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.
If there is no consensus, the reassessment may also be closed as keep.
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 are numerous citation needed tags in the article, with one dated from Oct 2019. There are some unreliable sources used in the article, like "nndb.com", "Antiwar.com" and "About.com" Z1720 (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are several uncited statements.
There are lots of one-sentence paragraphs which were not in the article when this passed GAN. Is all of this information notable Can all of this information be merged together into multi-sentence paragraphs? IMDB is used as a source, which is considered unreliable. Can another source be found to replace these? Z1720 (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we not just roll it back to an older version or trim out the unsourced/poorly sourced stuff? It doesn't strike me as insurmountable personally, especially considering I doubt there's many recent/new developments to be retained in a song like this... Sergecross73msg me02:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The GA version from 2010 also used IMDB as a source, so that would need to be resolved. The uncited stuff could be trimmed out, but some of it might be necessary in the article for it to be complete: I'll let subject-matter experts decide that. Z1720 (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The unsourced one-line statements can mostly if not entirely be excised. The IMDB source seems to be limited to soundtracks, which can almost certainly be sourced elsewhere (e.g., the movie credits) and if not those are not essential to the article. Rlendog (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if its at full FA/MOS-level acceptance, but generally speaking, the music WikiProjects don't even require sources for track listing unless they're unreleased or particularly contentious for some reason. Sergecross73msg me16:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are several uncited passages throughout the article. The "History" section is too short and needs to be split into multiple paragraphs. "Notable alumni" needs to be split into paragraphs for readability. "Rankings" is outdated and does not include information in the 2020s. Z1720 (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took a spin through the article and fixed several obvious errors. The glaring nature of the deficiencies likely indicates that saving this would be far more work than I have the capacity to take on currently. Sdkb05:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. There are a couple of very long block quotes in the article: I suggest that these are summarised and put as prose instead. With over 10,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends that the information be spun out. I think this is a sign that the article has too much detail and the text should be reduced. The "Post-censure reaction" has lots of small paragraphs that should be organised by theme and merged together. Z1720 (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Logos and uniforms" section is almost completely uncited, and there are other uncited statements in the article. Many sections are very long. I suggest that any section with over 4 paragraphs be broken up with Level 3 headings for easier navigation. I do not believe the "Notable first round picks" is necessary for this article. I think this would be better if it was spun out into an article about the NY Jets's first round draft picks. Z1720 (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, the article seems to be outdated. The conservation status, especially the culture section, must also be expanded and the refbomb should be removed. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 'In culture' section seems quite detailed enough for a species article, with a good diversity of coverage. If there is more it should go in a subsidiary article with a 'main' link here, but that is not a matter for GA or GAR.
The map is poor resolution, and inaccurate particularly in respect of the southern edge of the breeding range; it needs re-doing (I might be able to do so later).
The vernacular names given for the subspecies ("eastern robin", "Newfoundland robin", etc.) are unverified; they are not used in the reference cited for the subspecies (Clement & Hathway, Thrushes), and should probably be deleted, unless other references can be found (which I doubt; weakly defined subspecies like these rarely get vernacular names).
There is far too much repetition of the page name, and even worse, in the possessive case "The American robin's xxxx", which looks awful. All of the latter, and most of the former, should go.
I've updated the tally of UK records to the latest available; I think this paragraph could be trimmed though, individual vagrants and their outcomes are too trivial to include here (and I say this even though I saw one of them myself!).
The 'Threats' section includes some very poor sentence structure and weird colloquial (unencyclopedic) phraseology - this has already been mentioned on the talk page 2 years ago, but not acted on.
The vast majority of the current iteration of the article was as it was when the article was first accepted as a good article years ago. Much of the COI edits have been from vandals, and it's evident that the article has a major vandalism problem, the subject being a rather popular topic of discussion. I disagree with removing the GA label due to the edits of some bad-faith actors. HackerKnownAs (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While is this a good point, I would also like to express the concern over the fact that many of the citations make heavy references to one Kotaku article. Although I am repeating an concern already expressed in the above talk topic, I feel that it should be mentioned in this talk topic as well. Thought 1915 (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will note, as I did on the talk-page discussion linked, that the GA approval very probably should have never happened. The original COI discussion topic was never rectified and was randomly expunged from the talkpage before the article was assessed.[1]The individual who assessed the article as good only assessed one other article as good, and that article was deleted for large amounts of copyvio. It was an assessment provided by a new reviewer, after an IP editor randomly elevated the article to B Status[2] and expunged an entire talkpage discussion about COI editing. The one who reviewed the article has done little else Special:Contributions/SirGallantThe4th after the review, departed, and returned only to defend 15.ai from deletion[3] and then promptly returned to the ether. Again, there was considerable activity by individuals involved in the "Pony Preservation Project" to edit this article [4] including bragging about having their artwork featured on a wikipedia article [5] the same artwork that is presumably the logo that was copyvio'd off the wikimedia commons and which was improperly re-added to the article. There are blatant references on the PPP thread on the archive _which was included as a source_ on the article that show users suggesting fabricating sources and showing a coordinated effort to drive the direction of the article. Given the involvement of the PPP with 15.ai and the extensive editing done by members of the PPP, it is clear WP:COI. Given the circular nature of the sources (which were deemed reliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Reliable_sources, which is dubiously applicable to this article, as the article is tangentially related to video games) and the fact that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Reliable_sources says that editors should be cautious about blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance which the 15.ai article clearly is. If the Kotaku isn't reliable as "blog/geeky posts", that means every source that references the Kotaku article is likewise unreliable. Given that, the WP:NOTABILITY of the article itself is dubious. There are sources from Jan 2021 and then it only resurfaces in media covering a controversy of Voicesense, not articles about 15.ai itself. The problem with this article goes much deeper than some bad-faith actors who made random edits to the article over the years. Brocade River Poems (She/They)05:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RGA, there's no minimum experience requirement for GA reviewers – questioning an editor's review history isn't based on Wikipedia policy.
