Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria (GACR). GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. The GAR Coordinators — Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings — work to organize these efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the {{@GAR}} notification template, or make a comment on the talk page.
Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including not meeting the general notability guideline, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment can be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles can be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delist.
Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
If there are many similar articles already nominated at GAR, consider delaying the reassessment request. If an editor notices that many similar GARs are open and requests a hold, such requests should generally be granted.
Opening a reassessment
To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment).
Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.
Manual opening steps
Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
Transclude the assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste {{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}} at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion.
Notify major contributing editors, including the nominator and the reviewer. Also consider notifying relevant active WikiProjects related to the article. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
Reassessment process
Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them.
The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion.
If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.
Closing a reassessment
To close a discussion, use the GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).
GARs typically remain open for at least one week.
Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time.
After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.
Manual closing steps
Locate {{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page.
The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)
Disputing a reassessment
A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect. A closure should only be disputed within the first seven days following the close.
Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
If discussing does not resolve concerns, editors should post at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the coordinators.
The Good articles listed below would benefit from the attention of reviewers as to whether they need to be reassessed. In cases where they do, please open a community reassessment and remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, remove the template from the article talk page.
The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a featured article candidate, please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed.
There is uncited text, particularly in the "Team colours" section. The lead is quite long for an article of this size, and should probably be shortened to a couple of paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead contains information that is not in the article body, which makes it very long for an article of this size. This information should be moved to the article body (and properly cited), and the lead should be a summary of the body's contents. There is also uncited text in the article, including an entire paragraph, a "citation needed" tag placed in 2014 that should be resolved, and "Illegal shots and fouls" has an external link in the text: is this a reliable source that can be used as an inline citation, or should it be removed? Z1720 (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From reading the article, the festival seems to have ended but there is little information as to why, and much of the lead is written in present tense as if the festival is still happening. Is there any post-2015 information about this topic? Per WP:IMDB, IMDB should not be used as a source. These sources should be replaced in the article. There is uncited prose in the article, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At over 13,000 words, it is recommended at WP:TOOBIG that the article length be reduced. Some of this material can be spun out (or removed because they have already been spun out) or reduced as too much detail. There are some sections that are too long: when trimming text, I recommend that each section have a maximum of four paragraphs. There are also some uncited sections, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is uncited text throughout the article, particularily in the "Opposition" section. The "Opposition" section also seems like an indiscriminate list of events, instead of organised and encyclopedic prose. I think much of this information needs to be summarised more effectively or removed. The lead is too short and does not address all aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There is also a "better sources needed" banner from November 2023. Z1720 (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At over 10,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends that some of the text be spun out into other articles, which I agree with. The lead is also quite long, contributing to the word count concerns. Many sections are out of date, using 2012 figures such as the "Climate characteristics of some major Adriatic cities" table, "Most populous urban areas on the Adriatic coast" list, "Tourism in the Adriatic Sea area" table, "Major Adriatic ports", and annual transport volume" table. The "History" section stops at 2006 and "Oil and gas" stops at 2012. There is also a gallery section, which per WP:NOTGALLERY I recommend that it is removed and the images interspersed within the article text. Z1720 (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could the nominator please specify which GA criteria are not satisfied. "History stopping at 2006" is not an actionable complaint - what specifically need be addressed? The same applies for all other similar complaints. WP:TOOBIG is neither a policy nor a GA criterion. Regarding spinning off material; again, no actionable complaint, just a "recommendation" without any specific overly detailed section. Regarding the gallery; WP:BRD tells what to do - remove it boldly - it does not indicate to start a vaguely worded GA review. Overall, the nomination is not actionable as it notes no particular GA criteria not met and should be closed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding upon my review:
WP:WIAGA 3a states that the article "addresses the main aspects of the topic". By not having post-2006 information, it is missing more recent events in its coverage of the topic.
WP:TOOBIG is part of Wikipedia:Article size, a Wikipedia editing guideline: an overly long article is a good indication that the article might not be in compliance with 3b: "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". Yes, this might mean that the article might not cover all major aspects of the topic and go into too much detail.
WIAGA 1b states that the article "complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections." When looking at the length, MOS:LEADLENGTH (a section in MOS:LEAD) says that an article that is too long "is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway". It also says, "The leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words." This article currently has 685 words, and I think it should be evaluated to see what can be trimmed.
When I have been bold in the past and removed things, I have gotten significant pushback. I prefer subject-matter experts who care about the article make the changes instead.
Reviews are a way for editors to give their opinion on if an article meets the criteria. If the article fulfils the criteria, then this will be closed as keep. As it currently exists, I do not think this article satisfies the GA criteria, per my concerns listed above. Z1720 (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that there is some uncited text in the article, including citation needed tags from February 2023, which will need to be resolved to fultil WIAGA 2b. Z1720 (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for specifying the issues. Regarding the 3a: I don't find post-2006 events one of main aspects of the Adriatic Sea history. The GA criteria require coverage of main aspects - and it does not require comprehensive coverage meant for FAs. Therefore, I believe you have misinterpreted the 3a criterion making it more stringent than it is. It is difficult to conclude anything else since you have not cited any specific post-2006 event representing a main aspect of the Adriatic Sea history instead of asking others to come up with a justification for your concern.
Regarding the size concerns: You have partially cited MOS:LEADLENGTH. It also says the figures you cited are "suggestions". Therefore, each reviewer should apply judgment if the particular number of words (and more importantly their content) is in line with various policies, guidelines, suggestions etc. I can only conclude you'd prefer a shorter lede. The MOS suggests the lede should be concise but it does not appear to require a specific number of words.
