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.
   • If there is no consensus, the reassessment may also be closed as keep.
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, 80, 81, 82

Good article reassessment Talk notices given view edit
Crash Bandicoot (character) 2024-04-28 Leeds Country Way 2024-06-27 Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States 2024-08-11 Pest control 2024-08-22 New England Patriots 2024-08-28 MacBook (2006–2012) 2024-12-27
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.

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

• 18:53:34, 07/10/2024: Life with My Sister Madonna
  

• 02:48:13, 18/11/2024: Jeannie (TV series)
  

• 18:12:06, 11/12/2024: Survival of the Fittest (The Spectacular Spider-Man)
  

• 22:53:26, 23/12/2024: Hurricane Charley
  
• 17:43:23, 28/12/2024: 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

This article contains numerous uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 16:48, 28 December 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. The "Music" section is underdeveloped. Z1720 (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

The article has two "update needed" banners to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

There are some citation needed tags, unreliable source? tags in the article, The "Appearance" has had an orange "additional sources needed" banner and the "Satellite observations" has had an orange "update needed" banner. Real4jyy (talk) 03:22, 28 December 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 passages, including entire sections and paragraphs. Notes are used as citations to other Wikipedia articles, instead of citing the information directly in the article (note b and e) Z1720 (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm pretty sure all those notes and several paragraphs regarding sales, estimated circulation figures and such were added by sockpuppet user Maestro2016, known for including that kind of information in several articles, doing sums with different sources (which is against WP:SYNTH), using sources of questionable reliability, and more, so I would recommend to check and remove that kind of content. Xexerss (talk) 22:20, 27 December 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 statements in the article, particularly in the "SoundRacer EVS" section. Z1720 (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The SoundRacer EVS content was originally added by a user whose userpage indicates that they are the founder of SoundRacer AB. I think that section can be safely binned unless someone comes up with a good, independent sourcing based, reason as to why that specific product needs that degree of coverage. Hog Farm _Talk 22:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Lead contravenes MOS on citation and filled with superlatives that have zero coverage in the main text. Possible COPYVIO for a night image (Johor Bahru Skyline 20171230.jpg). "Demographics" section is dated to 2010 and contains unsourced sentences. Chunks of "Transportation", "In popular culture" and "Notable people" sections lack citations. hundenvonPG (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a copyvio concern please raise it on Commons. CMD (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support delisting the article for the time being, given the abovementioned flaws in the article that has not been maintained consistently. I will try to improve the article accordingly based on the advices above. 2001:D08:1A84:B07A:2148:36F7:3EE8:4065 (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the enthusiasm, but I'm not sure simply stripping sources from the lead is an overall improvement. CMD (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just made several amendments, can you kindly suggest further improvements if any? 2001:D08:1A84:B07A:2148:36F7:3EE8:4065 (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the citations into the main text with further elaboration, so to match the MOS on citation and cover the leads' content in the main text. 2001:D08:1A84:B07A:2148:36F7:3EE8:4065 (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case my apologies for misreading the diff, carry on. I would suggest trimming down the superlatives in the lead a bit more, mostly by rewriting that second paragraph. Perhaps the economy info in the first paragraph should be combined with the economy info in the second paragraph. The history in the lead is also missing something at the start, "further development" from what? CMD (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rectified, thanks so much for the advice! 2001:D08:1A84:B07A:2148:36F7:3EE8:4065 (talk) 08:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate citations have been suitably added to each of the mentioned parts of the articles with sentenced restructured and summarised, contents in leads are covered with details in the main content and COPYVIO images deleted and replaced. 2001:D08:1031:86BB:901B:14AD:9156:DFCF (talk) 12:40, 28 December 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 lots of uncited prose, including entire sections. The "Design geometry" has had an orange "additional sources needed" banner since December 2017. Z1720 (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

The "Battlefield" section has an orange "additional sources needed" banner at the top since March 2022. There are also uncited sections elsewhere in the article. The article relies too much upon long block quotes, particularily in the "Aftermath" section. Z1720 (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of what is in the Battlefield is already covered in Battle. The last paragraph has a citation. We can just remove the uncited parts if need be. The aftermath section now has only one quote, and its an important quote. I've seen that particular quote from Muir being reproduced in several other works.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

