Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria (GACR). GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. The GAR Coordinators — Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings — work to organize these efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the {{@GAR}} notification template, or make a comment on the talk page.
Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including not meeting the general notability guideline, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment can be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles can be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delist.
Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
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
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.
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).
Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.
Manual opening steps
Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
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.
The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
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.
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
Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them.
The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
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.
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).
GARs typically remain open for at least one week.
Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
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.
After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.
Manual closing steps
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.
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 the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)
Disputing a reassessment
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.
Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
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.
The Good articles listed below would benefit from the attention of reviewers as to whether they need to be reassessed. In cases where they do, please open a community reassessment and remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, remove the template from the article talk page.
The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a featured article candidate, please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed.
The article has a lot of uncited text, including entire paragraphs. The lead is a little long, and I think it can be shortened and the references removed (if the information is cited in the article body). History.com is used as a reference which is an unreliable source at WP:RS/P. The "Legacy" section over-relies upon block quotes which creates copyright concerns: this should be summarised in prose. Z1720 (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are several uncited paragraphs, particularily in the "Wind circulation in the northern and southern hemispheres" section. Z1720 (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yet another driveby nomination with absolutely no attempt to fix the situation yourself, which would be easily doable since most of the article is still sourced. Seriously, stop with the frivolous delisting as it's tatamount to disruptive. Focus on fixing it first, and attempt to delist if the article is unfixable without a major rewrite of all content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He posted about it a month ago—Talk:Wild Arms (video game)#GA concerns—and apparently no one is maintaining the article. Degradation in the article's quality isn't the nominator's burden to correct. This is easily a multi-hour project to bring the article back up to quality. czar13:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a significant amount of uncited text throughout the article. The lead is quite long, and should probably be trimmed or reduced. The article uses long blockquotes: this creates copyright concerns and makes the article more difficult to read. I suggest that these be summarised and reduced. The "History and popularity" has a yellow "cleanup needed" banner which should be addressed. Z1720 (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with these comments. I don't think the long block quotes give a copyright worry except possibly for the conservation assessment by Rob Cantley, as the others are from 19th-century publications and will be in the public domain. But I agree that they don't particularly aid readability. YFB¿16:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has uncited prose, including almost the entire "Airport names" section. There are also citation needed tags in the article since January 2020. Z1720 (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. The title of the "Today" section suffers from MOS:CURRENCY, and the prose has lots of short paragraphs that make the prose feel like a list of events. This should be restructured so that the information is organised into longer paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brought this up to GA level way back in 2009 (I was Buzzzsherman back then) with User:Nikkimaria as the reviewer. Not only has GA level requirements improved since 2009, but the article has gone through substantial changes. There are many unsourced statements..... Use of puffery words...and overall layout and presentation is no longer accessible for many readers. I think delisting would be best as there is substantial work to be done. I do have plans in the future to revamp the page, however this will take an extensive amount of time. Moxy🍁 01:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I typically prefer keeping GA status and working over time outside of egregious cases, I don't disagree that this article needs substantial improvements. Besides the layout, maybe go through and tag some of the uncited statements and poor wording and I might fix a couple things if I get around to it. PersusjCP (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs and the "Portrayals in media" section. There are also lots of large block quotes of secondary sources which should be summarised and used as prose instead. Z1720 (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pinging @MasterAlSpain: as it looks like much of the unsourced text (in "Background" especially) was added through their three edits here, which added nearly 14,000 bytes to the article. It appears some references were added during these edits, but unless other sources can be found for the paragraphs missing citations, much of that material is liable to be removed if it remains unreferenced. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging and pointing out the missing references on the added information. I've now solved this issue, so all relevant paragraphs are properly referenced. Further references may be added in the next few days if necessary. MasterAlSpain (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MasterAlSpain: Thank you for your swift response and for taking care of these! @Z1720: If you have further concerns about the article in its current state, please don't hesitate to raise them here. It's been almost a decade since I put this through GAN, so I certainly understand if it could use some cleanup. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bcschneider53: There is still lots of uncited information. WP:GA? states that there should be a citation at the end of each paragraph, minimum. I also think the lead needs to be expanded so that all major aspects of the article (typically everything with a level 2 heading) are mentioned. Z1720 (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out. Currently working on adding references to every paragraph while extending the lead. There's also room for improving and optimizing the text without losing any relevant information. MasterAlSpain (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : With most of the new publications and especially that in hindsight this article is quite limited in information, I decided to reconsider my decision when to remove its GA label until I bring a complete update of the article. Amirani1746 (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains uncited statements, including blockquotes, with citation needed tags dated from 2020 and 2022. The article relies upon two sources as inline citations when there are several sources unused in the Bibliography. Z1720 (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article was promoted to GAR in 2016, the article was significantly reduced in content. The reasoning being the sources put forward by me at the time were contested as unreliable. In consequence, I doubt the article still meets the criteria of significantly broad in coverage. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as GA thanks to the efforts of JuneGloom07 in removing unsourced info and adding more sources, there are now no unsourced sections, and there is nothing to me that strikes me out as not meeting the GA requirements. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This 2007 GA needs to be updated (there seems to be barely any new information after the 2000s, even though with a Google search, there are sources on new exhibitions, its 100th anniversary, and more that could at least be mentioned). Additionally, there are 5 parts needing citations, which I've tagged. Spinixster(trout me!)01:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are uncited passages throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. The lead does not mention all major aspects of the article, as it does not outline major events that happened throughout the season. Z1720 (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is uncited prose, including entire paragraphs. The plot section, at over 1,100 words, is more than recommended at MOS:PLOT. While PLOT only mentions films, I think this is too much detail. Z1720 (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems within the bounds of being able to fix the issue. GAR is intended as a "last resort" emergency when fixing the article fails. Based on the article history, you have done nothing to edit the page besides a driveby nomination, so this does not seem like a last resort. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: No article has to have good article status and I cannot find where it says that a reviewer has to edit the article before posting it to GAR. Wikipedia is not compulsory and editors can choose where to spend time editing articles. If other interested, topic-expert editors wish to bring this article back to GA status, they are welcome to do so and I am happy to re-review. Z1720 (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's right in WP:GAR in bolded text. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. That means if you have not at least tried to bring the article up to standard first, you are doing something wrong. It should be obvious that it cannot be fixed by anything less than massive effort. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: When I post an article on GAR, it is because I believe there needs to be a significant amount of work to bring an article up to the criteria. I am fine if others disagree. For me, to update this article would take hours, if not days. If others can and want to fix the article more quickly, I encourage them to do so and I am happy to re-review. Z1720 (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As detailed in the previous topic, this article has accumulated a lot of information that lacks citations. This is less of an issue now than when the issue was first raised, but it is very likely that a lot of the information in the article is out of date as research on the topic moves forward, with a huge swath of literature on nanotechnology that is unaccounted for here. There is also an issue with organization, as the Applications section continues to grow, and some of the information presented under Physical properties ends up being duplicated later on. Reconrabbit23:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article would just be too much for me. Many or most of the references may not meet our standards. For instance, for this very mature material, WP:SECONDARY is no longer sufficient - one needs to go with books or their equivalent, i.e., WP:TERTIARY. As it stands, the article does give readers a taste of what this material is and what it is used for. So, its in good shape in giving a first impression.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are uncited passages in the article, including entire sections. There is MOS:OVERSECTION at the end of the "Student life" section. The "Rankings" have a lot of prominence; I suggest trimming. "Fall Enrolled Freshman Statistics (Fall 2022-Fall 2011)" needs to be updated with 2023 and 24 statistics. Z1720 (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the article is the character's in-universe actions in the book and the TV show, and I think this should be reduced. There is no information on the character's reception, instead focusing on Dinklage's performance. The creation and development sections contain very long block quotes, bringing concerns about copyright. These should be summarised as prose. There are some unreliable sources, such as PR Newswire, Daily Express, and the International Business Times that should be removed. Z1720 (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article would benefit from improvements, but I think it's borderline-to-acceptable in terms of the GA criteria. The article could be more concise, but given the length of the story I think it's acceptable regarding the "focus" criteria. (Maybe the family tree should go?) It would be nice for the reception information to be better-organized, but it actually is present scattered throughout the article, so I'm not sure it fails the breadth criteria either. (I'm least certain about this one -- maybe it does need to get pulled out into its own section.) The single citation to PR Newswire looks fine to me as WP:ABOUTSELF since it's just supporting an award nomination. The International Business Times also looks fine to me because it's an interview with the producers being cited as such, though it could possibly be removed as part of making that section more concise. I removed the Daily Express citation since there was another source supporting that info. So I don't have concerns about the RS criteria. To my eye, the biggest problem is a tendency toward repetition and an unencyclopedic tone, but the prose is certainly grammatically correct and understandable by a broad audience. Overall, I am torn, but I don't quite lean toward a delist. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is uncited text throughout the article, and an orange "more citations needed" since 2015. The "Analysis" relies on block quotes, and should instead summarise the information in prose. The article uses citations from IMDB, and the Amazon citations should be evaluated for its inclusion. Z1720 (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is some text without citations, including entire paragraphs. These have been marked with "citation needed". The "Production" section is underdeveloped (currently one uncited sentence long). Z1720 (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word (table) was for some reason missing from the 'Production' section. I've added that reference; the table is as usual cited to FAOSTAT, this is the way for all agricultural produce articles, and in fact the folks who do these tables actually object to having the FAOSTAT table ref. repeated in the main text, presumably because it adds to the burden of maintenance: they update these tables annually in all the articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. There are several sources listed in "Further reading" and some sections that are only one paragraph long: this makes me think that the article might not cover all major aspects of the topic, but would appreciate if a subject-matter expert can comment on that concern. Z1720 (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple uncited sentences and paragraphs throughout the article. The climate table seems to cite sources from the early 1900s. Are there any current sources that can be used? Z1720 (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re the climate data: there was a weather station on the summit until 1904 and "The twenty years worth of readings still provide the most comprehensive set of data on mountain weather in Great Britain", to quote from the article. It would be more than could be expected to have comparable modern data. PamD18:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hike395: I have added cn tags. Some of the uncited information can probably be removed or the citation moved to the end of the sentence. Other information will need research to resolve. Z1720 (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead contains information that is not in the article body, which makes it very long for an article of this size. This information should be moved to the article body (and properly cited), and the lead should be a summary of the body's contents. There is also uncited text in the article, including an entire paragraph, a "citation needed" tag placed in 2014 that should be resolved, and "Illegal shots and fouls" has an external link in the text: is this a reliable source that can be used as an inline citation, or should it be removed? Z1720 (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this could be made viable, but I suspect I wouldn't have the time to do so. I don't really know much about this game. I'll take a look and see what small bits I can do without fully researching. Lee Vilenski17:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At over 13,000 words, it is recommended at WP:TOOBIG that the article length be reduced. Some of this material can be spun out (or removed because they have already been spun out) or reduced as too much detail. There are some sections that are too long: when trimming text, I recommend that each section have a maximum of four paragraphs. There are also some uncited sections, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Larger aircraft (prose) articles often have their operational history section split off in to another article. The 'Aircraft on display' section is another section that is often split off, it could be added to Concorde aircraft histories with that article being moved to Concorde histories and aircraft on display (or similar title). I can do both if there are no objections. Some of the engine section may be replicating Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593 and could be trimmed, as the 593 was the only engine type used by Concorde its article could contain airframe details (I think it already does). Nimbus(Cumulusnimbusfloats by)14:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's been a couple of days. I looked at the engine content and the 593 article, the text is different (not repetition), it focuses mostly on the airframe aspects and I think this section should be untouched. Will have a look at creating/splitting/merging, making sure to adhere to the attribution technicalities. Nimbus(Cumulusnimbusfloats by)12:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now been split, the current size is 93kb (from 230 kb) and 9,000 words (from 12,300). One section of five paragraphs was deleted bar one line as it duplicated information in the aircraft on display section and the BAC Concorde G-BBDG article.