It appears that the nominator is using the review to prompt others to be bold where they ought to be bold passing on unnecessary workload to GA review processes. To be clear, I think the article could be better (it's not an FA after all), but I also think it still complies with the GA criteria referenced above and the nomination should be closed as keep.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many sections are underdeveloped, such as most of the level 3 headings in "Health effects", "Consumption" and "Society and culture". There is also some uncited text. Z1720 (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be very little wrong with this article really. The supposedly underdeveloped subsections within 'Health', for example, are very minor sub-aspects of the topic, i.e.
Sugar
Health effects
Obesity and metabolic syndrome --- main article Diet and obesity#Sugar consumption - it seems entirely apposite that this subsubsection is a brief paragraph.
As for uncited text, it's only a few items within lists, all of which are at least partially covered by sources at the heads of those lists. This does seem to be an extremely thin ground for GAR; there are GAs with order-of-magnitude worse problems than this one. I've removed or cited all the uncited claims that I found. I believe the article is now in a good state. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the statistics are from the 2000s, when this article was promoted, and needs to be updated. There is also some uncited text. Z1720 (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of the current iteration of the article was as it was when the article was first accepted as a good article years ago. Much of the COI edits have been from vandals, and it's evident that the article has a major vandalism problem, the subject being a rather popular topic of discussion. I disagree with removing the GA label due to the edits of some bad-faith actors. HackerKnownAs (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While is this a good point, I would also like to express the concern over the fact that many of the citations make heavy references to one Kotaku article. Although I am repeating an concern already expressed in the above talk topic, I feel that it should be mentioned in this talk topic as well. Thought 1915 (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will note, as I did on the talk-page discussion linked, that the GA approval very probably should have never happened. The original COI discussion topic was never rectified and was randomly expunged from the talkpage before the article was assessed.[1] The individual who assessed the article as good only assessed one other article as good, and that article was deleted for large amounts of copyvio. It was an assessment provided by a new reviewer, after an IP editor randomly elevated the article to B Status[2] and expunged an entire talkpage discussion about COI editing. The one who reviewed the article has done little else Special:Contributions/SirGallantThe4th after the review, departed, and returned only to defend 15.ai from deletion[3] and then promptly returned to the ether. Again, there was considerable activity by individuals involved in the "Pony Preservation Project" to edit this article [4] including bragging about having their artwork featured on a wikipedia article [5] the same artwork that is presumably the logo that was copyvio'd off the wikimedia commons and which was improperly re-added to the article. There are blatant references on the PPP thread on the archive _which was included as a source_ on the article that show users suggesting fabricating sources and showing a coordinated effort to drive the direction of the article. Given the involvement of the PPP with 15.ai and the extensive editing done by members of the PPP, it is clear WP:COI. Given the circular nature of the sources (which were deemed reliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Reliable_sources, which is dubiously applicable to this article, as the article is tangentially related to video games) and the fact that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Reliable_sources says that editors should be cautious about blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance which the 15.ai article clearly is. If the Kotaku isn't reliable as "blog/geeky posts", that means every source that references the Kotaku article is likewise unreliable. Given that, the WP:NOTABILITY of the article itself is dubious. There are sources from Jan 2021 and then it only resurfaces in media covering a controversy of Voicesense, not articles about 15.ai itself. The problem with this article goes much deeper than some bad-faith actors who made random edits to the article over the years. Brocade River Poems (She/They)05:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RGA, there's no minimum experience requirement for GA reviewers – questioning an editor's review history isn't based on Wikipedia policy.
The COI claims don't meet WP:COI burden of evidence – community discussion on PPP forums doesn't constitute "direct financial or close personal relationships."
Per WP:VG/RS, gaming outlets like Kotaku are considered reliable for tech coverage. The article meets WP:GNG through significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Gaps in coverage don't invalidate WP:SUSTAINED once notability is established.
Removing talk page content followed WP:TPO guidelines for outdated discussions. If specific violations exist, they should be raised at WP:AN/I rather than used to challenge GA status.
Furthermore, the last time WP:NOTABILITY of the subject was questioned, it was unanimously agreed that it met notability. Per WP:NTEMP, the relevant quote is "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." HackerKnownAs (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RGA, there's no minimum experience requirement for GA reviewers – questioning an editor's review history isn't based on Wikipedia policy.
It is entirely relevant when the editor in question had little activity on Wikipedia, reviewed two articles and two articles alone, and flagged them both as good when both articles had issues that should have failed them. Very specifically, this article failed GA Criteria for reliable sourcing when it was reviewed because it used WeGotThisCovered as a source [6]which has been an unreliable source on Wikipedia since 2020WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED as well as using The Batch, which during the draft process was said to be an unreliable source.
The COI claims don't meet WP:COI burden of evidence – community discussion on PPP forums doesn't constitute "direct financial or close personal relationships."
The COI claims that were first brought against yourself, PortalFan22, and GregariousMadness Talk:15.ai#COI were never adequately addressed and were perfectly relevant. Moreover, the discussion was wrongfully expunged by IP Editor vandalismSpecial:Diff/1090463388. When the project you are writing about contains the notation Special shoutouts go to 4chan's /mlp/ and its anons who have spent hundreds of hours collecting, cleaning, and organizing clips of dialogue taken from the show My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. Their collective efforts as well as their constructive criticism via thorough tests of experimental model versions have proven to be extremely helpful and ultimately indispensable to the development of my work and when the PPP cites 15.ai's code of conduct as their own code of conduct, yes, participating in off-wiki discussions about editing an article about something they are heavily involved in the development of constitutes a WP:COI. When material goods, such as artwork and logos, are being provided to 15.ai by PPP, that is a clear relationship. When PPP is directing individuals to edit the article to include information about PPP that is a clear and blatant conflict of interest.