There has been an "update needed" orange banner at the top of the page since 2019, and few updates since 2015. There are also uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 23:51, 26 December 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 numerous uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There is not much information post-2004, and the "Pittsburgh today" section needs to be rewritten due to MOS:CURRENT concerns. Z1720 (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

The article has uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and a "citation needed" tag from November 2021. There's also a "Gallery" section at the end of the article which, per WP:NOTGALLERY I recommend that these images be redistributed throughout the article and this section removed. Z1720 (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agreed on the citations. However, I think the article already has perhaps too great a density of images in the body: given that it's an article about an artist, the gallery is a good thing and should, if anything, be expanded. Despite the name of WP:NOTGALLERY, the supporting text actually says Wikipedia articles are not merely (emphasis mine) collections of ... photographs or media files with no accompanying text. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia articles shouldn't include galleries, and indeed we have artist FAs that use them very well: see e.g. Vincent Van Gogh, El Greco or Robert Peake the Elder. UndercoverClassicist 18:57, 27 December 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 some uncited statements in the article, including entire sections. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article came about after being excised from the (large) parent article. Been ages since I looked at it - will do so at some point this week. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 27 December 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 uncited passages throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. There are also too many images, including a group of images at the bottom of the "Geography" section that are presented without context. Unreliable sources are used in the article like International Business Times (WP:IBTIMES) and vz.ru. Z1720 (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

The "Title sequences" section is problematic: it quite long, might give undue weight on this aspect of the show compared to others, and is largely uncited. There are also uncited statements elsewhere in the article, and several sections are quite long with one-sentence paragraphs that can be written more efficiently with longer paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that whole title sequence section can be binned off wholesale as it's just WP:TRIVIA. Whilst there's definitely bits that need cleaning up other than that, I don't think it's not doable. Lee Vilenski 00:12, 27 December 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 prose in the article, particularily in the "Succession" and "Style and arms" sections. I think redundant and off-topic text has crept into the article, and I think a copyedit would be useful to tighten up the prose and remove excess text. Particularily, I think the "Execution of Anne Boleyn" section focuses too much on Boleyn and much of this text can be moved to her article, with the section placing more emphasis on Henry's actions. Z1720 (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

The article's history seems to stop in 2010, even though the magazine is still seemingly publishing online. There are also no post-2012 sources, even though they are still publishing issues. The "History" section also seems disorganised, with information in "Controversies" moved into this section and design aspects moved into other sections. Z1720 (talk) 23:01, 26 December 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 the entire "Window Installation" and "Tenant Amenity Spaces" sections. Z1720 (talk) 22:56, 26 December 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 several uncited statements, including the entire "Spain" section. I also do not think the recommendations at the end of the "United States" section are necessary and would be better summarised as prose. Z1720 (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

This article does not include information about the Marshall Island's participation at the 2020 or 2024 Olympics. An orange "update needed" banner has been present at the top of the article since August 2024. Z1720 (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in saving this GA. Cos 17:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 I have updated the article. Do you have any other suggestions? Cos 23:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• When I compare the 2008 section to the other years, I feel like the other years are under developed and information on the athletes' results in the games can be included. I also think the lead needs to be expanded. I also think other information, like the flag bearer at each Olympics for the ceremonies, can also be added to this article to make it more complete. The lead can also be expanded Z1720 (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  AirshipJungleman29 merged some info from the 2008 article into here on January 31, 2024 so that is why the 2008 section is bloated. Cos 00:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @CosXZ: I actually think that the 2008 section is the correct length, while the other sections are underdeveloped. Z1720 (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