Two tables now exist in Concorde histories and aircraft on display, one with images and one without, they could possibly be combined.
During the split of 'Operational history' an automated warning appeared stating that seven sources were self-published and/or vanity press and to confirm their use. I would imagine that a few remain as the cite errors (sources not moved) didn't appear in the list IIRC.
I hope that I got all the technicalities with attributions correct, I have raised a query at the help desk ref an old article ID not displaying as it should. Cheers. Nimbus(Cumulusnimbusfloats by)13:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of the current iteration of the article was as it was when the article was first accepted as a good article years ago. Much of the COI edits have been from vandals, and it's evident that the article has a major vandalism problem, the subject being a rather popular topic of discussion. I disagree with removing the GA label due to the edits of some bad-faith actors. HackerKnownAs (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While is this a good point, I would also like to express the concern over the fact that many of the citations make heavy references to one Kotaku article. Although I am repeating an concern already expressed in the above talk topic, I feel that it should be mentioned in this talk topic as well. Thought 1915 (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will note, as I did on the talk-page discussion linked, that the GA approval very probably should have never happened. The original COI discussion topic was never rectified and was randomly expunged from the talkpage before the article was assessed.[1] The individual who assessed the article as good only assessed one other article as good, and that article was deleted for large amounts of copyvio. It was an assessment provided by a new reviewer, after an IP editor randomly elevated the article to B Status[2] and expunged an entire talkpage discussion about COI editing. The one who reviewed the article has done little else Special:Contributions/SirGallantThe4th after the review, departed, and returned only to defend 15.ai from deletion[3] and then promptly returned to the ether. Again, there was considerable activity by individuals involved in the "Pony Preservation Project" to edit this article [4] including bragging about having their artwork featured on a wikipedia article [5] the same artwork that is presumably the logo that was copyvio'd off the wikimedia commons and which was improperly re-added to the article. There are blatant references on the PPP thread on the archive _which was included as a source_ on the article that show users suggesting fabricating sources and showing a coordinated effort to drive the direction of the article. Given the involvement of the PPP with 15.ai and the extensive editing done by members of the PPP, it is clear WP:COI. Given the circular nature of the sources (which were deemed reliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Reliable_sources, which is dubiously applicable to this article, as the article is tangentially related to video games) and the fact that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Reliable_sources says that editors should be cautious about blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance which the 15.ai article clearly is. If the Kotaku isn't reliable as "blog/geeky posts", that means every source that references the Kotaku article is likewise unreliable. Given that, the WP:NOTABILITY of the article itself is dubious. There are sources from Jan 2021 and then it only resurfaces in media covering a controversy of Voicesense, not articles about 15.ai itself. The problem with this article goes much deeper than some bad-faith actors who made random edits to the article over the years. Brocade River Poems (She/They)05:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RGA, there's no minimum experience requirement for GA reviewers – questioning an editor's review history isn't based on Wikipedia policy.
The COI claims don't meet WP:COI burden of evidence – community discussion on PPP forums doesn't constitute "direct financial or close personal relationships."
Per WP:VG/RS, gaming outlets like Kotaku are considered reliable for tech coverage. The article meets WP:GNG through significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Gaps in coverage don't invalidate WP:SUSTAINED once notability is established.
Removing talk page content followed WP:TPO guidelines for outdated discussions. If specific violations exist, they should be raised at WP:AN/I rather than used to challenge GA status.
Furthermore, the last time WP:NOTABILITY of the subject was questioned, it was unanimously agreed that it met notability. Per WP:NTEMP, the relevant quote is "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." HackerKnownAs (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RGA, there's no minimum experience requirement for GA reviewers – questioning an editor's review history isn't based on Wikipedia policy.
It is entirely relevant when the editor in question had little activity on Wikipedia, reviewed two articles and two articles alone, and flagged them both as good when both articles had issues that should have failed them. Very specifically, this article failed GA Criteria for reliable sourcing when it was reviewed because it used WeGotThisCovered as a source [6]which has been an unreliable source on Wikipedia since 2020WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED as well as using The Batch, which during the draft process was said to be an unreliable source.
The COI claims don't meet WP:COI burden of evidence – community discussion on PPP forums doesn't constitute "direct financial or close personal relationships."
The COI claims that were first brought against yourself, PortalFan22, and GregariousMadness Talk:15.ai#COI were never adequately addressed and were perfectly relevant. Moreover, the discussion was wrongfully expunged by IP Editor vandalismSpecial:Diff/1090463388. When the project you are writing about contains the notation Special shoutouts go to 4chan's /mlp/ and its anons who have spent hundreds of hours collecting, cleaning, and organizing clips of dialogue taken from the show My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. Their collective efforts as well as their constructive criticism via thorough tests of experimental model versions have proven to be extremely helpful and ultimately indispensable to the development of my work and when the PPP cites 15.ai's code of conduct as their own code of conduct, yes, participating in off-wiki discussions about editing an article about something they are heavily involved in the development of constitutes a WP:COI. When material goods, such as artwork and logos, are being provided to 15.ai by PPP, that is a clear relationship. When PPP is directing individuals to edit the article to include information about PPP that is a clear and blatant conflict of interest.
Per WP:VG/RS, gaming outlets like Kotaku are considered reliable for tech coverage.