Per WP:VG/RS, gaming outlets like Kotaku are considered reliable for tech coverage.
Per WP:VG/RS, News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable, although editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance. The Kotaku Article is filed under Odds and Ends[7], not News. The article is not tagged as News. It is not a news post.
The article meets WP:GNG through significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Gaps in coverage don't invalidate WP:SUSTAINED once notability is established.
Furthermore, the last time WP:NOTABILITY of the subject was questioned, it was unanimously agreed that it met notability.
Notability isn't established. The coverage is trivial, and the previous AfD on this article was interfered with by blatant WP:SPA accounts that accounted for 4 Keep votes[8][9][10][11], and the AfD was specifically closed with the message Although not unanimous. The article plainly fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSUSTAINED which says Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. The Eurogamer coverage isn't about 15.ai, the 2022 converage is solely about the Voiceverse controversy and stolen content from 15.ai, it is not sufficient to establish notability for 15.ai.
I find it odd that you consider an IP Editor who did nothing but vandalize Wikipedia pages aside from increasing this article to B Status and expunging a thread about WP:COI editing to have followed WP:TPO guidelines. In fact, WP:TPO explicitly states: The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission. The only exception given for deleting talk page content is Delete. It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above), and comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself (as opposed to comments and discussion about the treatment of the subject in the article).
Nothing in WP:TPO allows for the wholesale deletion of a valid concern of WP:COI just because 3 months had transpired since the issue was brought up. Archival exists for a reason. Closing discussions exists for a reason. It is wholly inappropriate to delete and expunge the COI topic. Brocade River Poems (She/They)12:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, the suggestion that 15.ai does not meet notability is dumbfounding. It pioneered accessible neural voice synthesis, was widely covered in tech media, and influenced numerous subsequent AI voice projects. I would not be exaggerating when I say its advent was one of the biggest news in the AI space in 2020 and 2021. Whether or not you agree with how the GA review was conducted, the project’s significance in AI development is well-documented and indisputable. The coverage is certainly not trivial, and the attempt to downplay it by cherry-picking coverage gaps or questioning the reliability of established tech journalism (and patently ignoring the sources that *are* reliable) does not seem motivated by Wikipedia policy.
With all due respect, your continued penchant of vanishing from Wikipedia and returning only for championing the existence of this article is highly unusual.
I would not be exaggerating when I say its advent was one of the biggest news in the AI space in 2020 and 2021the project’s significance in AI development is well-documented and indisputable
These are not only wholly uncited and unsubstantiated claims, but claims which would indicate you have some sort of interest in this project and, again, should have never been involved in assessing the article in the first place. I am not going to repeat my points about why much of the sourcing is unreliable. If there is such wide, well-documented, and indisputable source coverage, where is it? Why is none of it represented in the article? Why is it that the only sources used were WP:SPS and unreliable sources?
The coverage is certainly not trivial, and the attempt to downplay it by cherry-picking coverage gaps or questioning the reliability of established tech journalism (and patently ignoring the sources that *are* reliable) does not seem motivated by Wikipedia policy.
It's not "cherry-picking" to state the plain fact that the sources used are not reliable for the purposes they are being used for. Kotaku's Odds and Ends culture section is not News. Kotaku is deemed reliable for News Posts during this time period. Articles which circularly refer to Kotaku's Odds and Ends piece within the same week as the Kotaku article does not represent WP:SIGCOV. Brocade River Poems (She/They)23:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What a concerning post. It’s extremely strange that my editing patterns are being used to cast suspicion on the subject’s notability and its GA status. As someone who works in AI, I naturally took interest in reviewing the 15.ai article given its significance in voice synthesis - in its heyday, it was literally the biggest thing in the voice AI space. The implication that my “return” to defend it from deletion was suspicious ignores the simple fact that many editors follow topics they find an interest in, and the fact that one can stay logged into my account without wanting to contribute to Wikipedia.
I suggest stepping back and seeing how presumptuous (and frankly alienating) your comments are. You’ve crafted an elaborate theory about coordinated editing and suspicious motives based solely on contribution patterns. Not every editor needs to be constantly active to make valid contributions, and returning to defend an article I reviewed from deletion is perfectly natural. Occam’s Razor applies here, and I hope anyone else who reads this can see it for themselves as well.
There appears to be coordinated disruptive editing going on. While the 15.ai article has experienced vandalism before, the current situation is unprecedented. The above editor's removal of well-sourced content followed by claims of insufficient citations is particularly concerning. That a non-neutral paragraph that blatantly violated WP:YESPOV (which I reverted recently) was "approved at DRN" is also strongly questionable, especially given the unusual spike in DRN activity as well.
I plan to restore the article next week in accordance with WP:BRD, and I hope other long-term editors familiar with the article's development can assist (including yourself). Per WP:ATD, I don't believe GA status should be removed until we've made a good-faith effort to address any legitimate concerns through collaborative editing. The current issues, while worth discussing, can be resolved through normal Wikipedia processes rather than immediately reverting to non-GA status. HackerKnownAs (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest stepping back and seeing how presumptuous (and frankly alienating) your comments are.
