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
Crash Bandicoot (character) 2024-04-28 Ben Nevis 2024-06-08 Leeds Country Way 2024-06-27 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 New England Patriots 2024-08-28
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
  
• 20:18:40, 14/09/2024: 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

There are numerous uncited statements, and an orange "does not cite sources" banner at the top of the "Engagement and Young Company" section, placed in 2019. The lead also does not contain any post-2012 information. Z1720 (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

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]

---

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. Also, the "Early productions" section needs to be better organised, with more recent examples being included in this section. Z1720 (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting tidbit for onlookers: this article was chiefly authored by one of Wikipedia's worst and most prolific LTAs. As for uncited statements, I'm seeing the "Early productions" section; the "Sets and costumes" (1st para); "Additions to the score" (1st para & para before this section). I don't think the Synopsis needs citations. Aza24 (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did this ever go through the CCI? If not, this should be presumptively delisted? This LTA has had serious copyright violation issues. Hog Farm _Talk 17:25, 14 September 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 has uncited text, including large sections of the "Production" section. There is also large quotes in the "Reception" section, which should be summarised and reduced per copyright concerns, and the "Reception" section does not have post-2016 commentary, even though the show is still producing episodes. Z1720 (talk) 02:14, 14 September 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 an orange "Criticism NPOV" banner at the top of the article. There is also uncited text, and very long sections that should be broken up with level 3 headings or reformatted. Z1720 (talk) 02:07, 14 September 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 has fewer sources, and does not have any post-2012 sources, so it might not be comprehensive. The lead does not mention information about his legacy, there are uncited statements in the article (including entire paragraphs), and some of the sources listed in the "Bibliography" are not used as inline citations. Z1720 (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Most of the content is formatted as a list: this article might be better served as a list article. There is also an orange banner for original research from 2024 in the "Comparisons" section and the lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:52, 13 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 two orange banners in the article: an "update needed" banner from 2022, and a "NPOV" banner for the "Image" section from 2021. Z1720 (talk) 20:43, 13 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 uncited passages throughout the article, and concerns expressed on the talk page that the article does not cover all aspects of the topic. Z1720 (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Many sections are quite short for a city article, such as "Sport" and "Economy", and there are uncited statements in the article, including the entire "Sport" section. The "History" section stops at 2013, and most of the recent information in "History" is population figures, which is already described in the "Demographics" section. There is a large "Further reading" section, and more sources at Timeline of Nouakchott, which further support my belief that this article does not cover all major aspects. Z1720 (talk) 02:09, 10 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 throughout the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Work could also be done on GACR3b, as the article has gained almost 3,000 words over time since its promotion. CMD (talk) 02:05, 10 September 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 "neutrality disputed" orange banner since 2019 that needs to be resolved. The article also has lots of uncited text and quoted text. Z1720 (talk) 20:43, 9 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 several sections, including its history, the cuisine it is used in, and its uses outside of the United States. Z1720 (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - it was easier for geneticists to trace human existence back to its Mitochondrial mother than what it would be to trace the history of the exact (or evolving) ingredients for crab dip. I am not aware of any patents on crap dip. Without the latter or other form of verifiable proof, the sections claimed to be missing are, quite frankly, quite a . Having said that, I commend Z1720 for exercising due diligence in wanting our GAs to be really, really good articles. Atsme 💬 📧 18:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Atsme, I would think there is probably something that could be, um, cooked up, about how it came to be associated with Maryland, and about whether it is used outside of the US. In other words, I'm wondering whether you could meet the criticisms part way? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reviewed the article, and it meets the requirements for GA. Can it be expanded? Perhaps, but that is not a reason to file a GAR. There is no documented history about this particular recipe that I can find, though there is a National Crab Meat Day that doesn't specifically mention crab dip, and there is also documented history about crabbing in Maryland which lists ways to prepare crab meat; crap dip is on the list, but just passing mention. The lead of the crab dip article states that it is sometimes referred to as Maryland crab dip. If someone wants to expand the article as a potential FA candidate, they can certainly give it a shot, but finding the documented history that states the where/when/how, it's just another mom & pop homestyle recipe that is typically passed along by word of mouth, online, or in multiple recipe books with some variation. It is also possible that there is a long established, upscale Maryland seafood restaurant that makes claim to their own crab dip recipe, and has it documented but again, that's just a variation of the ubiquitous basic ingredients for crab dip. j/s Atsme 💬 📧 12:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

---

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

Result pending

The "Super Six tournament and first retirement" and "Middleweight comeback" sections need more inline citations. Also, there is little information about Taylor post-2016: While his retirement and legal troubles might make this difficult, there should be some information about him during this time published in reputable sources. Z1720 (talk) 07:33, 9 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 a lot of uncited text throughout the article. I do not think the "Headmasters" section is necessary as most people listed are not notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. The "History" section stops at 1986, and there are many short, one-sentence paragraphs that should be merged or reformatted. Z1720 (talk) 07:29, 9 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 a lot of uncited text, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 07:24, 9 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 contains numerous uncited statements, there are sources listed in "Further reading" which should be used as inline citations or removed, and there are external links in the article prose. Z1720 (talk) 07:20, 9 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 numerous uncited statements throughout the article. Z1720 (talk) 07:17, 9 September 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 has an orange "single source" banner since 2018 that needs to be resolved. There is also uncited text throughout the article, and the lead needs to include more information about his research and academic work. Z1720 (talk) 07:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

