This article can be improved. You are free to make edits to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cmguy777: Yes, Presidency of Barack Obama is 13,000 long. No, it is also not a GA. This process is to evaluate an article against the GA criteria. If the article topic is notable, any editor can make a new article and place information there. I will not be making edits to this article as I am busy with many on-and-off wiki tasks. I am happy to support those who do want to make those edits and will re-review if pinged. Z1720 (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This article passed GA in the past. Yes. There is room for improvement, and thanks for the specifics. I just don't think it necessary to take away the GA status, when in the past it was given GA status, by whatever standard(s) was(were used) at the time. Improvements can be made to the article without removing the GA, imo. I have made past reductions to the article, found in the talk page, to improve the article. Grant's Native American policy, reforms and scandals, have been made into spinoff articles. Probably, the next spin off article should be Grant's Foreign policy. Grant's presidency was different. He was elected and served two consecutive terms in office, that would not be repeated until the election of Woodrow Wilson. Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cmguy777: An article will not be delisted if improvements are ongoing and concerns addressed. My concerns are listed above. The GAR will assess the article against the current criteria, not the criteria that was in place when it was passed. Z1720 (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This article has been significantly been reduced in size, before. Your concerns are noted. What about editor concensus? These objections seem to be only your objections focused specifically on Grant, not other Presidents. You also seem to be requiring other spin off articles to be made on Grant's domestic and financial policies. The Santo Domingo annexation was very important to Grant. It was also a drama between Grant and Charles Sumner, who would control the Republican Party. Some leeway should be allowed in that section on article length, since this article focuses on Grant's Presidency. When you say "delisted", are you saying removal of the article from Wikipedia? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmguy777: I am sorry that I did not respond sooner. AJ29 is correct: pinging me is a better way to ensure that I respond. I have done a deep read of the first paragraph of "Foreign policy" and the "Attempted annexation of Santo Domingo" sections. They have improved from where they were before, and the comments below are what I think need to happen next to bring them to GA quality.

  • "Grant was a man of peace" I don't know what this means because I don't know much about him. I think this should be removed, and instead the paragraph can describe what this means later on.
  • "Besides Grant himself, the main players in foreign affairs..." This is an instance where the article starts going off-topic. Later in the paragraph, it starts describing Fish's work. I think this parargaph should focus on what Grant did and what he did with foreign policy. If Grant was hands-off and let Fish run everything, then that should be explained. If Grant focused on specific issues, that should be explained in this paragraph. Describing the major players of Grant's administration is important, but their contributions should to be connected to Grant's presidency more explicitly.
  • "He tried to annex the Caribbean country of the Dominican Republic as a safety valve for them." Safety valve feels like an idiom to me, and I don't know what that means in this context. Is Grant buying DR to bring Black people to the location? Was he trying to have DR become part of the USA? This should be explained.
  • "Republican Senator Charles Sumner opposed Grant, believing he sided with men of financial interest." Why is this important to state in this article? I think it can be deleted.
  • In the second paragraph, there is information about the annexation of DR. This makes the first paragraph redundant, and I think it can be removed.
  • I made lots of cuts as I was reading. Feel free to take a look and reverse any changes. However, with the length of the article I think some of these changes were helpful to reduce the word count, and I would continue having cuts like this in other parts of the article.

I hope the above helps editors with ideas on how to improve other sections of the article. There are still uncited statements in other spots and I highly recommend a thorough copy-edit and trimming of off-topic information before a re-review is requested, and I think this article needs some more work before I could recommend that it keeps its GA status. Feel free to ping me with questions or comments. Z1720 (talk) 05:45, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I am for reducing article narration, but not at the expense of loosing valued content. Also, I am for going by what the sources say. As far as Santo Domingo goes, Grant was the main leader behind annexation. I readded information that Grant appointed Frederick Douglas. Apparently, Grant wanted both to make Santo Domingo a state and to serve as a refuge for blacks. Douglas supported the annexation. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmguy777: The content doesn't need to be lost: it can be moved to other articles whose scope is narrower. Too much prose stops readers from finding the most important information and discourages them from reading any part of the article. Prose cannot include everything that the sources say as articles are written in summary style. The information described above cannot be explained here: it needs to be explained in the article.