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

Result pending

There is lots of uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. A large part of the article is a list of what is in their collections, which I think can be spun out and some highlights written in a couple paragraphs of prose. Z1720 (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless absolutely necessary for length reasons, I'd certainly disagree with spinning off the collection highlights, which are surely the main interest of the article. What's the readable prose length? Gutting an article like that is by itself an argument for removing GA status. Otherwise it's just a very big library with mostly the same printed books as other very big libraries. It's in the nature of the BL that "a couple paragraphs of prose" (sic) is nowhere near enough, and that short coverage would badly unbalance the article. You are completely ignoring the strong rejection of this suggestion in October (article talk) and just ploughing on with your personal view regardless, despite no one else supporting it. Why are you not showing the early part of the GA review, with all this? Johnbod (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: I think the "Periodicals and philatelic collections" section does an excellent job showcasing how the library's collection can be written as prose, instead of as a list. Discussion did take place on the article's talk page after I brought up my concerns there. My review in the introductions of this GAR concerns my issues with today's article version: the list of collections is included in my concerns and can be addressed by other editors below. Uncited text throughout the article would also have to be resolved before I recommend this article "keep" its GA status. Z1720 (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a different problem, but I'm not a fan of the organisation here: loads of L2 headers, no real hierarchy or sense of coherency. For instance, we have an L2 header for the recent cyberattack (incidentally, the info here is now out of date, as things are back up and running), which is preceded by a few other sections that could loosely be termed "history"... except that we've then got "Using the library's reading rooms" slapped into the middle. The uncited text is a bigger problem, but I wouldn't pass this under 1b at the moment even if everything were cited. UndercoverClassicist 18:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I nearly fell off my chair when I saw UC's comment "I'm not a fan of the organisation" until I realised this referred to the text of the article rather than to the BL itself. The organisation of the text doesn't greatly bother me at GA level, but having thirteen "citation needed" tags – all of them justified – decidedly does. I'm uneasy about the "Highlights of the collection" section, too. I'm with Johnbod rather than Z1720 on the continued presence of the list, but it contains well over 300 statements, fewer than 60 of which have their own citations. If the vague phrase at the head of the list "Highlights, some of which were selected by the British Library, include ..." purportedly covers all the others (and I doubt it) this needs to be explicit in every case. It would, in my view, take an enormous, not to say unreasonable, amount of effort to bring the citations in this article up to scratch. If anyone is willing to undertake that I take my hat off to him/her, but as things stand I think there is a strong prima facie case for removing the GA status. – Tim riley talk 09:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: I see the editor who promoted the article to GA in 2011 was me, but it was then only 2,217 words long and adequately cited. It has since grown to more than 12,000 words including the lists and that's where the lack of citations has crept in. Tim riley talk 09:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Work is being done on the text citations, by SchroCat and others. The majority of the manuscript "highlights" have their own articles, & I'm dubious about the necessity of doing the tedious work of bringing over the links there to the list. The list could be somewhat reduced, in the case of MS perhaps to only those with articles. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Johnbod. I'll suspend judgement until SchroCat has finished his work on the text. Tim riley talk 17:38, 28 December 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 prose. The history section ends in the 1960s, missing more current events in the town. The "Demography" section is dated to 2010, and sources are from 2010 or earlier. Z1720 (talk) 22:17, 26 December 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 statements throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and added some citations, and added repeat citations where necessary. I think that the main issue here isn't uncited statements but actually that some statements are not correctly cited inline. E.g. these uncited paragraphs are actually uncited, they just lack the appropriate in line citations. Let me know if there are any specific statements that lack in line citations, and I can have a look. SSSB (talk) 13:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Fails criteria 2b 2c 3a. The fictional history needs updating the most recent event referenced is from 2005. The broadway at the beach section contains the following: "Google also lists the attraction as permanently closed, and there a couple Reddit posts indicating the closure as well." no sources in that whole paragraph. No developement info nor reception Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:57, 26 December 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 excessively long, about 17000 words. It also has some slight WP:NPOV and WP:MOS issues. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 15:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explain, what are those WP:NPOV and WP:MOS issues?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back, I don’t think there are any significant NPOV issues. However, in terms of MOS, sentences like 'On 10 March 1985, Chernenko died.' may convey an unnecessarily emphatic tone. Overall, the tone throughout could be improved to sound more encyclopedic. While I initially said there were no NPOV issues, some examples, such as 'He would stop to talk to civilians on the street, forbade the display of his portrait at the 1985 Red Square holiday celebrations, and encouraged frank and open discussions at Politburo meetings,' come across as slightly biased and could benefit from a more neutral phrasing. And yes I used ChatGPT to fix my own phrasing. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 07:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nom seems to be working on this, having spun out General secretaryship of Mikhail Gorbachev. There are also four citation needed tags that should be resolved (although I just added three of them and none seem particularly hard to rectify). charlotte 06:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