There is broad evidence of off-Wiki coordination to edit the article, coupled with the emergence of clear WP:SPA activity and manipulation in both the AfD and the editing of the article. It is not, frankly, presumptuous or absurd to suspect something is suspicious about an editor who erroneously assesses 2 articles as good, one of which is full of copyvio, and then disappears for an extended amount of time and returns only to defend this article. Brocade River Poems (She/They)23:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve said multiple times that you have evidence of off-wiki coordination to edit the article, and yet you haven’t posted solid evidence at all. I wasn’t aware of any forum before I came across this article while surfing through random AI related articles two years ago, so how does that make my involvement with the article a coordinated affair? The burden of proof lies with the editor making serious accusations, and forum discussions and editing patterns alone don’t constitute evidence whatsoever. If you have actual evidence of coordination, please post them instead of throwing unfounded accusations at editors who just want to help.
I would also like to point out that I haven’t done “little else” on Wikipedia, I was responsible for creating the Berlin draw section in the Berlin Defence article, which has since been heavily cited numerous times in Chess.com articles, Youtube videos, and other places on the Internet. It’s not fair to pass judgment for not being active on Wikipedia when I prefer to edit articles where I’m familiar with the subject rather than editing as many articles as possible to pump my contributions number up.
If you want more volunteers to help improve Wikipedia, I suggest not scrutinizing casual editors. I’m honestly a bit offended that I somehow have less credibility just because I don’t edit articles frequently.
This article hasn't been reassessed in the twelve years after it was nominated and listed for GA. Not only has the article undergone drastic changes, so has Minaj's career and public image as well. The latest section chronicling her Pink Friday 2 era is twelve paragraphs long.. Clearly there's a content issue here with the bloating, although as a novice editor I'm not sure what. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do want to help but the article is so bloated that most of my editing would be content deletion, (12 paragraphs for one career section is insane) and that is usually frowned upon and might start an edit war. I wouldn't participate, but it has the potential to get messy PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From a glance, 12 paragraphs is uncomfortably long for one section on Pink Friday 2. That definitely needs a trim. The "filmography" section on the other hand is glaringly incomplete when not listing even half of her movies. Lots of citations aren't formatted correctly (e.g. AllMusic, Instagram, iTunes, Digital Spy, BBC News, Capital, Catholic League, and Apple Music shouldn't have italics while some refs are missing authors), and I'm not sure it's appropriate to use referral links to albums or mixtapes close to section headers. The article doesn't seem very stable at the moment, and either way I reluctantly say delist the article given the many issues it has, with excess detail just being one of them as outlined above. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is uncited prose, including uncited paragraphs, in the article. The "Fires" section seems like information about the bridge's history: I think it should be interspersed within the history of the bridge, not given its own section. There doesn't seem to be any post-2016 information. Z1720 (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are uncited statements throughout the article. I also do not think the "Acts of heroism under the flag" section is written encyclopedically. Instead, some of it seems like nationalist rhetoric, off-topic, or should be redistributed to other article sections. Z1720 (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has over 13,000 words: WP:TOOBIG says that it should probably be trimmed and WP:SPINOUT. There's also some sections that are very long: if after the trim they are still long, I recommend additional headings. Z1720 (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of uncited text, including entire sections. The article relies on a lot of large block quotes: these should be summarised and reduced when able. Z1720 (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can take a look at some of this. I agree that block-quoting the reactions and background material doesn't work. However, I don't see a problem with quoting significantly from the opinion itself. It's an effective summary of a public domain text where the specific language is important. Paraphrasing it risks making the document less useful and potentially less accurate. lethargilistic (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please make sure that you follow MOS:Law when evaluating this GA article. As to other comments, the block quotes are limited and appropriate when discussing this legal issue. GregJackPBoomer!04:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a GA by current standards, in my opinion. For one, it cites few reliable sources and instead relies mostly on the text of the decision itself. For another, it's rather poorly written and formatted. White Whirlwind 12:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, quoting large sections introduces legalise into the article, making it harder for the reader to understand the arguments. If the reader wanted to read the decision, they would have looked up the original text. As an encyclopedia, we are supposed to be a tertiary source and provide summaries of the decision: if this was a fiction article writing a plot section, I would encourage editors to remove quotes from the piece of fiction and instead summarise the plot. The lack of citations in other sections, including the entire "Legal background" section, has not been addressed yet. Also, the "Media response" section puts a lot of weight on the opinions of three sources, while the subsequent paragraph mentions sources that are only used to state that they reported on the case, without using those sources as inline citations for the information in the article. I suggest that this section be formatted more like the suggestions in WP:RECEPTION: while it is an essay for how to format reception sections for media, it would be helpful for organising and summarising the information in that area more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720:. This isn't a piece of fiction, it's an article on a landmark legal decision by the US Supreme Court. It is completely appropriate to quote a few sentences to show the legal principle decided, especially when you consider the length of the opinion, including any concurrences or dissents. GregJackPBoomer!04:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GregJackP: It is appropriate to use some quotes from the case, but I think the article relies on quotes too much, as much of the prose is quotes, especially in the "Majority opinion" and "Sotomayor's dissent" sections. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: - You stated that much of the prose is quotes, which is not true. There are just under 6200 words of text in the article, of which only 232 words are in the block quotes, a mere 3.7% of the total. The vast majority of the article is prose. In comparison, in a featured article on a court opinion (United States v. Washington), block quotes make up 3.3% of the total. GregJackPBoomer!23:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@White whirlwind: Please refer to MOS:Law, which states that for articles on legal opinions can use both primary and secondary sources. Both are reliable sources, and your objection seems to be that their are not sufficient secondary sources. Just under half of the references are reliable secondary sources (20 of 41), and the others are all reliable primary sources (21 of 41). The formatting follows U.S. Supreme Court Style Guide, and is written in the same style as other featured and good articles on SCOTUS cases. I'll defer to others on whether it is poorly written or not. GregJackPBoomer!04:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. Like all niche policies, MOS:LAW is inferior and subservient to general policies such as WP:NOR. NOR specifies that articles should be "based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on ... primary sources." White Whirlwind 13:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citing the document as a primary source in the article about that document to make straightforward statements about its content is not OR. WP:NOR says "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, ...an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." When WP:NOR says the article ought to rely "to a lesser extent" on primary sources, that means at least half of the references should be to secondary sources (minimum, of course, and I'm aware that that's an essay). In context, that is an expression that the article needs to "establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." (The latter is operative now, obviously.) In this article, the opinion is being cited for its contents and nothing more. Per WP:NOR, where there is no neutrality issue like undue weight, "a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents." The article needs at least one more secondary source to get over the minimum by Greg's count, but it's otherwise fine on this