Regarding Frederick Douglass: the article does not describe who he is or why he is important until "Election of 1872". If Douglass is to be included in the "Attempted annexation of Santo Domingo" section, the importance of his appointment needs to be explained there. Otherwise, it is just WP:TRIVIA: a miscellaneous fact that the reader does not need to know to understand the importance of this event in Grant's presidency. My preference is to remove this sentence, and trivia prose similar to this in other places in the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The importance? Frederick Douglas was a leading spokes person for black rights. Historian Jean Edward Smith, Grant, on page 505, mentioned Grant appointing Douglas secretary of the Santo Domingo commission. Do you have that book?. I do. I don't feel appreciated in this article. I should not have to defend every edit made on this article. I am only going by what Smith said. Removing important content will affect the neautrality of the article. I also feel there may be underlying hostility toward Grant, or people don't believe his presidency was that important. I just go by what the sources say. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmguy777: If Douglass is to be included in this section of the Wikipedia article, the Wikipedia article needs to explain who this person is and why he is important to mention here. In other words, if the information is important, the Wikipedia article needs to explain its importance. A reader should not have to go to the source to get that information. Z1720 (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link that explains Douglas and Santo Domingo. His appointment by Grant represented black progress, that was part of the "new" for blacks. [10] Cmguy777 (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmguy777: The source looks good to add. The information needs to be explained and added to the Wikipedia article, not this page. Z1720 (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would best to add in a add in a note that Douglas was a prominent African Amercian, who was primarily known for work as an abolitionist. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. The current format of giving every little detail its own level-4 section is definitely excessive. For one example, there are 224 words dedicated to the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Half of that paragraph has nothing to do with Grant. The parts that do pertain to Grant include a quotation that could be replaced with a concise statement, as well as a line straight up telling the reader the paragraph is not that relevant: "Grant had no role in writing the Civil Rights Act of 1875 but he did sign it a few days before the Republicans lost control of Congress." Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:46, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Civil Rights Act of 1875 was ground breaking. The first in U.S. History. And yes, Grant signed it into law. Grant was the president and deserves credit for signing the legislation into law. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist This article has been open for over a month and a half, and there are still significant paragraphs without citations. The length concerns also still remain. Work seems to have stalled, and it might be better if the article is worked on without the pressure of GAR, and nominated at GAN when it is ready. Z1720 (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I felt I have been the only one who has working on this article. Wikipedia is suppose to be a group editor editing. It's not one editor giving orders. I don’t agree GA should be removed. I felt I have been doing allot of the editing, trying to comply with "suggested" changes. Also, no one ever told me whether my changes were good enough. I hope there is no personal bias against Grant in any delisting process. I stopped editing because there was no positive feed back on my previous edits. That is not my fault. I believe the article is a good article too. It should not be delisted. This article well referenced. There needs to be more editors working on the article. Reducing article size should not reduce content. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Did the Santo Domingo section clean up meet your approval? I need that type of feed back. I have the Grant biographies by Chernow, Smith, and White. I have the two Grant presidential biographies by Calhoun and Kahan. I believe my sources are reliable and trustworthy. Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cmguy777: Thanks for following up. Wikipedia is supposed to be the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Some articles are written by a single editor and some are written by a group. We are all volunteers and can choose where to edit: I have neither the interest nor the time to fully commit to improving this article. However, I am willing to give feedback to ongoing work. The best way to ensure that I reply is to ping me. However, I do not have the time to give constant feedback, and it is easier for me to evaluate whole sections or the whole article at once. More information on the GA criteria can be found at WP:GA?.