Per WP:VG/RS, News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable, although editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance. The Kotaku Article is filed under Odds and Ends[7], not News. The article is not tagged as News. It is not a news post.
The article meets WP:GNG through significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Gaps in coverage don't invalidate WP:SUSTAINED once notability is established.
Furthermore, the last time WP:NOTABILITY of the subject was questioned, it was unanimously agreed that it met notability.
Notability isn't established. The coverage is trivial, and the previous AfD on this article was interfered with by blatant WP:SPA accounts that accounted for 4 Keep votes[8][9][10][11], and the AfD was specifically closed with the message Although not unanimous. The article plainly fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSUSTAINED which says Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. The Eurogamer coverage isn't about 15.ai, the 2022 converage is solely about the Voiceverse controversy and stolen content from 15.ai, it is not sufficient to establish notability for 15.ai.
I find it odd that you consider an IP Editor who did nothing but vandalize Wikipedia pages aside from increasing this article to B Status and expunging a thread about WP:COI editing to have followed WP:TPO guidelines. In fact, WP:TPO explicitly states: The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission. The only exception given for deleting talk page content is Delete. It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above), and comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself (as opposed to comments and discussion about the treatment of the subject in the article).
Nothing in WP:TPO allows for the wholesale deletion of a valid concern of WP:COI just because 3 months had transpired since the issue was brought up. Archival exists for a reason. Closing discussions exists for a reason. It is wholly inappropriate to delete and expunge the COI topic. Brocade River Poems (She/They)12:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, the suggestion that 15.ai does not meet notability is dumbfounding. It pioneered accessible neural voice synthesis, was widely covered in tech media, and influenced numerous subsequent AI voice projects. I would not be exaggerating when I say its advent was one of the biggest news in the AI space in 2020 and 2021. Whether or not you agree with how the GA review was conducted, the project’s significance in AI development is well-documented and indisputable. The coverage is certainly not trivial, and the attempt to downplay it by cherry-picking coverage gaps or questioning the reliability of established tech journalism (and patently ignoring the sources that *are* reliable) does not seem motivated by Wikipedia policy.
With all due respect, your continued penchant of vanishing from Wikipedia and returning only for championing the existence of this article is highly unusual.
I would not be exaggerating when I say its advent was one of the biggest news in the AI space in 2020 and 2021the project’s significance in AI development is well-documented and indisputable
These are not only wholly uncited and unsubstantiated claims, but claims which would indicate you have some sort of interest in this project and, again, should have never been involved in assessing the article in the first place. I am not going to repeat my points about why much of the sourcing is unreliable. If there is such wide, well-documented, and indisputable source coverage, where is it? Why is none of it represented in the article? Why is it that the only sources used were WP:SPS and unreliable sources?
The coverage is certainly not trivial, and the attempt to downplay it by cherry-picking coverage gaps or questioning the reliability of established tech journalism (and patently ignoring the sources that *are* reliable) does not seem motivated by Wikipedia policy.
It's not "cherry-picking" to state the plain fact that the sources used are not reliable for the purposes they are being used for. Kotaku's Odds and Ends culture section is not News. Kotaku is deemed reliable for News Posts during this time period. Articles which circularly refer to Kotaku's Odds and Ends piece within the same week as the Kotaku article does not represent WP:SIGCOV. Brocade River Poems (She/They)23:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What a concerning post. It’s extremely strange that my editing patterns are being used to cast suspicion on the subject’s notability and its GA status. As someone who works in AI, I naturally took interest in reviewing the 15.ai article given its significance in voice synthesis - in its heyday, it was literally the biggest thing in the voice AI space. The implication that my “return” to defend it from deletion was suspicious ignores the simple fact that many editors follow topics they find an interest in, and the fact that one can stay logged into my account without wanting to contribute to Wikipedia.
I suggest stepping back and seeing how presumptuous (and frankly alienating) your comments are. You’ve crafted an elaborate theory about coordinated editing and suspicious motives based solely on contribution patterns. Not every editor needs to be constantly active to make valid contributions, and returning to defend an article I reviewed from deletion is perfectly natural. Occam’s Razor applies here, and I hope anyone else who reads this can see it for themselves as well.
There appears to be coordinated disruptive editing going on. While the 15.ai article has experienced vandalism before, the current situation is unprecedented. The above editor's removal of well-sourced content followed by claims of insufficient citations is particularly concerning. That a non-neutral paragraph that blatantly violated WP:YESPOV (which I reverted recently) was "approved at DRN" is also strongly questionable, especially given the unusual spike in DRN activity as well.
I plan to restore the article next week in accordance with WP:BRD, and I hope other long-term editors familiar with the article's development can assist (including yourself). Per WP:ATD, I don't believe GA status should be removed until we've made a good-faith effort to address any legitimate concerns through collaborative editing. The current issues, while worth discussing, can be resolved through normal Wikipedia processes rather than immediately reverting to non-GA status. HackerKnownAs (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest stepping back and seeing how presumptuous (and frankly alienating) your comments are.
There is broad evidence of off-Wiki coordination to edit the article, coupled with the emergence of clear WP:SPA activity and manipulation in both the AfD and the editing of the article. It is not, frankly, presumptuous or absurd to suspect something is suspicious about an editor who erroneously assesses 2 articles as good, one of which is full of copyvio, and then disappears for an extended amount of time and returns only to defend this article. Brocade River Poems (She/They)23:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve said multiple times that you have evidence of off-wiki coordination to edit the article, and yet you haven’t posted solid evidence at all. I wasn’t aware of any forum before I came across this article while surfing through random AI related articles two years ago, so how does that make my involvement with the article a coordinated affair? The burden of proof lies with the editor making serious accusations, and forum discussions and editing patterns alone don’t constitute evidence whatsoever. If you have actual evidence of coordination, please post them instead of throwing unfounded accusations at editors who just want to help.