The "Controversy" section is mostly uncited: there are mentions of the works where others disagreed (with a year placed in parenthesis) but these will need to be converted into citations and the prose afterwards also cited to their works. The section also has several, long block quotes. Even though many of these quotes are from the 1800s, and probably do not fall under copyright anymore, I think the information can be better explained and more easily understood by the reader as summarised prose. Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content in the "Controversy" section seems to be directly out of the John Stachel reference, which uses quotes and the parenthesis. I think the section size is undue or at least it is unclear: the controversy was about Fresnel's justification for his formula, not about Fizeau's experiment. Stachel needed these quotes to build his case, but we only need the Stachel reference to give the case he has built.

I propose to reorganize the article by converting the Controversy section to a section on "Impact" which would include the Stachel story line about Fizeau's result as well as Einstein's use of the Fizeau result. I would would change the "derivation from special relativity" to "Modern interpretation". I think there should be a Background or Context section before "Experimental setup" outlining why the experiment was undertaken.

@ReyHahn any thoughts? Johnjbarton (talk) 23:52, 25 December 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 prose in the article, and another editor on the talk page mentioned that the article is missing key information because of underdeveloped sections. Z1720 (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I guess I am the other editor? I don't see any posts using the words you've used. I would encourage other editors to read my real remarks. But in a nutshell, in terms of what I understand to be important for GA status I think this article has never yet reached a stable structure. It is still in a phase where people add new "stub" sections, and are likely to send the article in new directions, which might become stable. I'd encourage any editors who are interested in the topic to see what they can do, but I doubt that the article was ever really at GA quality, and I don't think that getting that label too early is necessarily a good thing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Per @Andrew Lancaster's posts to the talk page. Even if citations could be produced where needed, the article lacks a cohesive structure. In particular it would benefit from an introductory "Definition" section describing the topic in general terms and distinguishing it from other major arguments for the existence of god. An "Overview" section might also be helpful—depending upon how much can make it into the lead.Patrick (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I have interest in this article, but no promises in getting dug in before it gets delisted. Remsense ‥ 论 08:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist While the lack of citations is certainly an issue, I think the bigger problem is the fact that it's structure is incoherent, making it hard to read. I think it should be re-written a bit. Also the fact of it's instability makes it further from meeting GA criteria. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 13:24, 26 December 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 also think the article can be summarised more effectively to make it more concise. Z1720 (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

This article does not contain any post-2008 information, and thus does not cover all aspects of the topic. Z1720 (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: While the article has a sentence or two about post 2008 content, it is serverly lacking. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 13:27, 26 December 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, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed three of them. The others can be addressed and I will soon. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 18 December 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 statements and paragraphs, including some tagged with "citation needed" since July 2022. The article is also very long, showing that the language is not concise. Z1720 (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Several unsourced statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added {{citation needed}} to the statements that seemed to be most obviously needing references, to aid in the process of cleaning up the article. I never got too far in molecular biology so forgive me if I can't completely fix this up to GA standards. I also noticed (as Smokefoot did specifically with the use of "key") that the tone of this article is unusual. Reconrabbit 20:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a basic biochemistry article. We do not need to add citations for facts that can be found in any textbook. Genome42 (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Genome42: No, WP:V says that information needs to be cited. Textbooks can be used as the citation if it is a reliable source. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basic facts about proteins fall into a "sky is blue" situation; you would either be laughed at or shown very concerned looks for your well-being for challenging them. Still though, this article does cite textbooks and other round-ups for most of these things anyways as it is still specialized knowledge at the end of the day.

