User scripts for GAR:

• Opening: GAR-helper
• Closing: GANReviewTool

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.

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.

Reassessment process

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

Closing a reassessment

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

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

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.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79

Good article reassessment Talk notices given view edit
Ben Nevis 2024-06-08 Leeds Country Way 2024-06-27 Ottawa Senators (original) 2024-08-05 Louvre 2024-08-11 Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States 2024-08-11 Joan Crawford 2024-08-19 Pest control 2024-08-22
Find more: 2023 GA Sweeps Project

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.

• 01:11:44, 18/07/2024: Stonyhurst College
  

• 06:13:05, 05/08/2024: Muammar Gaddafi
  

• 02:05:47, 25/08/2024: HL Anyang
  

• 20:04:46, 02/09/2024: Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time
  

• 00:26:04, 03/09/2024: My Opposition
  
• 19:01:01, 05/09/2024: Current date for reference

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

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

Result pending

Very little post-2008 information, even though the player retired in 2017. Some uncited text. Z1720 (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Uncited statements throughout the article, particularly in the "Reserves team" and "Uniforms" sections. There are also lots of short, one-or-two paragraphs that should be merged together. Z1720 (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Lots of uncited statements throughout the article, and a large block quote in "Auburn: The only points scored" that I think should be reduced. Z1720 (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Article has several citation needed tags dating back to October 2015 and March 2016, and September 2019. A section that is totally unsourced. Clarification tag dating back to September 2019 and August 2024. Broken reference name issue. Needs someone familiar with the subject and sources to address these issues for a continued GA status. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. There are also sources listed in the "Bibliography" that are not used as inline citations: these should be used as inline citations or removed. Z1720 (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am willing to work on the article. It's a good 20 years old so a review is fine. I've put the unused sources into the 'Further reading' section. If you have particular cite concerns, please mark them with the 'citation needed' template. That would be helpful. Alaney2k (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

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

Result pending

This article is missing post-2014 information. The article also has some uncited text. Z1720 (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Several citation needed tags, and shouldn't there be a History section? Hmm, doesn't seem up to par, unfortunately. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think when the article was first promoted, the restaurant was so new that a History section would be too short. Now that the restaurant is over 10 years old, a History section should probably be there. Z1720 (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me see what I can do. (CC) Tbhotch 00:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Z1720: I added more information and cited most of the unsourced text, which was formerly attributed to deprecated sources. (CC) Tbhotch 08:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If Z1720's concerns are addressed, I'd support keeping GA status. Tbhotch has made improvements to the article and I think any remaining issues can be addressed over time and via the talk page. Delisting does not seem necessary. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

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

Result pending

This article contains uncited statements throughout the article, including the entire "Aftermath" section. Z1720 (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

There are several "reliance on primary sources" orange banners that need to be addressed. There are uncited statements throughout the article, MOS:OVERSECTION concerns, and I think the "Incidents and accidents" section can be incorporated into the article's history or removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

buidhe added the {{GAR request}} tag in May, adding the rationale "Article cites sources from the 19th century, and the ref format has grown inconsistent since promotion more than a decade ago. Also, per above, the siege is only a small portion of the article text. The 2019 book specifically about the siege, which should be accessible to TWL users, could be helpful on expanding the content about the article topic." below. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AirshipJungleman29, I'm willing to work on this. What would your expected timeline be? I think 30-40 days will be ok here, wdyt? Matarisvan (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

The article, in its current state, does not meet the GA criteria for several reasons: 1) it contains several cleanup tags (Third-party inline and citation needed), 2) it does not comply with MOS:LEDE (it does not summarize the article, it's too long, and is mostly filled with recent events) 3) it contains unreliable and many primary sources (the party itself, Twitter, etc.) 4) possible copyvio per Earwig, mostly due to primary sources 5) contains unsourced statements (whether in the infobox, the State and local parties section, or single sentences) 6) contains unnecessary images in the Presidential tickets section (per MOS:SECTIONLOC) Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