point. lethargilistic (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say using a primary source was OR; I said only that NOR requires articles to be based primarily on secondary sources. Moreover, whether it is "straightforward" to summarize a case using itself as a primary source is still up for debate on this site. I have always been on the "no" side of that argument. There are many benefits when editors follow secondary sources' description of cases instead of trying to summarize cases directly: It avoids problems of WP:WEIGHT, it avoids the wide discrepancies in editors' legal training and understanding, and so forth. White Whirlwind 18:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GregJackP: NOR is a policy and MOS:LAW is a guideline. WP:PG states, "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards all users should normally follow" while "Guidelines are sets of best practices supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Policy is seen on Wikipedia as superior to guidelines and should be followed except under exceptional circumstances. Z1720 (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: - I'm aware of the difference between the two, White whirlwind (talk·contribs) made a statement that asserted that MOS:Law was inferior to WP:NOR, and I'm asking for a cite to a reference that categorically states what he asserted. What you stated here doesn't do that. Neither does WP:NOR really apply to this article, and the sentence he quoted is akin to dicta instead of being on point for the policy he is citing. As lethargilistic (talk·contribs) pointed out, all the article needs is one additional secondary source to be primarily based on secondary sources. GregJackPBoomer!23:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The categorical fact follows eo ipso from the distinction Z1720 mentioned; WP:NOR is part of the Five Pillars, but the MOS and its subvariants are not. Why any experienced editor would need a cite for that is beyond me. To your second point, I have no idea whether the article currently contains any original research. That is irrelevant here, because neither I nor anyone else (if I understand them correctly) has claimed it does. The provisions of WP:NOR apply to every article on Wikipedia whether they contain original research or not, just like WP:NPOV and the other fundamental policies always apply. Returning to the issue at hand, in its present state this article does not rely on primary sources only "to a lesser extent". That contravenes NOR, and it should be fixed before we allow the article to retain its GA imprimatur. White Whirlwind 14:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think NOR and MOS/Law are that much in tension, myself. In any case, you said this issue of whether or not a description of a opinion can be primarily cited to the case itself is unsettled and that you have always come down on "No." You have also said that nobody is alleging the article has a problem with original research. I don't see any concrete neutrality/viewpoint problems here, and the subject is indisputably notable, so I think the question is moot because the problem that NOR is trying to address is addressed. So, I don't see why your particular, strong interpretation of this question should control right now, tbh. Like, fine, write articles from scratch with this restriction; I certainly won't stop you. What does this really have to do with Berghuis, an article that only I have been working on in the last week? I reassert that the amount of quotations in the case summary is fine, but I haven't copyedited that section yet. I'm going one or two paragraphs per session. lethargilistic (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying this article must have no cites to the case — although that would be my goal if I were working on it myself. I'm saying it must rely on primary (and tertiary) sources only "to a lesser extent", as WP:NOR prescribes. It doesn't, in its current state. The article relies extensively on the case as a primary source, particularly in the section "The Court's decision". That's the main problem that prevents me from calling it a GA, as I said in my initial comment. White Whirlwind 15:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't care about the style guide and the guidelines? Are you claiming that a single sentence in WP:NOR, having nothing to do with the policy's focus on original research, trumps the consensus of MOS:LAW? Sorry, I don't buy that approach. GregJackPBoomer!23:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "History" section stops at 2002, there are uncited passages throughout the article, and the lead is too short and does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the in-line writing is too casual in tone, and there is still course-catalog content, and laundry lists (clubs). The article, on the whole, is not especially well-written nor is it better than average. My vote is to reassess out of good article status. --Melchior2006 (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The entries in "Use in other media" are unformatted and most are uncited. The lead does not summarise all aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At over 13,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends that the article be trimmed or WP:SPINOUT. There are also uncited sentences in the article, and new information has been added since its GAN which should be formatted more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Legacy" section is my biggest concern: the first paragraph is uncited, while the rest of the paragraphs are an assortment of appearances in other media. There are also some uncited statements in other parts of the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note The version when it was a GAN had no uncited things. So the question is, would it be impossible to revert the article to that state and then update as necessary or would it need more major work? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the originally listed version in 2011, I don't think that would even be sufficient. I'm not sure that version should have even been listed as was (though I am not saying it should have failed instead). That version also has a completely uncited paragraph in Legacy. Perhaps Salvidrim! can correct me if I am displaying ignorance of the rules working differently here, since he is the original nominator. mftp dan19:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MFTP Dan: It was only recently that GA required a citation after every paragraph (with some exceptions, like the lead). Articles were not "grandfathered" into this requirement, so GAs promoted before this change might require fixing up to meet this higher standard. If there was one or two minor citation concerns, I would not consider bringing an article to GAR. With this article, I thought the amount of uncited text was too much for the article to be considered GA at that time. If someone is willing to fill in the missing citations, I can re-review. Z1720 (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has many uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There is an empty "Legacy" section with an orange banner in it since July 2024. Z1720 (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Z1720, I'll be looking after this; plan is to resolve the immediate issues that have crept in since the original GA nom (which I followed at the time), bring the referencing format current to 2024 fashions ;) — and will ping you for a further look once those relatively easy parts are done. Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has unsourced statements, is missing post-2012 information and the lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, yeah, this article needs some cleaning up. I think someone was over-zealous with the tags, but there is a LOT of material that needs outside sourcing. The page also needs to be updated in general. I'm in the process of working on this.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@3family6: It looks a lot better. I added some cn tags. Some of the paragraphs are quite long and should be broken up, like the last paragraph of "Early years (formation to 2002)", both paragraphs in "Style", and the first and last paragraph of "Kekal and Christianity". I think the second paragraph of "Influences" should be removed as it is cited to Pintrest. Are there any more recent sources that can be added to the article, especially to replace social media inline citations? Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At over 12,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends that the article be trimmed and information spun off, and I think that should happen with this article. There are also some unsourced statements, and sources in the "Further reading" section that could be incorporated into the article or removed, but these are minor compared to the length concerns. Z1720 (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 I would not mind contributing if there is a consensus of what to do. I think moving all awards and similar to the specific article is a good idea. A history article seems like a decent idea Imho. A legacy or influence article I could also see being a good idea.★Trekker (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t have as much time for Wikipedia anymore, but just my two cents since I was very involved in getting this article to GA status the first time around and contributing many sub-articles and content:
Is there a precedent for spinning off history articles for music groups? Just trying to find a good example.