It would be bludgeoning and belaboring the point to reiterate, again, the issues I already pointed to in the talk-page discussion and above, if you are not inclined to read what is already provided, I cannot help you. Whether you yourself were involved in the coordination is immaterial, my point is that because there was demonstrable coordination it is not unreasonable to view your assesment, disappearance, and return solely to defend the article, subsequent re-disappearance, and subsequent re-return to defend the article, with suspicion given the fact that the AfD was manipulated. I have levied no specific accusation against you beyond the fact that your assesment was improper, that your only other assesment was deleted for copyvio, that you were an inexperienced editor, and that you did little else after the review was done. All of these statements are easily verifiable. After your approval of 15.ai you made 9 Talk Page Edits, 7 Edits flagged as minor, and 8 Mainspace edits and then you disappeared. If you feel particularly aggreived at my characterization of your activity as "little" prior to reviewing the articles, I quite specifically mean that within your first 25 edits on Wikipedia you assessed an article now deleted for copyvio as good and then assessed an article that utilized a source deemed unreliable since 2020 and sources deemed unreliable when the article was a draft as good. That isn't a whole lot of activity and represents a lack of experience. Your improper assesment of the article as Good was also used at the AfD with the discussion being relisted by an admin who commented I'm very reluctant to delete an article that is a current GA. Brocade River Poems (She/They)12:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out that I haven’t done “little else” on Wikipedia, I was responsible for creating the Berlin draw section in the Berlin Defence article, which has since been heavily cited numerous times in Chess.com articles, Youtube videos, and other places on the Internet. It’s not fair to pass judgment for not being active on Wikipedia when I prefer to edit articles where I’m familiar with the subject rather than editing as many articles as possible to pump my contributions number up.
If you want more volunteers to help improve Wikipedia, I suggest not scrutinizing casual editors. I’m honestly a bit offended that I somehow have less credibility just because I don’t edit articles frequently.
I was responsible for creating the Berlin draw section in the Berlin Defence article
Which you did before the assesment. My statement, which you are apparently misunderstanding, was The one who reviewed the article has done little else...after the review. Which is to say, you made few edits after you assesed the article and then you left for 6 months and returned only for the AfD and then departed again. Brocade River Poems (She/They)12:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn’t aware editors were required to edit Wikipedia 24/7 to have their past contributions count. It doesn’t look like it from reading WP:VOLUNTEER. Apologies for having a life outside Wikipedia. I’ll try to do better.
Ignoring the maelstrom above, much of which seems to have little to do with the GA criteria (notability concerns should be taken to WP:AFD, conduct concerns to WP:ANI, COI concerns to WP:COIN), the point of relevant contention seems to be whether the article is overdependent on a Kotaku source? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main point of contention for the Good Article Criteria is reliability of sources and breadth of coverage. The Kotaku used isn't from the part of Kotaku that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Reliable_sources clarifies is generally reliable. The Kotaku used comes from Kotaku's "Odds and Ends" section, with VGRSN noting that caution should be applied to Kotaku's geeky/blog content, and all of the coverage of 15.ai comes either the same way of the Kotaku article, almost always referncing the Kotaku Article, or comes a year later with trivial mentions of 15.ai while covering the Voiceuniverse plagarism controversy. Prior to my excising them, the article relied heavily on WP:SPS and stuff posted on Gwern and other personal blogs. Gwern, notably, describes itself as The goal of these pages is not to be a model of concision, maximizing entertainment value per word, or to preach to a choir by elegantly repeating a conclusion. Rather, I am attempting to explain things to my future self, who is intelligent and interested, but has forgotten as well as fansites such as "Equestria Daily", which have been previously noted at WP:RSN to generally be reliable when dealing with interviews of the cast/crew of My Little Pony or official coverage from Hasbro only Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_100#Two_My_Little_Pony:_Frienship_is_Magic_sources.
In terms of "Broad Coverage", it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail, the article does not seem to stay focused on 15.ai and a number of the sources used and a great deal of the content is simply about the underlying technology and a scandal.
The neutrality of the article is also up for debate as the "Reception" section includes only positive mentions and sources misrepresented to praise 15.ai specifically. For instance, Rock, Paper, Shotgun that is cited says Machine learning is absolutely fascinating and yet I mostly just enjoy when people use impressive tech to create weird skits and memes, the article currently represents this statement in the reception section as Lauren Morton of Rock, Paper, Shotgun and Natalie Clayton of PCGamer called it "fascinating,". Similarly, the PCGamer piece actually reads Spotted by Kotaku over the weekend, 15.ai is a deep-learning text-to-speech tool trained on a library of audio clips for dozens of characters. It's all very fascinating to read about These quotes have been misconstrued into being glowing reviews of 15.ai itself when the articles are simply saying that the underlying technology is fascinating or fascinating to read about. Brocade River Poems (She/They)01:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of uncited text, including entire sections. The article relies on a lot of large block quotes: these should be summarised and reduced when able. Z1720 (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can take a look at some of this. I agree that block-quoting the reactions and background material doesn't work. However, I don't see a problem with quoting significantly from the opinion itself. It's an effective summary of a public domain text where the specific language is important. Paraphrasing it risks making the document less useful and potentially less accurate. lethargilistic (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please make sure that you follow MOS:Law when evaluating this GA article. As to other comments, the block quotes are limited and appropriate when discussing this legal issue. GregJackPBoomer!04:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a GA by current standards, in my opinion. For one, it cites few reliable sources and instead relies mostly on the text of the decision itself. For another, it's rather poorly written and formatted. White Whirlwind 12:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, quoting large sections introduces legalise into the article, making it harder for the reader to understand the arguments. If the reader wanted to read the decision, they would have looked up the original text. As an encyclopedia, we are supposed to be a tertiary source and provide summaries of the decision: if this was a fiction article writing a plot section, I would encourage editors to remove quotes from the piece of fiction and instead summarise the plot. The lack of citations in other sections, including the entire "Legal background" section, has not been addressed yet. Also, the "Media response" section puts a lot of weight on the opinions of three sources, while the subsequent paragraph mentions sources that are only used to state that they reported on the case, without using those sources as inline citations for the information in the article. I suggest that this section be formatted more like the suggestions in WP:RECEPTION: while it is an essay for how to format reception sections for media, it would be helpful for organising and summarising the information in that area more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720:. This isn't a piece of fiction, it's an article on a landmark legal decision by the US Supreme Court. It is completely appropriate to quote a few sentences to show the legal principle decided, especially when you consider the length of the opinion, including any concurrences or dissents. GregJackPBoomer!04:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GregJackP: It is appropriate to use some quotes from the case, but I think the article relies on quotes too much, as much of the prose is quotes, especially in the "Majority opinion" and "Sotomayor's dissent" sections. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: - You stated that much of the prose is quotes, which is not true. There are just under 6200 words of text in the article, of which only 232 words are in the block quotes, a mere 3.7% of the total. The vast majority of the article is prose. In comparison, in a featured article on a court opinion (United States v. Washington), block quotes make up 3.3% of the total. GregJackPBoomer!23:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@White whirlwind: Please refer to MOS:Law, which states that for articles on legal opinions can use both primary and secondary sources. Both are reliable sources, and your objection seems to be that their are not sufficient secondary sources. Just under half of the references are reliable secondary sources (20 of 41), and the others are all reliable primary sources (21 of 41). The formatting follows U.S. Supreme Court Style Guide, and is written in the same style as other featured and good articles on SCOTUS cases. I'll defer to others on whether it is poorly written or not. GregJackPBoomer!04:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. Like all niche policies, MOS:LAW is inferior and subservient to general policies such as WP:NOR. NOR specifies that articles should be "based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on ... primary sources." White Whirlwind 13:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citing the document as a primary source in the article about that document to make straightforward statements about its content is not OR. WP:NOR says "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, ...an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." When WP:NOR says the article ought to rely "to a lesser extent" on primary sources, that means at least half of the references should be to secondary sources (minimum, of course, and I'm aware that that's an essay). In context, that is an expression that the article needs to "establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." (The latter is operative now, obviously.) In this article, the opinion is being cited for its contents and nothing more. Per WP:NOR, where there is no neutrality issue like undue weight, "a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents." The article needs at least one more secondary source to get over the minimum by Greg's count, but it's otherwise fine on this point. lethargilistic (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say using a primary source was OR; I said only that NOR requires articles to be based primarily on secondary sources. Moreover, whether it is "straightforward" to summarize a case using itself as a primary source is still up for debate on this site. I have always been on the "no" side of that argument. There are many benefits when editors follow secondary sources' description of cases instead of trying to summarize cases directly: It avoids problems of WP:WEIGHT, it avoids the wide discrepancies in editors' legal training and understanding, and so forth. White Whirlwind 18:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GregJackP: NOR is a policy and MOS:LAW is a guideline. WP:PG states, "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards all users should normally follow" while "Guidelines are sets of best practices supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Policy is seen on Wikipedia as superior to guidelines and should be followed except under exceptional circumstances. Z1720 (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: - I'm aware of the difference between the two, White whirlwind (talk·contribs) made a statement that asserted that MOS:Law was inferior to WP:NOR, and I'm asking for a cite to a reference that categorically states what he asserted. What you stated here doesn't do that. Neither does WP:NOR really apply to this article, and the sentence he quoted is akin to dicta instead of being on point for the policy he is citing. As lethargilistic (talk·contribs) pointed out, all the article needs is one additional secondary source to be primarily based on secondary sources. GregJackPBoomer!23:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The categorical fact follows eo ipso from the distinction Z1720 mentioned; WP:NOR is part of the Five Pillars, but the MOS and its subvariants are not. Why any experienced editor would need a cite for that is beyond me. To your second point, I have no idea whether the article currently contains any original research. That is irrelevant here, because neither I nor anyone else (if I understand them correctly) has claimed it does. The provisions of WP:NOR apply to every article on Wikipedia whether they contain original research or not, just like WP:NPOV and the other fundamental policies always apply. Returning to the issue at hand, in its present state this article does not rely on primary sources only "to a lesser extent". That contravenes NOR, and it should be fixed before we allow the article to retain its GA imprimatur. White Whirlwind 14:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think NOR and MOS/Law are that much in tension, myself. In any case, you said this issue of whether or not a description of a opinion can be primarily cited to the case itself is unsettled and that you have always come down on "No." You have also said that nobody is alleging the article has a problem with original research. I don't see any concrete neutrality/viewpoint problems here, and the subject is indisputably notable, so I think the question is moot because the problem that NOR is trying to address is addressed. So, I don't see why your particular, strong interpretation of this question should control right now, tbh. Like, fine, write articles from scratch with this restriction; I certainly won't stop you. What does this really have to do with Berghuis, an article that only I have been working on in the last week? I reassert that the amount of quotations in the case summary is fine, but I haven't copyedited that section yet. I'm going one or two paragraphs per session. lethargilistic (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying this article must have no cites to the case — although that would be my goal if I were working on it myself. I'm saying it must rely on primary (and tertiary) sources only "to a lesser extent", as WP:NOR prescribes. It doesn't, in its current state. The article relies extensively on the case as a primary source, particularly in the section "The Court's decision". That's the main problem that prevents me from calling it a GA, as I said in my initial comment. White Whirlwind 15:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't care about the style guide and the guidelines? Are you claiming that a single sentence in WP:NOR, having nothing to do with the policy's focus on original research, trumps the consensus of MOS:LAW? Sorry, I don't buy that approach. GregJackPBoomer!23:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has many uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There is an empty "Legacy" section with an orange banner in it since July 2024. Z1720 (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Z1720, I'll be looking after this; plan is to resolve the immediate issues that have crept in since the original GA nom (which I followed at the time), bring the referencing format current to 2024 fashions ;) — and will ping you for a further look once those relatively easy parts are done. Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At over 12,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends that the article be trimmed and information spun off, and I think that should happen with this article. There are also some unsourced statements, and sources in the "Further reading" section that could be incorporated into the article or removed, but these are minor compared to the length concerns. Z1720 (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 I would not mind contributing if there is a consensus of what to do. I think moving all awards and similar to the specific article is a good idea. A history article seems like a decent idea Imho. A legacy or influence article I could also see being a good idea.★Trekker (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t have as much time for Wikipedia anymore, but just my two cents since I was very involved in getting this article to GA status the first time around and contributing many sub-articles and content:
Is there a precedent for spinning off history articles for music groups? Just trying to find a good example.