A 2008 GA no longer up to standard. Lots of unsourced content (almost entire writing section) and the article also seems incomplete (i.e. a complete lack of the film's influence and legacy) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 02:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist: Same concerns as above in addition to the prose. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist: Unfortunately, same concerns as above. WP:OR has creeped in over the past 16 years since the article hasn't been properly maintained. Mike Allen 21:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

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

Result pending

There are multiple uncited statements throughout the article. Lots of one-sentence paragraphs should be merged together. External links are used in the article prose and should be removed. Z1720 (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

This article contains numerous uncited statements including entire paragraphs. The article also suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION that makes the article appear more like a list. Z1720 (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

There is a "more sources needed" orange banner at the top of the "History" section since 2020 and a few uncited statements and paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

This article has uncited text, including entire paragraphs. The article's history ends at 2001: are there any recent usages of the coat of arms? Z1720 (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

The article contains uncited statements, including entire sections. The article also has MOS:OVERSECTION and some of these short, one-paragraph sections could be merged together. Z1720 (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a start on reducing the number of sections, covering the Tinsley area and the Rotherham area. I'll do some more later today, and then look at the referencing. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The work to reduce the number of sections is now completed. I have added a few more refs, but will see what else I can find. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a number of refs to cover the bits that did not have refs previously. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

There is uncited text, including entire paragraphs. The "Maintenance" section is quite short and could be expanded. Z1720 (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am the editor who did the initial GA Review back in 2017. I am swamped with real life at the moment and simply cannot work on any issues of this truly massive article but have a few thoughts on this GAR:

• I skimmed the article and counted 3 paragraphs that contained no citations, so there is some uncited content.
• And yes the Maintenance section is quite short and is also unreferenced.
• The main issue I see with this present version is that many instances of referenced content haven't been updated since 2017, so the content is woefully out of date.

Shearonink (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are also uncited statements at the end of paragraphs. I use User:Phlsph7/HighlightUnreferencedPassages to show what is uncited in an article. Z1720 (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, that's a tool I am not familiar with- thanks. I guess I'm thinking the uncited sentences/paragraphs could possibly just be excised without any major loss to the main content. The fact that so much of the information is frozen in time and is out of date by at least 7 years...*that* to me is a bigger problem. I'm surprised folks from WP:WikiProject Aviation or WP:WikiProject Aircraft haven't weighed-in or volunteered. I mean, really, this article is not in an area of my expertise or interests...I'm just the editor who reviewed it. Maybe things are slow because it's Labor Day weekend in the States? - Shearonink (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

This 2008 promotion contains significant amounts of unsourced content. It is also largely sourced to various sales sites, which has led to a lot of undue detail about individual products. Hog Farm _Talk 01:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It strikes me that the article has gotten rather bloated. As a long-time Cubs fan, I would say most of it is accurate, but it seems like way too much info for a general encyclopedia. Looking back at the very first version of the article, that pretty well covered it, although some subsequent info about the history of it also seems appropriate. Once 2016 rolled around, there was probably a lot of additional hype which resulted in the bloating. Spam on where to get this paraphenalia, aside from maybe the Cubs official site, seems unnecessary. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

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

Result pending

Lots of uncited text, including entire paragraphs. There are also sources listed in "Further reading" which might be considered for inclusion as inline citations. Z1720 (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

There is a lot of uncited text in the "Legacy" section, and some uncited text in other parts of the article. The "Gameplay" section has subjective statements that are quoted to the game itself, such as "The Adventure of Link has a more complex combat system than its predecessor" and "This mode has most of the action and danger." Z1720 (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Per nominator. Also, most GA articles nowadays cite third-party sources in the Gameplay section. There are also some questionable sources used in the article (Tumblr, Video Games Blogger, Spong). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

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

Result pending

It may be outdated from when it achieved good article status in 2009. Contains a number of uncited statements plus as a good article biography would need an image of the subject. LibStar (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