A lot of the 2007-present history suffers from recentism and can be truncated and/or moved to other articles like tour & album articles. Sadly, a lot of the tour articles were deleted due to notability disputes and mostly lack of sourcing…this is a whole other issue that needs to be addressed, but it kinda ties in with the main article. Since 2007, the band only released 1 album and the Guitar Hero video game. There was also some band conflict w/ Steven Tyler in 2009-10, the Joey Kramer drama circa 2019-20, several tours, solo endeavors, the Vegas residency, and the scuttled farewell tour. Content should mostly focus on those things, but there’s a lot of fluff that can be pared down.
Definitely agree a lot of the awards narrative could be moved over to the Awards article. I actually thought the mindset on GA the first time around was to have more of these narrative sections in the main article, instead of just links to sub-articles, but I guess that’s changed.
Agree on Legacy & Influence sub-article. See above.
Yes, there is precedent for spinning off history articles. Beatlemania and The Beatles on The Ed Sullivan Show are good examples: events from the history of the band can be spun off if there is enough coverage of the event to warrant an article. Considering the length of the article, this should be considered. Z1720 (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. I thought others were suggesting a “History of Aerosmith” article or something to that effect, which I haven’t yet seen with other bands. Definitely makes sense to spin off detailed content into sub-articles. In Aerosmith’s case, I think siphoning off details into the album and tour articles make the most sense. Abog (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has uncited text, including entire paragraphs and statements attributed to people without citations. The lead could also use an update for formatting. Z1720 (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might be able to help with this. I haven't been involved with the page previously, so far as I can remember. Some immediate thoughts I have are:
Is it right that the page should attempt to cover both the historical person and the Shakespearean character? Or are those two separate entities requiring two separate articles? If the latter my worry is that the historical one would be little more than a stub. Is there precedent for this kind of decision?
Is there a WP:WEIGHT issue in devoting so much of the article to the character rather than the historical figure? (In this regard I would venture a guess that MUCH more has been said in reliable sources about the fictional Fleance than the historical one.)
Is there a WP:WEIGHT issue in devoting so much of the article to Fleance's depiction in films, when he is equally - or moreso - a stage character?
I've quite a lot of sources on this so if @Z1720: you can give me an indication of which bits you consider to be unsourced or undersourced, I can start doing some fixing.
Probably two separate articles, though if the historical figure is not notable, then it can't get its own article.
If the article focuses on the Shakespeare character, it doesn't need too much information about the historical figure.
I don't think the article needs to have too much information about its various depictions, especially since Macbeth has been staged and depicted several times. Instead, it should focus on what academics have said about the character's role in the play.
Thank you. I'll take a look in the next day or so. Would you (or anyone) have any objection to me removing the whole paragraph beginning "Theatre scholar Marvin Rosenberg theorises..."? No doubt we could reliably source what Rosenberg says from his book. But we cannot reliably source from there that he is wrong, and why, which is what the article currently says, in Wikipedia's own voice. My conclusion is that it's WP:OR, and should go. AndyJones (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. I'd say probably not in a major way, but I will look through my sources again to see if I have anything which helps to address the issues raised here. If I don't repost here by 28th you can safely assume I concluded I had nothing new to say.
This article has an orange "additional citations needed" in the "Production logo" section from 2023 which needs to be resolved. It is over 11,000 words, which WP:TOOBIG states should probably be reduced. There are also a couple of uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was 11705 words as of October 5, the last edit before I became involved, and now is 11470 words. I'll see what else I can weed, but this is a studio where even the unproductive eras are the sole focus of multiplebooks. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanimum: This article might be a good candidate to WP:SPINOUT sections of its history. This has already started with Disney Renaissance. After spinning out these sections, this article can give an overview of that time period (I recommend 4 paragraphs max per spun-out article) to reduce the word count. If readers are interested in finding out more information, they can go to the relevant article. Z1720 (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I count 28 citation needed tags, some of which span entire paragraphs. True, the article is large, but I still think that's probably too many to ignore. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just like the Texas herself, I believe that it's time to bring this neglected 17 year-old GA to dry dock for repairs. There are several issues (article version):
1b. The service history section is well-organized, but the museum section has several sub-sections with three short paragraphs mixed in with much longer sub-sections. Both could also use years in parentheticals in the subheadings.