A lot of the 2007-present history suffers from recentism and can be truncated and/or moved to other articles like tour & album articles. Sadly, a lot of the tour articles were deleted due to notability disputes and mostly lack of sourcing…this is a whole other issue that needs to be addressed, but it kinda ties in with the main article. Since 2007, the band only released 1 album and the Guitar Hero video game. There was also some band conflict w/ Steven Tyler in 2009-10, the Joey Kramer drama circa 2019-20, several tours, solo endeavors, the Vegas residency, and the scuttled farewell tour. Content should mostly focus on those things, but there’s a lot of fluff that can be pared down.
Definitely agree a lot of the awards narrative could be moved over to the Awards article. I actually thought the mindset on GA the first time around was to have more of these narrative sections in the main article, instead of just links to sub-articles, but I guess that’s changed.
Agree on Legacy & Influence sub-article. See above.
Yes, there is precedent for spinning off history articles. Beatlemania and The Beatles on The Ed Sullivan Show are good examples: events from the history of the band can be spun off if there is enough coverage of the event to warrant an article. Considering the length of the article, this should be considered. Z1720 (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. I thought others were suggesting a “History of Aerosmith” article or something to that effect, which I haven’t yet seen with other bands. Definitely makes sense to spin off detailed content into sub-articles. In Aerosmith’s case, I think siphoning off details into the album and tour articles make the most sense. Abog (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has an orange "additional citations needed" in the "Production logo" section from 2023 which needs to be resolved. It is over 11,000 words, which WP:TOOBIG states should probably be reduced. There are also a couple of uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was 11705 words as of October 5, the last edit before I became involved, and now is 11470 words. I'll see what else I can weed, but this is a studio where even the unproductive eras are the sole focus of multiplebooks. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanimum: This article might be a good candidate to WP:SPINOUT sections of its history. This has already started with Disney Renaissance. After spinning out these sections, this article can give an overview of that time period (I recommend 4 paragraphs max per spun-out article) to reduce the word count. If readers are interested in finding out more information, they can go to the relevant article. Z1720 (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I count 28 citation needed tags, some of which span entire paragraphs. True, the article is large, but I still think that's probably too many to ignore. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just like the Texas herself, I believe that it's time to bring this neglected 17 year-old GA to dry dock for repairs. There are several issues (article version):
1b. The service history section is well-organized, but the museum section has several sub-sections with three short paragraphs mixed in with much longer sub-sections. Both could also use years in parentheticals in the subheadings.
2b. Some claims are cited to unreliable sources, such as YouTube videos (e.g., ref 71). There's also a valid {{failed verification}} tag from Nov. 2012 and three valid citation needed tags (oldest Jan. 2023). Additionally, all but one of the nine footnotes (ref group A) lack inline citations.
2c. There are at least 18 portions of text that solely cite primary sources (see all 18 references tagged with {{third-party inline}} as of Sept. 2012)
3a. The article lacks relevant detail in that the 2022 dry docking section hasn't been updated since April 2024.
3b. The article goes into unnecessary detail in that it relies on primary sources.
As I wasn't involved in the Coord discussion, I don't think there's any conflict of interest, so granted. Unless I'm just blind, there's no place to amend this on the template itself, but it should be considered on hold pending the A-Class work. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum18:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nolli's book (Noli, Fan Stilian (1947), George Castroiti Scanderbeg (1405–1468)) – does not provide sources for the information provided in the entry.
Schmaus (Schmaus, Alois (1969), Beiträge zur Kenntnis Südosteuropas und des Nahen Orients, vol. 8, Trofenik) is cited as the author of the periodical, but the title of his article in Beiträge zur Kenntnis Südosteuropas is missing.
Franco, Demetrio (1539), Commentary on the cose of Turchi, et del S. Georgio Scanderbeg, principe d' Epyr (the publication from 1539 has an ISBN number? How could the author use the publication from 1539?)
We do not understand why the author, who declares knowledge of Albanian, did not publish the article in the Albanian language version of Wikipedia?
The discussants drew attention to the title of the article: in publications this era of fighting is called an uprising, and the actions of the sultan are called retaliation. We assess that the article Pierwsza kampania Mehmeda II w Albanii cannot be recognized on pl:wiki as GA, and we have grounds to believe that the article Mehmed II's Albanian campaign probably is a hoax.