This 2011 promotion (which hasn't been reviewed since) has several problems. Several citation needed tags, a section (Social responsibility) that has an advertisement tag, the History section is skewed towards events that occurred after the formation of the Premier League, several paragraphs throughout the whole article that have citations could possibly need more, possible unreliable sources (ex. Super Mac and Terrace Chants), etc. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

This 2007 GA has 8 Citation needed tags and 9 Unreliable source tags. Some sources are also questionable/require original research, like the numerous YouTube sources. Spinixster (trout me!) 03:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

2014 GA with multiple instances of uncited text and numerous issues with prose Kimikel (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Listed GA in 2010, now full of WP:COLLOQUIAL and uncited text. Kimikel (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

The references are mangled with multiple errors, missing authors and publication dates, and self-published sources. Multiple uncited claims. The prose itself is somewhat flawed. Kimikel (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify the uncited claims? Also seeing maybe 2 self-published sources. The reference errors are mainly easily fixable template mistakes Aza24 (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• and as having an "Antiquarian Importance",[7] a status which is enjoyed by only a handful of other species. > no citation
• Other Bidni olive trees in the vicinity can be found in the private grounds of Qannotta Castle in Wardija.
• Nowadays, the use of oil in Maltese cuisine is still predominant. The popular Maltese snack "ħobż biż-żejt", which literally translates to "bread with oil", is testimony to this.

Looking back, the lead section additionally doesn't summarize the body at all, and instead introduces information not mentioned anywhere else. It would need to be rewritten, with that information being moved to the body. Kimikel (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you couldn't manage yourself, surely, Kimikel? That's the sensible way forward, I think. Tim riley talk 15:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: It is not a reviewer's responsibility or requirement to make edits to an article. Instead, those who want the article to retain its GA status should be the ones to make the necessary improvements. Z1720 (talk) 20:05, 14 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

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

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]

Hello; can you give me some more detail on some of these items. I'll try to make some improvements. Kyteto (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyteto: The areas with primary source concerns have already been placed. That would be a good area to start. Z1720 (talk) 23:15, 9 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 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]

Z1720 are you satisfied with the work done on the article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bob1960evens and AirshipJungleman29: I still think the "Structures" section suffers from oversection, making it look more like a list. I think this section should be spun out or the non-notable structures removed from this section. The "Points of interest" is also not NPOV and is a little too promotional for my liking: Wikipedia should not be stating what is a "point of interest". Z1720 (talk) 17:15, 14 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 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 • 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]

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]

---

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

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]

It is probably worth mentioning the incorporation of the eponymous municipality as that seems a major event for the island, and some although not all of the municipal history, as this would be in keeping with the existing text in History which does cover the inhabitants and various demographic and infrastructure developments. I also wonder if there is something more to add regarding sea level rise giving the mentioned low elevation, but at a quick look I couldn't find anything not focused on the municipality. CMD (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the article mentions the beginning of the housing devekopment that led to the incorporation, but does stop too soon. Some more about the creation of Crandon Park could also be added, comparable to the coverage of the creation of the state park.

A quick Google search found a number of news items focused on the effects of sea level rise on the municipality, more or less ignoring the rest of the island. Google Scholar results are rather sparse on articles about contemporary sea level rise at Key Biscayne.

My todo list keeps growing as I (temporarily) set aside articles I'm working on to deal with the next thing that comes along. Maybe I will get to the library this week to look at the Blank book. Donald Albury 13:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sea level rise does seem to be either municipal level or Miami-Dade level, up to your editorial call as to whether and how it could be included in the article. CMD (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added page numbers to a couple of cites, and added cites for what I could find in the Blank book. I also rewrote a couple of small bits after reviewing the Blank book. There are still things I haven't found a source for, and parts of the article should be rewriten. Donald Albury 22:13, 13 September 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

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]

This is a bit tricky to get a detailed handle on as all the sources are offline and the main editor does not really seem to be active anymore. There might be an MOS:OVERSECTION issue, but that was there in the original version too. From a general historical note on broadness, this is mostly a political history without much on other aspects, but it does at times devote isolated subsections to other history, even if does not weave it into the narrative. CMD (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally do not think that this article deserves it yet, due to some parts just seeming way too small, especially the "Feudal fragmentation of Poland" part.

Apart from that though, I think this article could become GA-class. I just think the Feudal fragmentation of Poland part needs expansion as a lot happened in that time and whatever is in this article barely covers it. It's especially an issue because this is the main article that covers the topic. Setergh (talk) 19:25, 13 September 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