2b. Some claims are cited to unreliable sources, such as YouTube videos (e.g., ref 71). There's also a valid {{failed verification}} tag from Nov. 2012 and three valid citation needed tags (oldest Jan. 2023). Additionally, all but one of the nine footnotes (ref group A) lack inline citations.
2c. There are at least 18 portions of text that solely cite primary sources (see all 18 references tagged with {{third-party inline}} as of Sept. 2012)
3a. The article lacks relevant detail in that the 2022 dry docking section hasn't been updated since April 2024.
3b. The article goes into unnecessary detail in that it relies on primary sources.
As I wasn't involved in the Coord discussion, I don't think there's any conflict of interest, so granted. Unless I'm just blind, there's no place to amend this on the template itself, but it should be considered on hold pending the A-Class work. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum18:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nolli's book (Noli, Fan Stilian (1947), George Castroiti Scanderbeg (1405–1468)) – does not provide sources for the information provided in the entry.
Schmaus (Schmaus, Alois (1969), Beiträge zur Kenntnis Südosteuropas und des Nahen Orients, vol. 8, Trofenik) is cited as the author of the periodical, but the title of his article in Beiträge zur Kenntnis Südosteuropas is missing.
Franco, Demetrio (1539), Commentary on the cose of Turchi, et del S. Georgio Scanderbeg, principe d' Epyr (the publication from 1539 has an ISBN number? How could the author use the publication from 1539?)
We do not understand why the author, who declares knowledge of Albanian, did not publish the article in the Albanian language version of Wikipedia?
The discussants drew attention to the title of the article: in publications this era of fighting is called an uprising, and the actions of the sultan are called retaliation. We assess that the article Pierwsza kampania Mehmeda II w Albanii cannot be recognized on pl:wiki as GA, and we have grounds to believe that the article Mehmed II's Albanian campaign probably is a hoax.
I agree with Setergh's assessment of C class due to referencing and citation problems. I also find the content suspicious. Other articles not by the same user do not mention campaigns involving the Albanians and Ottomans at the same time. Mehmed was concertrating on taking Constantinople during the same time period as the events in the article. The reviewers who looked at this could not find information in the article in some of the cited sources. Further research might show this is a hoax. A successful hoax along these lines would include real historical persons doing things they might have done along the lines of actual verified actions at other times in other contexts. I am not quite prepared to say this is a hoax article but it is certainly questionable. It should be downgraded for a start. Donner60 (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was invited to have a look at the MILHIST talk page. Right off the bat, I am surprised that the go-to resource on Mehmed's reign, Franz Babinger's Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, or Setton's monumental and indispensable The Papacy and the Levant, were not used. Mehmed's preoccupation in the spring and summer 1452 is known to have been the construction of Rumeli Hisar in preparation for the siege of Constantinople, and the article itself makes clear that he did not lead the campaign; so the title of the article at least incorrect. Schmaus' contribution is, I assume this dedicated volume, so it is slightly mis-cited. I can also detect at least one error of fact: Skanderbeg's primary reason for allying with Alfonso was his fear of 21-year-old Mehmed II is untrue, since Mehmed was considered widely a non-entity at the time, a youth stepping into shoes too big for him to fill; Skanderbeg was motivated by the Ottoman threat, but also by internal rivalries. I had a look at the EI2 article, where the events of 1452 are not mentioned, and the İslâm Ansiklopedisiarticle on Skanderbeg, where it at least confirms that "The young sultan contented himself with sending forces against Skanderbeg in the first years of his reign and tried to keep him under pressure. It is known that during the siege of Istanbul, a unit under the command of Ibrahim Bey moved against the Albanian-Neapolitan forces, but was unsuccessful." However this only explicitly confirms Battle of Polog. In short, I would like more easily accessible (and of higher scholarly caliber) sources for verifiability, but fundamentally, assuming good faith, and given that the events in Albania prior to Mehmed's active involvement there are not well covered by Western historians (cf. Babinger or Setton), I would assume that the events recounted are factual. As such I don't think this is a hoax, but it does warrant improvements in sourcing, especially as Skanderbeg's life is heavily mythologized. Constantine ✍ 09:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I may be able to get my hands on a copy of Schmaus within the next couple of weeks from the university library, will then definitely revisit the article then. Constantine ✍ 15:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to be suffering from a great degree of scope creep. It's bloated considerably in size since the GAN in 2014, and further changes within the show in the 2020s have only bloated the article out further. Last GAR was closed as "kept", but it's only gotten worse since then as more changes have ensued in the show's history (e.g., the tournament spinoffs, Michael Davies taking over, Mayim Bialik being fired, etc.). Also, I think the gameplay description and host changeover sections are way too verbose and detailed. I should also note that Claire McNear's 2020 book has not been integrated into the article and is only listed under "further reading". I do have a copy of the book, but the rest of the article needs a severe trim first. Ten Pound Hammer • 04:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick skim of the article, and while at first glance I think it seemed quite long for a tv show. But after further thought it does seem to be necessary for how much information of a show of that caliber should maintain. I don't quite know what information I would cut. Eruditess (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's way too much technical cruft about the ins and outs of tournaments, for one. The section on host changes could also be massively tightened up and do without all the quotes. Ten Pound Hammer • 23:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @SethAllen623: This was 10 (!) years ago now, but Seth and I worked together a bit on bringing this and Millionaire (also recently delisted as a GA, unfortunately) up to GA standards. If I recall correctly, the same reviewer took on both articles and admittedly didn't cover as much detail in their reviews as they probably could/should have. I don't know how much time I have to try to save this one at the moment, though I do have the updated 2022 paperback version of McNear's book and would be happy to at least try to incorporate that into this article where appropriate later this week. FWIW, I donated my copy of the original 2020 hardback version to my college's library, but given I currently work at said library...I can almost certainly get access to that as well if necessary. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: Hey, sorry, this completely fell off my radar. It looks like Seth's made a few edits just now, so I'll wait a bit to avoid risking an edit conflict...like I said, I do have the McNear book, but as TPH said from the opening, it's probably best to take care of the rest first. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! I have removed about 10,000 bytes off of the bloat that's come into this article. This has included removing the quotations and various other details from the discussion of the host changeovers, and trimming the discussion of special tournaments in the "Tournaments and Events" section. These were the two major points of contention that you people have said needed to be taken care of. Have I done enough now, or is there more to be removed? --SethAllen623 (talk), October 16, 2024, 06:02 UTC.