This article contains multiple unsourced statements, including entire paragraphs. It also does not contain much information from 2012-present. Z1720 (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I accept these shortcomings but find that overall the article still presents an informative, well-illustrated overview of the history of Danish architecture, Further to the discussions on my talk page, in collaboration with Ramblersen2 I will try to add missing in-line references and update the section on "Contemporary period".--Ipigott (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Z1720: I think we have completed work on updating this article and adding in-line references throughout. I am not too sure of the reassessment process but if you are happy with the present quality of the article, perhaps you can withdraw your request. Otherwise we'll just have to wait for wider approval.--Ipigott (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ipigott: This article needs a copyedit. Upon a quick skim, I found numerous grammatical mistakes, particularly with full stops used in the middle of lists instead of commas. Can someone do a complete copyedit of the article to fix these concerns? Z1720 (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• There's also numerous sources listed in "Further reading": can these be used as inline citations, or should they be removed? Z1720 (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Z1720, for expressing further concerns. I'm afraid I could not find numerous grammatical errors in the body of the text but in accordance with your suggestion, I have "conducted a complete copy edit" which has resulted in one or two minor changes. As for "Further reading", I agree some of the items needed to be deleted. It would, however, not be easy to include those remaining as inline references without acquiring the works and identifying relevant page numbers. Those which have been maintained identify professionally prepared works in line with Wikipedia:Further reading. I have added ISBN references to the others to facilitate identification. I have also deleted one of the items in "External links" as it was no longer accessible. In my opinion, the other two should be maintained. If you can identify any other shortcomings, please let me know. Thanks to your interest, substantial improvements have now been made to the article.--Ipigott (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