Regarding the Santo Domingo section: I did a copyedit of the section and it seems fine. I would suggest a similar exercise happen throughout the entire article. Afterwards, editors can reevaluate the article's length and determine if more needs to be spun out to other articles. Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Hello. I am all for copy editing, as long a content is retained in the article. Are there any sections you find too long or specifically need improving ? Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmguy777: As stated above, the whole article needs a copyedit to remove redundancies and summarise the prose more effectively. For example, "Foreign policy" has its own section that gives more detail on this subject: much of this section's inforamtion can be moved to that article, with this article focusing on the most important aspects. There are also lots of subsections that are quite short, like "Pratt & Boyd", "Hawaiian free trade treaty" or "Liberian-Grebo war" (this is not an exhaustive list). In general, per MOS:OVERSECTION if a section is a paragraph long, it should be merged with other sections. This merging might also help with summarising information as information can be moved to other articles or redundancies can be trimmed. Z1720 (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. How do my copy edits look in the article? Has the article narration improved? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmguy777: Yes, the article has improved. No, I am not ready to re-review because there are uncited statements and the article is still too big. Z1720 (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Thank you. I believe the article can be trimmed more. I think the beginning of the Article looks good and reads well. Can you please be more specific on the "uncited" parts of the article? There are references throughout. Are you saying every sentence needs to be referenced? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmguy777: I have added "citation needed" templates to the article, and there were already some in the article before I started tagging. At a minimum, there needs to be a citation at the end of every paragraph (except in the lead, and some other exceptions). Resolving these tags is also a good opportunity to see if the text is needed in the article and if it can be summarised more effectively. The article also has MOS:OVERSECTION concerns, with numerous short, one-paragraph sections that make the article look like a list in some sections (such as in the "Financial policy" section). Consider merging sections like this and removing the level 3 headings. Z1720 (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Thank you. I can look into adding citations. There are a lot more books, and Grant, I can find the right citation. I will look into the Financial Policy section for possible merging of sections. Does the Santo Domingo section look alright? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the Santo Domingo section looks fine. Z1720 (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Thank you. Can you please be more specific which sections, by name, need to shorter? Cmguy777 (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmguy777: Below are suggestions, based on a quick skim of the article. I am going to let interested editors make the final decisions on what can be moved, spun out and summarised to get the article under 9,000 words per WP:TOOBIG. I also suggest removing headings per MOS:OVERSECTION. Section names are in quotation marks:

  • "Force Acts of 1870 and 1871": Reduce the size
  • "Financial policy": Remove level 3 headings, remove extra detail
  • "Foreign policy": Reduce prose size
  • "Native American policy": Remove level 3 headings, reduce prose size
  • "Domestic policy": Remove all level 3 headings
  • ""Holidays law": Cut this. I do not think this is one of the most important things to include about his presidency.
  • "Yellowstone created": Cut most or all of this. Only the creation of the park needs to be mentioned: the rest is too much detail for this article.
  • "Reconstruction continued" Reduce prose
  • "Foreign policy" Remove level 3 headings, reduce text (especially in the former "Virginus incident" section
  • "Midterm election 1874": Cut most of this: it is too much detail.
  • "Reforms and scandals" Anything that was not caused by Grant directly should be removed. Not every federal scandal needs to be explained in this article.
  • "Centennial Exposition" Cut this: too much detail.
  • "Election of 1876": cut this. Does not directly concern his presidency.
  • "Third term attempt 1880" Cut this. It does not concern his presidency.

I will not be participating in improving the article, but am willing to review when the article is ready, everything is cited, and the article is under 9,000 words. Feel free to ping me when ready. Z1720 (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thank you for the specific areas where the article should be reduced in size. The WP:TOOBIG section does say, "> 9,000 words || Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." I will leave that as it is for now, but subjects such as Indian Policy and Reconstruction, may need higher levels of explanations. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the article several times, and giving suggestions on how the prose can be reduced, I do not think that the articles extended length is justified for this article to remain a good article. I still recommend that this article be delisted. Z1720 (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Yes, the article can be trimmed. I am not disagreeing with that. I think the article should not be delisted from the good articles. I don't understand the rush and push to get this article delisted. Reducing the article takes time. I have adequate book sources to do so. You suggested the changes. I have added the references. I put a block quote into the note section. Another previous editor wanted to reduce the article. I did. I removed a lot of material. I seem to get no credit for the edits I have made. This article has gone through substantial reduction and revisions. 2600:6C52:69F0:B6E0:7CA5:E1AB:8055:41F2 (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the work that you have done with the article. Unfortunately, GAs do not keep their status because the article has gone through changes. Instead, an article gets their status by adhering to the GA criteria. This has been open for three months and it still has uncited statements and information that needs to be moved to other articles and removed here. Sometimes it is better to let the article be delisted so that editors can work without the added pressure that GAR brings. When it meets the GA criteria again, the article can be renominated to GAN. Z1720 (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the necessity to remove the article from GA status. Improvements can be made at any time in the article. I believe all the citations have been removed with added references. Yes. I agree that there should be a reduction in and improvement in wording. Grant's presidency took place during Reconstruction, adding importance to the article. We seem to be repeating ourselves. I seem to be the only one making edits to the article. Wikipedia should be done with multiple editor edits. Not just one person. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)the article. r[reply]
The current word count in the article is 13,916. I am not sure whether that includes or excludes notes. Info from XTools. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:01, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The historical evalations section is too long, imo, and should be reduced. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Current word count: 13,864 words. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The historical evaluations section can be reduced maybe to one or two paragraphs. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Current article word count: 13,550 Cmguy777 (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment&oldid=1311333806"