@SethAllen623: I think it's trimmed down a bit. Still pretty long. My only other concern is adding info from the McNear book. Ten Pound Hammer • 17:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only unsourced segments I see are under "gameplay", which is treated like a plot summary and therefore falls under WP:PLOTREF. Ten Pound Hammer • 18:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer and AirshipJungleman29: Alright, just skimmed back through the McNear book and added inline citations where appropriate. I also updated the citation to the 2022 paperback version - didn't realize there were some updates in there beyond just the afterword. How are we feeling about things at this point? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: In other GA-class game show articles such as Wheel of Fortune (American game show) and Press Your Luck, a summary of the rules was deemed as being equivalent to a plot summary in an episodic series, and therefore the show itself is implied to be the source. So there is precedent here that not every rule of gameplay necessarily needs a citation. Ten Pound Hammer • 00:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are uncited sections, particularily about the production's history during COVID-19 restrictions. The "Movie" section has large blockquotes which should be summarised instead due to copyright concerns. The article also has over 10,000 words of prose, which WP:TOOBIG states should probably be spun-out or reduced. BroadwayWorld is used as a citation numerous times, which WP:RS/P states is an unreliable source. Z1720 (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Wicked needs a lot of clean-up, and streamlining, but, as I pointed out to Z1720 elsewhere, while WP:RS/P states that BroadwayWorld is not a reliable source "for biographies of living persons", it is a standard source for use in musicals for basic production information like production dates and casts (though Playbill, IBDB, etc. would be preferred). -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above and, looking at the article might I suggest to remove from the cast list the "second US tour" and "second UK tour" casts columns? Although I know it's important to know all casts of Wicked, it has now been 20 years of this production, so removing these columns might leave space for productions where Wicked has never been staged, for example? Musicalge3k5 (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cast tables should contain only the original production and long-running, major market productions. The Productions section should name the stars and notable players in all the noteworthy productions (subject to WP:DUE). Alternatively, we could use the more efficient cast table method used in Carousel, a featured article. In any case, every person named in the cast table should first be named in the Productions section together with a WP:RS verifying that the person actually played the role. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to help more, if I can. I am a big Wicked fan, so anything to share with others. :) Is there anything specific I should be working on? Musicalge3k5 (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Musicalge: you can go through it and make sure that all the assertions are cited, and that any text that does not belong in an encyclopedia is trimmed. Wicked is not a priority of my own; I am just watching it to make sure that people do not add even more fancruft to this very crufty article. In the productions section, all the major, long-running productions should name the director, choreographer, principal cast, notable designers, opening and closing dates, all with appropriate references, and if there was something special about the production that the reviews mentioned, describe it, citing those reviews. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi there, I made quite a bit of changes here and there on the article. Happy to keep going though, are there any sections in particular that need looking at? :) Musicalge3k5 (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Los Angeles, Melbourne and Mexico City should also come out of the casts table, as long as the notable players are named in the productions section, with appropriate refs. User:Z1720, what else do you think needs to be done? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has had an orange "relies on primary sources" banner at the top of the article since October 2023. Upon looking at the inline citations, I agree with that assessment. This would require a subject-matter expert to look through the citations to see what should be replaced with a more recent source. Z1720 (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The scholarly literature on the Greco-Persian wars is vast -- there's no excuse to be using primary sources here, and the sourcing for the article in general is well below what I'd expect of a GA. The modern sources cited are nearly all either non-scholarly, outdated, generally tangential to the field or from people whose scholarly standing is controversial. Fixing this would need a full rewrite, so I would advise a delist if nobody is willing to do that. UndercoverClassicist20:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Overuse of primary sources; secondary sources used are plainly insufficient. It's been well known that the ancient sources' description of the battle are not consistent and do not lend themselves to recognisable (today) topographic features. This is not a problem anymore, however, because we now have aerial ground penetrating radar. Jones (2020) p 196 The [battle] is particularly difficult to reconstruct using only literature from ancient sources... Modern historians [list of 10 names], many of whom visited the battlefield north of Erythres/Kriekouki, were unable to agree on the events and locations of the Battle of Plataea. There are too many complications due to lost topographical markers and reliance on ancient sources [list of 6] to identify locations from accounts of the battle. See also Konechny (2022) for detailed reconstruction. Ifly6 (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for volunteering to take this up. I want to ask, however, whether any rewrite is (for lack of a better term) happening. Ifly6 (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm working on 2 other GA rewrites so the timeline will be delayed quite a bit, but the rewrite is on. I've done the biblio formatting, I expect to complete the rewrite in 30-40 days instead of the 20 estimated above. I hope that is ok, @Ifly6? Matarisvan (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
mention me on reply) Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 23:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: Seems to be being worked on currently. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)