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

Result pending

This article has uncited statements throughout the article, including entire paragraphs, and "citation needed" tags from Jan. 2024. There's also "better source needed" tags from 2021 that need to be resolved in order to maintain its GA status. Z1720 (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed all the uncited, citation needed, and better source needed issues. I've copy-edited the text to fix repetition, vague claims, and anything that sounded promotional. I've merged some near-duplicate sections and removed a lot of gratuitous images. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems very odd that the version that was promoted in 2014 was about the technique used in a number of countries, whereas the version now is about "an Indonesian technique". I'm not convinced that change is in the direction of neutrality, especially as the technique is much older than Indonesia. CMD (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[a later reply to Chipmunkdavis] I agree that the page focus is unclear, but the term's use is also mixed. The english word batik are mostly used to refer Indonesian batik, but it is also used to refer generic resist-dye methods that are technically similar but culturally unrelated crafts like Chinese batik. Perhaps it is best to clarify at the top that the article is mostly used to discuss Indonesian batik? Alteaven (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about Batik in general, not only Indonesian, and that is how it went through GA back in 2014. Since then much Indonesian material has been added, risking unbalance as well as loss of focus. We would be quite justified in splitting out much of the Indonesian material to Batik in Indonesia, leaving this article to cover all countries relatively evenly, with Indonesia's chapter having a "main" link at the top and a paragraph in "summary style" giving a brief resumé of the linked article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that Indonesian batik patterns has already been split out; that would be one component of Batik in Indonesia. Obviously it goes a part of the way towards what I was suggesting, but numerous aspects of Indonesian batik culture remain as unbalanced elements in the article, and I feel more sure than before that splitting is now necessary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: Yes, I think that that section is the most prone to contain lengthy digression and unsubstantiated claims. I agree that a separate Indonesian batik page is perhaps warranted. Though I am unsure how to rebalance the current batik article since most scholarly article are indeed about Indonesian batik. Any suggestion? Alteaven (talk) 06:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should be careful to focus on batik-the-wax-resist-dyeing-process, which is after all what the term means, and move aspects of Indonesian culture such as its use for ceremonies out to other article(s). If we have a Batik in Indonesia article then we can put all the Indonesian culture, ceremonies, and museums there, which would go a long way to making this article more balanced. Oh, and we can move out the two Indonesian infoboxes which are seriously distorting the article, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've boldly gone... Alteaven, would you like to say a little more about non-Javanese batik in the 'Indonesia' section? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: I think its fine like that. The only section left to edit is technique, or is the current state okay? Alteaven (talk) 08:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the techniques section is just right. There's an uncited statement in 'Indonesia' which needs a bit of expansion really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to add something in few days to come, but I think the current overall version is much less cluttered Alteaven (talk) 08:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a huge improvement. I see you've removed the uncited statement, so we're all done here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, wonderful. Thank you Alteaven (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[an earlier reply to Chipmunkdavis] Both then (the text I brought to GA) and now, the article covered batik from Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Sri Lanka, China, and Africa, and the old lead said so. To restore that position, I've tweaked the current lead to reflect that more clearly, moved some doubtfully-neutral Indonesian claims out of the lead, and trimmed the Indonesian material in the lead for due weight. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article did cover it, but the focus had shifted. Thanks for the quick work. Some heavy copyediting is still needed, I don't fully understand the first sentence of the History section, and the entire Culture section needs a rewrite. There may be a need for some source checks as well. Moving a bit beyond GA issues, having 3 infoboxes seems a bit much, especially on mobile, but thankfully they're each not too long. There are a lot of subsections, but they seem justified by the diverse subject matter. CMD (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to copyedit a bit, but you are indeed going beyond the GA criteria now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The copyediting is not beyond the GACR, it is very firmly in GACR1. CMD (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those were just examples. Some of the batik "is close to magical elements from the kingdoms in Central Java and Yogyakarta", others are "identical and representative of Sundanese culture in general", other odd bits are here and there. CMD (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um, ok, will fix those, but it's no good just waving at the whole article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found all these things on a very quick read, plus other errors I fixed or tagged. I strongly suspect a more detailed look will turn up even more. The process doesn't require doing a line by line breakdown here though given the state the prose was in. CMD (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been through most of the Indonesianised text, will check the rest. My point was that for a fair process, comments need to be itemised to things that can be specifically actioned, not lumped, so there's a way to respond to each item decently. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this article is ready for reassessment. May I be allowed time to contribute to the article further? Alteaven (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC) Oh my, the history section is also a mess. It is full of unsubstantiated claims. Alteaven (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alteaven: If editors are actively working on an article, I am happy to have a GAR remain open. Z1720 (talk) 05:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alteaven and I seem to be happy with the now-reshaped article. We have split out Batik in Indonesia and Indonesian batik patterns. The article is now balanced and globalised, effectively an updated version of the 2014 GA text and of not much greater length than that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alteaven and Chiswick Chap: Some things I noticed when reviewing the latest version of the article:

• I added a cn tag for the "Written batik" section. The first paragraph of "Malaysia" also needs a citation, and there is a hidden note for a citation for National Geographic. Is this the citation for this paragraph?
  • Written batik: Restored the refs.
  • Malaysia para 1: Restored the hidden ref.
• I think the amount of images needs to be reduced, as Wikipedia is not a gallery. Lots of images make the page hard to load for some editors, and, as someone who is unfamiliar with the topic, I am not sure what I am supposed to notice in each of the images. The images at the beginning of the "Cultures" section might be better served if they were beside the culture they were to represent.

Respectfully, I do not agree. The images are in an appropriate amount for topic of visual arts, and they can be related to the text. History section show samples which are mentioned in text. In keeping with the globalized theme, varied examples needed to be shown. In the technique, the images show close up of relevant implement and how it is applied. Placement for images in the culture section however can be changed as suggested. Alteaven (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The article contains no gratuitous images or galleries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Missing aspects include the history of the artwork and European interest in the 19th century, techniques, description of patterns and motifs, and differences in the tradition in major cultures highlighted. References in the lead should probably be moved to the article body, per MOS:LEADCITE
  • I've extended the lead somewhat to cover the key points and moved the refs out of there.
    • I've tweaked it a bit Alteaven (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The article needs a copyedit. I have done some of it myself, but it would be useful if a subject-matter expert did this to avoid changing the meaning of sentences.
  • I've been through it all again. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my comments so far. Z1720 (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Z1720: we have cleaned up the article, and believe it is now in a good state. I suggest we move to close this GAR with Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