I agree with Setergh's assessment of C class due to referencing and citation problems. I also find the content suspicious. Other articles not by the same user do not mention campaigns involving the Albanians and Ottomans at the same time. Mehmed was concertrating on taking Constantinople during the same time period as the events in the article. The reviewers who looked at this could not find information in the article in some of the cited sources. Further research might show this is a hoax. A successful hoax along these lines would include real historical persons doing things they might have done along the lines of actual verified actions at other times in other contexts. I am not quite prepared to say this is a hoax article but it is certainly questionable. It should be downgraded for a start. Donner60 (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was invited to have a look at the MILHIST talk page. Right off the bat, I am surprised that the go-to resource on Mehmed's reign, Franz Babinger's Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, or Setton's monumental and indispensable The Papacy and the Levant, were not used. Mehmed's preoccupation in the spring and summer 1452 is known to have been the construction of Rumeli Hisar in preparation for the siege of Constantinople, and the article itself makes clear that he did not lead the campaign; so the title of the article at least incorrect. Schmaus' contribution is, I assume this dedicated volume, so it is slightly mis-cited. I can also detect at least one error of fact: Skanderbeg's primary reason for allying with Alfonso was his fear of 21-year-old Mehmed II is untrue, since Mehmed was considered widely a non-entity at the time, a youth stepping into shoes too big for him to fill; Skanderbeg was motivated by the Ottoman threat, but also by internal rivalries. I had a look at the EI2 article, where the events of 1452 are not mentioned, and the İslâm Ansiklopedisiarticle on Skanderbeg, where it at least confirms that "The young sultan contented himself with sending forces against Skanderbeg in the first years of his reign and tried to keep him under pressure. It is known that during the siege of Istanbul, a unit under the command of Ibrahim Bey moved against the Albanian-Neapolitan forces, but was unsuccessful." However this only explicitly confirms Battle of Polog. In short, I would like more easily accessible (and of higher scholarly caliber) sources for verifiability, but fundamentally, assuming good faith, and given that the events in Albania prior to Mehmed's active involvement there are not well covered by Western historians (cf. Babinger or Setton), I would assume that the events recounted are factual. As such I don't think this is a hoax, but it does warrant improvements in sourcing, especially as Skanderbeg's life is heavily mythologized. Constantine ✍ 09:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I may be able to get my hands on a copy of Schmaus within the next couple of weeks from the university library, will then definitely revisit the article then. Constantine ✍ 15:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are uncited sections, particularily about the production's history during COVID-19 restrictions. The "Movie" section has large blockquotes which should be summarised instead due to copyright concerns. The article also has over 10,000 words of prose, which WP:TOOBIG states should probably be spun-out or reduced. BroadwayWorld is used as a citation numerous times, which WP:RS/P states is an unreliable source. Z1720 (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Wicked needs a lot of clean-up, and streamlining, but, as I pointed out to Z1720 elsewhere, while WP:RS/P states that BroadwayWorld is not a reliable source "for biographies of living persons", it is a standard source for use in musicals for basic production information like production dates and casts (though Playbill, IBDB, etc. would be preferred). -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above and, looking at the article might I suggest to remove from the cast list the "second US tour" and "second UK tour" casts columns? Although I know it's important to know all casts of Wicked, it has now been 20 years of this production, so removing these columns might leave space for productions where Wicked has never been staged, for example? Musicalge3k5 (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cast tables should contain only the original production and long-running, major market productions. The Productions section should name the stars and notable players in all the noteworthy productions (subject to WP:DUE). Alternatively, we could use the more efficient cast table method used in Carousel, a featured article. In any case, every person named in the cast table should first be named in the Productions section together with a WP:RS verifying that the person actually played the role. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to help more, if I can. I am a big Wicked fan, so anything to share with others. :) Is there anything specific I should be working on? Musicalge3k5 (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Musicalge: you can go through it and make sure that all the assertions are cited, and that any text that does not belong in an encyclopedia is trimmed. Wicked is not a priority of my own; I am just watching it to make sure that people do not add even more fancruft to this very crufty article. In the productions section, all the major, long-running productions should name the director, choreographer, principal cast, notable designers, opening and closing dates, all with appropriate references, and if there was something special about the production that the reviews mentioned, describe it, citing those reviews. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi there, I made quite a bit of changes here and there on the article. Happy to keep going though, are there any sections in particular that need looking at? :) Musicalge3k5 (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Los Angeles, Melbourne and Mexico City should also come out of the casts table, as long as the notable players are named in the productions section, with appropriate refs. User:Z1720, what else do you think needs to be done? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has had an orange "relies on primary sources" banner at the top of the article since October 2023. Upon looking at the inline citations, I agree with that assessment. This would require a subject-matter expert to look through the citations to see what should be replaced with a more recent source. Z1720 (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The scholarly literature on the Greco-Persian wars is vast -- there's no excuse to be using primary sources here, and the sourcing for the article in general is well below what I'd expect of a GA. The modern sources cited are nearly all either non-scholarly, outdated, generally tangential to the field or from people whose scholarly standing is controversial. Fixing this would need a full rewrite, so I would advise a delist if nobody is willing to do that. UndercoverClassicist20:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Overuse of primary sources; secondary sources used are plainly insufficient. It's been well known that the ancient sources' description of the battle are not consistent and do not lend themselves to recognisable (today) topographic features. This is not a problem anymore, however, because we now have aerial ground penetrating radar. Jones (2020) p 196 The [battle] is particularly difficult to reconstruct using only literature from ancient sources... Modern historians [list of 10 names], many of whom visited the battlefield north of Erythres/Kriekouki, were unable to agree on the events and locations of the Battle of Plataea. There are too many complications due to lost topographical markers and reliance on ancient sources [list of 6] to identify locations from accounts of the battle. See also Konechny (2022) for detailed reconstruction. Ifly6 (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for volunteering to take this up. I want to ask, however, whether any rewrite is (for lack of a better term) happening. Ifly6 (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm working on 2 other GA rewrites so the timeline will be delayed quite a bit, but the rewrite is on. I've done the biblio formatting, I expect to complete the rewrite in 30-40 days instead of the 20 estimated above. I hope that is ok, @Ifly6? Matarisvan (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
mention me on reply) Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 23:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