I was wondering though, is there some policy or guidance on how to select a textbook for referencing out of the hundreds (thousands?) that exist with the same information? I ask as a high-traffic article like this might unfairly elevate one textbook over others, inadvertently. Should textbooks be prioritized for referencing by ease of access? Are there even open-access textbooks kicking around for biochemistry/science topics generally? Is this something that Wikipedia is even concerned about? ― Synpath 17:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Synpath: SKYBLUE is an essay, which says at the top "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors." WP:V is a policy, and "describes a widely accepted standard that editors should normally follow." To select which sources to use, the WP:MEDCITE essay will give some advice. More recent sources are more favourable than older sources as it will have the most up-to-date information. For articles with a lot of literature like this, sometimes Wikipedia has to pick some of the highest quality sources and exclude others. Z1720 (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:MEDCITE is only an essay, which says at the top "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors." and is not really relevant to a basic biochemistry article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I should have piped the phrase "still specialized knowledge" to WP:NOTBLUE to balance the emphasis of my comment. Regardless, MEDCITE doesn't give advice on how to select one reliable source from a sea of reliable sources saying the same thing. Just opting for the most recent textbook is not an ideal solution if no one can read it without dropping a hundred dollars or more (being generous there). ― Synpath 19:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Synpath is correct. We do not need to add citations for obvious facts. Overcitation is a problem on Wikipedia because it makes articles difficult to read. Perhaps Z1720 could show us what bits of information he thinks should require citations by inserting tags after every bit of information in the introduction?

The issue about which textbooks to use is also a problem. I'm a biochemistry textbook author so, as you might imagine, I have definite opinions about which textbooks are the best ones to cite. :-) Surely we don't want citations to four or five different textbooks after every sentence in the introduction?

I marked the article with citation needed tags where I thought they were needed. Information only needs to be verified by one source, so that will solve the overcitation concern. The lead of the article doesn't need citations, per WP:LEADCITE, as the information is supposed to be the body of the article (and cited in the body). Z1720 (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Thank-you for inserting those citation requests. I disagree with all of them but it helps focus the discussion. I don't think we need a citation when there's a link to another article that explains the topic. Genome42 (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Genome42: Per WP:CIRC, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source and the reader should be able to verify the information in the protein article without going to another Wikipedia article to find the source the verifies it. Z1720 (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Gimme a break! The citation you want inserted is a textbook reference. How many readers have that particular textbook at hand in order to verify that "The field of bioinformatics is now indispensable for the analysis of genes and proteins" or that isopycnic centrifugation is a useful technique? There are times when Wikipedia's picayune rules get in the way of common sense. Genome42 (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Genome42: Editors do not have to ensure that every reader has access to a source. Rather, the source has to verify the information if someone looks it up. If Wikipedia policies are against common sense, editors can propose changes at Wikipedia:Village pump. Z1720 (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

The "History" section ends in 2007, and I think more recent information should be included. The "Demographics" section is largely uncited and contains a lot of information about the 2000 and 2010 censuses. I think this section can be reduced and should be cited more effectively. The lead needs to be updated with the latest demographic information. There are some uncited statements in other areas of the article not indicated above. Z1720 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as all of the issues have now been addressed due to the hardwork of various editors. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @DaniloDaysOfOurLives: I added cn tags to a couple places in the article that still need citations. I suggest that the "History" section be broken up with Level 3 headings for readability. Z1720 (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

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

Result pending

The article has some uncited passages throughout the article. The "Current fleet" has an "update needed" orange banner from October 2022 and its prose might be counter to MOS:CURRENCY. Z1720 (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• On uncited passages: It doesn't look that bad at the moment. Can you tag stuff you think is problematic with citation needed?
• On "update needed": This issue is unimportant and not a reason to remove GA status. A top-level Wikipedia article on a topic like this is WP:NOT a railfan current fleet update, but rather a historical overview of the 100+ year history. Detailed information on the past few years would not be required even at the featured level. New_York_City_Subway#Rolling_stock stops in 2019 too and is a GA. (I suppose the update banner is a mild warning sign, but only in that it implies there weren't maintainers to simply remove such a banner.) SnowFire (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Z1720: - Just making sure you saw the above. Is there anything you think needs better citing? SnowFire (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @SnowFire: I added "citation needed" tags to places that need citations. I also suggest that the one-sentence paragraphs in "In popular culture" be merged together. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

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

Result pending

I have been aware of this article for some time, but have been reluctant to bring it forward to GAR. It is the last surviving music-related A-Class article, is a band I enjoy listening to, and for a while I believed I could save it. Alas, it has caught the attention of the community, and I believe that the time has come to restore it or delist.