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

Result pending

The article is missing lots of post-2011 information, which is when this article was promoted to GA status. It also has lots of uncited text. Z1720 (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

The article relies on "Ady & Armstrong 1907" for most of its sourcing. A quick Google Scholar search found additional, more recent sourcing that should be used instead. The lead is too short and does not summarise the article's contents. The battles listed in the "Aftermath" sections should be moved to the "History" section. "Aftermath" needs to be expanded with more information. Very little information is given on the governance structure (in the "First capitani e defensori" section) and no information is given on the demographics, culture, or traits of this entity. Z1720 (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

There is a lot of uncited text, including entire paragraphs. There is an orange "more sources needed" banner from May 2024 that needs to be resolved. The "Demise" section needs additional information. Z1720 (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

The article contains uncited text, including entire paragraphs. It also has many one- or two-sentence paragraphs that should be merged together, particularly in the "Personal life" section. Z1720 (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a look at this. The gaps in the recent managerial career can be easily filled as they were recent, even if they were for minor teams. Amazed that his double whammy suspension [1] was not already in the article, as the name Le Saux appears four times on the talk page... Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

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. UndercoverClassicist 20:54, 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]

Hi, I can work on this article and restore it to GA level in ~20 days. I hope that timeline is ok for everyone. Matarisvan (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

There is a lot of uncited text, including entire paragraphs. Some of the notes have "verification needed" tags from 2011. Many sources listed in the bibliography are not used as intext citations. Z1720 (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Repeated use of primary source Al-Waqidi as well. Ifly6 (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a delist -- no longer meets GA sourcing standards. UndercoverClassicist 16:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I can work on this and get the article back to GA level in ~20 days. Is that timeline ok for everyone? Matarisvan (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Z1720, @Ifly6 and @UndercoverClassicist: Can Akram 1970, 2004 and 2009 be considered reliable sources? I personally do not think they are, if there is consensus then I can remove and replace these. Matarisvan (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akram was a recognised military historian in addition to being a senior military officer; they may not be the best sources, but the bar for GA is low (not unreliable), and I'd suggest that the article has bigger sourcing problems at the moment. However, replacing them with works with greater scholarly impact would be a net positive. UndercoverClassicist 18:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

This article has a lot of uncited text. While some of it can be covered under MOS:PLOT, other sections like "Syndication" should be cited. The article is also quite long, and I think suffers from too much detail. Someone familiar with the topic should go through and cut down the prose. Z1720 (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Numerous uncited statements. The history section stops at 1966 and needs to mention recent events. The lede needs to mention information about the history of the location. Z1720 (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I relied almost exclusively on Blank's book when I started this article 18 years ago. The local library has a non-circulating copy, so I can look in it to provide citations for a lot of things. I may be able to gain access to The Book of Key Biscayne by Jim Woodman, although I suspect Blank used it as a source. Donald Albury 17:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As to recent history. Crandon Park and the Village of Key Biscayne were created in the mid-20th century and the Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park was created in 1966, and most of the history of Key Biscayne since then has really been about one of those entities and not the island as a whole. There may be a few events that affected the island as a whole, but Hurricane Andrew is the only one I can think of off hand. There may be something to say about how changes to the Rickenbacker Causeway and Crandon Boulevard have affected access to the island, but events on Virginia Key and along the causeway itself are not part of the history of the island. Donald Albury 13:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Sending this article to GAR as part of the new GA Sweeps project as there is significant uncited text. I'm also not convinced that all of the MMA fan sites cited are reliable, such as Bloody Elbow. I raised concerns on the article talk page a week ago, but improvements have not been made. Hog Farm _Talk 23:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Ticelon who has done some work on this. For Ticelon's benefit - I have tagged some areas with CN tags that need sourced yet, and the lead needs updated with some of the more recent information. There's also a need for someone to assess if all of the sources are reliable enough or not (Bloody Elbow shows up as unreliable on the source quality highlighting tool, but I'm not certain what discussion that is pulling from). Hog Farm _Talk 00:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is down to one CN tag. The sources should be reviewed for reliability, but I just don't know enough about this subject matter to be able to make that determination myself. Hog Farm _Talk 00:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

This article has a handful of unsourced statements and an unadressed maintenance template. lunaeclipse ⚧ 17:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide examples of the unsourced statements please? HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mid-2010s section, last sentence of first paragraph
• Beginnings section, first paragraph
• Final sentence in Name section.

— lunaeclipse ⚧ 02:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

I've added a source for the mid-2010s section.

The Name section had a source already prior to the quote, I've moved the source down so it's clearer.

The mid 2010s section I think was moved around a few times, the sources were there but further down than they should have been. The only sentence fully lacking a source was "By the late 2000s artists within the burgeoning scene were beginning to become stars across the continent", I've added one to accommodate this. I removed "The style of music had a variety of names which made it difficult to market outside of Africa." as I could not find the source for this edit.

Would this resolve that particular point? HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing those issues Harry. However, the article has gone through major edits since it was listed as GA, it has been through some traumatizing edit wars which led to ANI. Therefore, I do believe a careful and thorough reassessment is required before the article can be listed again. Prose, spot checks, references, plagiarism and so on must be reexamined Thank you again, and you too for spotting this. dxneo (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I agree with that (most of the article hasn't been changed all that much since then), but I am obviously bias so I guess I'll leave it up to consensus. But from my recollection, the edit conflicts where about whether "afro-fusion" could be listed as an alias, and the details of the https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Afrobeats#Nigerian_afro_house section, both of which are pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. There was a side debate about whether it could be said "afro-rave" was created by Rema, but I believe that was settled. HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's entirely true. See this revision, this, this and this just to mention a few, where the latter revision states that the information was incorrect and irrelevant. It was not only on one sub-section but throughout the entire article. I also noticed that the article is REFBOMBED which is not a good thing. I myself have previously removed wrong information cited to reliable sources here, they just write wrong some stuff that does not cross match with the sources and I truly believe that it has happened more than once. Another thing, some sub-genres are "user coined", to clarify, they just mix two genres and list them as sub-genres of Afrobeats, and if I'm not mistaken, even amapiano and Afropop were listed as such. The background of Afrobeats does not check out. Was it founded in Nigeria, Ghana or where? And why is it referred to as the umbrella term? Last time I checked, there were no sources to support that statement. The lede/opening statement of this article needs to be rewritten to highlight important keys only (and maybe move all the cited parts of the lede to its background section and relevant sections so that it can comply with WP:CITELEAD). dxneo (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I am now looking into this, this is not just a matter of reassessment anymore but if whether the article pass the GA criteria/requirements at all. Here is the version of the article that passed GAC. However, its information does not check out. "Afrobeats, also known as Afro-pop, Afro-fusion," cited to this and this, this does not match the content in any of the cited sources and that's just the first line of the then-article, and the prose is also not good.

Question is, how did it pass its first GAN? dxneo (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree there's more citations than there perhaps needs to be, in some sections. This is the biggest issue with the article, if you were to ask me. I also agree that the Lede could perhaps be improved, it's maybe a little awkward after the first paragraph (the last paragraph is well suited there too, though, I think).

The sources supporting "afro-pop" / "afro-fusion" being listed as /aliases/ were discussed previously here https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Talk:Afrobeats/Archive_1#Afropop_/_Afrofusion but I've accepted it's best to move on from trying to re-add that information. But, for the record, it was definitely supported by a number of sources.

"Was it founded in Nigeria, Ghana or where?"

Why not all of the above? Abrantee (from the UK) coined the term and the UK played an important role with its popularisation outside of Africa, but it was an amalgamation of sounds flowing out of both Nigeria and Ghana that formed what we know of as Afrobeats. This is, in my opinion, covered thoroughly in the History section https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Afrobeats#History (with regards to how all three countries played important roles in the development of Afrobeats). Afrobeats as a term was basically marketing (from the UK) to group all this stuff together (which included sounds/genres from both Ghana and Nigeria), hence the multi-national origin. Would you not agree that this is supported within the #Name and #History sections and if not, how could this be expanded on in your view?