When I was new to Wikipedia 10 years ago, this article was in good shape, and the band broke up only months into my time as a Wikipedian. Time has not treated the band's article kindly; they faded into obscurity while inactive, then regrouped and never really regained the spotlight, and consequently, proper care on Wikipedia. The GA nominator has been retired some 15 years.

The main concerns initially brought forward were lack of sourcing (2c), unreliable sourcing (2b), and a lead that's too short (1b). I personally that the article's breadth of coverage is suspect in its current state (3a), but the previous issues I would agree are the primary issues.

I believe this can be saved with some work, but I am probably too busy to do it alone in a reasonable amount of time, and would welcome any who are interested in assisting me. Also @Z1720: here we go. Sorry, been a very very very busy week. mftp dan 23:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the prose in this article is, at times, less than satisfactory, but I am up to the task. mftp dan 22:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a significant improvement to the lead. It is not quite what I'd consider ideal, as I need to read the rest of the article, but I took some notes from the original GA version (yes, believe it or not that old piece of 2007 junk helped) and it's certainly not as bad before. mftp dan 00:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Not a fan of the overlong and confusing prose, and that line in lead about being a "band to watch" in 2004 really makes them look like a former hype band. I think it has the groundworks to become a good article (you could try speedrunning??) and has plenty of citations to work with, but as it is now, it's pretty bad. // Chchcheckit (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I was supposed to comment but accidently delisted it Facepalm sorry // Chchcheckit (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All good, I think (?) I reverted all the script edits that were made in light of the accident. Give me a week and let me see what I can do. I know it needs work, but I think I can handle it if I adjust my editing focus. If I can't get it by then, we can proceed to delist. mftp dan 15:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Chchcheckit: Do you remember when we worked together on Until the End (Kittie album) and there was a really old reference I couldn't make display anything, and then you did something to fix it? How did you do that? There's a very very old reference from the band's original label in here, and it's a longshot but I'd like to ask if you remember what you did. Worth a shot. mftp dan 01:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Which one Chchcheckit (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Remember when you changed Metal Exiles to make it appear different? I never really figured out how you did what you did, and on the offchance of a miracle I hoped I could do whatever that was here. mftp dan 02:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, do you think we could extend this if I keep up my efforts? Progress is going steady this week, but I have to be realistic about my work schedule. I think I'd probably only need until midweek next week at the absolute worst. mftp dan 03:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No I mean link the source Chchcheckit (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh the one in this article? I was wondering if there was any way we could make this show anything of value. Evidently it did some 17 years ago. mftp dan 16:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that can be fixed. The difference was a separate URL copy/print version with Metal Exiles, whereas this is just borked in general. // Chchcheckit (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I will finish copyediting this today and start looking for sourcing fixes; if I am unable to turn anything over for the early section we might have no choice but to delist, but I'm not giving up hope. mftp dan 14:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Update: let it be known I was working on this last night when my PC decided to give me the ol' "fuck you" and I lost all my work. I gave up for the night at that point. I'm rather busy today but hope to address it in the evening. I know this is dragging on a bit, but I still think this is salvageable. mftp dan 15:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you guys planning on making more improvements? If not, I plan on closing this by new year. @MFTP Dan @Chchcheckit Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 06:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've gradually been copyediting the article. I'm going to attempt to remedy the sourcing issues. Get back to me on new year's, and if we aren't there or almost there we can close. I am trying very hard not to let this go, but I might just find it's totaled. mftp dan 13:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

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