"why is it referred to as the umbrella term?"

It originated as an umbrella for a fusion of sounds, see Abrantee's quote for example,

" For years we've had amazing hiplife, highlife, Nigerbeats, juju music, and I thought: you know what, let's put it all back together as one thing again, and call it Afrobeats, as an umbrella term." https://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/jan/19/the-rise-of-afrobeats

This is straight from the guy who named the sound.HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a discussion but your POV, no one responded to that and beside, there was no consensus reached and again why were those sources not cited there? The intel still not check out even now because no sources support that claim in the article. I got multiple DYKs, GACs, and GAs I have to review, so I am lacking time to personally re-review this but I'll try. One thing we can all agree on is that a whole lot of cited information from the article was removed because it did not check out with the references, and what does that tell us? Sure we/you may try to rewrite the lede and cite a few source but this is a very big article, it needs a lot of time to be rewritten and for it's content to be cross matched with the sources. I'm sorry, but I do think delisting is the way to go here. I'll definitely help rebuild the article. dxneo (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This archive is full discussions on blunders and inaccuracies. A lot has to be addressed here. Few days wouldn't be enough to solve all of this. dxneo (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is implied unless otherwise debated WP:EDITCON. That was the original state of the article so it did not need an explicit consensus until that point. It's not my fault nobody responded to me when I provided more sources.

Anyway we're side-tracking a bit but I do want to address this point. If we look at the last revision where this content was intact https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afrobeats&diff=prev&oldid=1187682282 - those two specific pieces are supported by sources at the end of the paragraph. For example,

https://www.villagevoice.com/sound-culture-fests-afro-caribbean-rhythm-mission-this-goes-deep-into-roots/ "new Afropop is part of a family of club-friendly mainstream African music often packaged for export as Afrobeats."

https://www.redbull.com/gb-en/the-evolution-of-afropop "But if Afrobeats as a term doesn't serve the style, what can we call it? With its constant genre-blending and reinvention, the most accurate term to describe the wave of music flowing out of Nigeria and Ghana is Afropop" and "While specific artists have chosen their own titles – Wizkid, Davido and Burna Boy have referred to their sound as Afrofusion"

If you checked the version that passed GA, these sources are also there at the end of the paragraph. Hence, this information /was/ sourced, albeit the sources were perhaps placed later than they should have been (but, at the time, I felt like placing them at the end of the paragraph was apt as they covered the entire paragraph. If this was less than helpful, then I apologise, but I am just addressing the suggestion that this content was unsourced).

In my opinion, this content should never have been removed from the article to begin with. It was (and is, if you google for more) always supported by sources (both originally and later on, via the talk page) and consensus should be built about why those sources were inadequate, if they are at all and if the content could be better sourced elsewhere, but ultimately I had to give way to revision or end up fighting an edit war over two words.

Say what you want about later additions that you have removed, but when I wrote this article I meticulously made sure every single piece of it was sourced. I know, for certain, that the bulk of this article is well supported (and the stuff that has been added since then has been vetted by me, you, and other editors to ensure it is since then). I, and I do say this respectfully, do not agree with the characterisation that the article is in a poor state outside of (perhaps) an excessive use of sources in some areas. HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, another inaccuracy. Redbull was suggesting, that's not a fact. Not sure about Davido and Wizkid but Burna Boy never referred to Afrobeats as Afro-fusion, this is what he said in an interview with Billboard. Burna Boy is actually implying that he created the genre, not the other way around. By the way, every statement must be adequately sourced, if I don't find a reference after the punctuation then I'm safe assume that it is definitely original search. Meaning the article was actually never in "Good Article" state. In between the time of it's GA promotion and now, it has gone through major changes. Again, what worries me the most is the above-mentioned archive and the fact that cited content was removed because it was believed to be wrong. dxneo (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, goes without saying that we disagree on that - I think those sources are adequate (and it was not OR as the sources were there) , but regardless, I provided others on the talk page (linked above) which supported this. Burna Boy rejecting the afrobeats moniker mostly ties in with what's already discussed in the #Name section (it being a relatively common thing).

Anyway moving on, which specific parts of the article do you feel like there's a concern (lede aside)? HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I have DYKs, PRs, GAs, GACs and article splits to work on now. Therefore, I'll leave the reviewal process to someone else but I'll keep one eye open at all times. I'll be around to help where I can. dxneo (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one seems to be interested in reviewing this. I'll try to make time for it later this month. I'll start compiling the inaccuracies and blunders in my notepad so that I can deliver in bulk. Although I really hope someone comes thru. HarrySONofBARRY, I think you can start working on the lead to comply with WP:CITELEAD. I see there's a documentary titled Afrobeats The Backstory, maybe it can clarify the origin of this genre because there's no way a genre can originate from multiple countries. dxneo (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not sure what else to say on that which doesn't already address your concern with it. Afrobeats, by definition, was coined in the UK to describe a variety of (somewhat related) sounds spewing out of both Ghana and Nigeria (this is already supported by sources) . It is, and always has been, a multi-national genre. The story of Afrobeats begins and rests upon the collective grouping of stuff like modern highlife and modern naijapop (among others) , it's the nature of being an umbrella genre. Besides, there are other genres with multi-national origins such as Desert Blues https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Desert_blues

In either case I can look into conforming with WP:CITELEAD HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Article has degraded since its original review in 2010. Concerns about unsourced content have been expressed on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the un-sourced stuff, but I will read the whole article in a moment and maybe I will find more errors such as lack of sourcing or poor encyclopaedic content because yesterday I joined wikipedia and read the rules and instructions all the. Koncerz777 (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a few not to tighten up already with the beginning missing a better sentence completion or missing something:

The tribe of the Polans (Polanie, lit. "people of the fields") in what is now Greater Poland gave rise to a tribal predecessor of the Polish state in the early part of the 10th century, with the Polans settling in the flatlands around the emerging strongholds of Giecz, Poznań, Gniezno and Ostrów Lednicki. Accelerated rebuilding of old tribal fortified settlements, construction of massive new ones and territorial expansion took place during the period c. 920–950. The Polish state developed from these tribal roots in the second half of the centuryhere. . According to the 12th-century chronicler Gallus Anonymus, the Polans were ruled at this time by the Piast dynasty. In existing sources from the 10th century, Piast ruler Mieszko I was first mentioned by Widukind of Corvey in his Res gestae saxonicae, a chronicle of events in Germany. Widukind reported that Mieszko's forces were twice defeated in 963 by the Veleti tribes acting in cooperation with the Saxon exile Wichmann the Younger. Under Mieszko's rule (c. 960 to 992), his tribal state accepted Christianity and became the Polish state. Koncerz777 (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please also compare with the last reviewed version linked at the top. Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Koncerz777 and Viriditas: where does this GAR stand? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the version I passed in 2010, and this is the current version. The lead is different, as someone added sources to it for some strange reason. There's also been significant changes. I can't vouch for the current version. However, Koncerz777 does seem to have made some improvements by removing unsourced info that was added since 2010.[2] So perhaps this current version should be passed given those changes. Viriditas (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is that the article could benefit from more eyes before keeping or delisting. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

This article contains a 5-paragraph bloated lede, numerous uncited sentences and paragraphs, and short, one sentence paragraphs in a very long "Legacy and honours" section. Z1720 (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article has lots of deficiencies. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has seen a flurry of activity since this GAR was opened. Could you provide additional feedback following recent edits? Zsinj 11:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to keep working on this article to address the issues raised. Other editors are active and making improvements. I welcome further feedback, review, or support at the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zsinj and Firefangledfeathers: Since reviewer time is limited, please post below when the article fulfils the GA criteria and someone will conduct a more in-depth review. Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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