The COI claims don't meet WP:COI burden of evidence – community discussion on PPP forums doesn't constitute "direct financial or close personal relationships."
Per WP:VG/RS, gaming outlets like Kotaku are considered reliable for tech coverage. The article meets WP:GNG through significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Gaps in coverage don't invalidate WP:SUSTAINED once notability is established.
Removing talk page content followed WP:TPO guidelines for outdated discussions. If specific violations exist, they should be raised at WP:AN/I rather than used to challenge GA status.
Furthermore, the last time WP:NOTABILITY of the subject was questioned, it was unanimously agreed that it met notability. Per WP:NTEMP, the relevant quote is "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." HackerKnownAs (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RGA, there's no minimum experience requirement for GA reviewers – questioning an editor's review history isn't based on Wikipedia policy.
It is entirely relevant when the editor in question had little activity on Wikipedia, reviewed two articles and two articles alone, and flagged them both as good when both articles had issues that should have failed them. Very specifically, this article failed GA Criteria for reliable sourcing when it was reviewed because it used WeGotThisCovered as a source [6]which has been an unreliable source on Wikipedia since 2020WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED as well as using The Batch, which during the draft process was said to be an unreliable source.
The COI claims don't meet WP:COI burden of evidence – community discussion on PPP forums doesn't constitute "direct financial or close personal relationships."
The COI claims that were first brought against yourself, PortalFan22, and GregariousMadness Talk:15.ai#COI were never adequately addressed and were perfectly relevant. Moreover, the discussion was wrongfully expunged by IP Editor vandalismSpecial:Diff/1090463388. When the project you are writing about contains the notation Special shoutouts go to 4chan's /mlp/ and its anons who have spent hundreds of hours collecting, cleaning, and organizing clips of dialogue taken from the show My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. Their collective efforts as well as their constructive criticism via thorough tests of experimental model versions have proven to be extremely helpful and ultimately indispensable to the development of my work and when the PPP cites 15.ai's code of conduct as their own code of conduct, yes, participating in off-wiki discussions about editing an article about something they are heavily involved in the development of constitutes a WP:COI. When material goods, such as artwork and logos, are being provided to 15.ai by PPP, that is a clear relationship. When PPP is directing individuals to edit the article to include information about PPP that is a clear and blatant conflict of interest.
Per WP:VG/RS, gaming outlets like Kotaku are considered reliable for tech coverage.
Per WP:VG/RS, News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable, although editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance. The Kotaku Article is filed under Odds and Ends[7], not News. The article is not tagged as News. It is not a news post.
The article meets WP:GNG through significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Gaps in coverage don't invalidate WP:SUSTAINED once notability is established.
Furthermore, the last time WP:NOTABILITY of the subject was questioned, it was unanimously agreed that it met notability.
Notability isn't established. The coverage is trivial, and the previous AfD on this article was interfered with by blatant WP:SPA accounts that accounted for 4 Keep votes[8][9][10][11], and the AfD was specifically closed with the message Although not unanimous. The article plainly fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSUSTAINED which says Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. The Eurogamer coverage isn't about 15.ai, the 2022 converage is solely about the Voiceverse controversy and stolen content from 15.ai, it is not sufficient to establish notability for 15.ai.
I find it odd that you consider an IP Editor who did nothing but vandalize Wikipedia pages aside from increasing this article to B Status and expunging a thread about WP:COI editing to have followed WP:TPO guidelines. In fact, WP:TPO explicitly states: The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission. The only exception given for deleting talk page content is Delete. It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above), and comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself (as opposed to comments and discussion about the treatment of the subject in the article).
Nothing in WP:TPO allows for the wholesale deletion of a valid concern of WP:COI just because 3 months had transpired since the issue was brought up. Archival exists for a reason. Closing discussions exists for a reason. It is wholly inappropriate to delete and expunge the COI topic. Brocade River Poems (She/They)12:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, the suggestion that 15.ai does not meet notability is dumbfounding. It pioneered accessible neural voice synthesis, was widely covered in tech media, and influenced numerous subsequent AI voice projects. I would not be exaggerating when I say its advent was one of the biggest news in the AI space in 2020 and 2021. Whether or not you agree with how the GA review was conducted, the project’s significance in AI development is well-documented and indisputable. The coverage is certainly not trivial, and the attempt to downplay it by cherry-picking coverage gaps or questioning the reliability of established tech journalism (and patently ignoring the sources that *are* reliable) does not seem motivated by Wikipedia policy.
With all due respect, your continued penchant of vanishing from Wikipedia and returning only for championing the existence of this article is highly unusual.
I would not be exaggerating when I say its advent was one of the biggest news in the AI space in 2020 and 2021the project’s significance in AI development is well-documented and indisputable
These are not only wholly uncited and unsubstantiated claims, but claims which would indicate you have some sort of interest in this project and, again, should have never been involved in assessing the article in the first place. I am not going to repeat my points about why much of the sourcing is unreliable. If there is such wide, well-documented, and indisputable source coverage, where is it? Why is none of it represented in the article? Why is it that the only sources used were WP:SPS and unreliable sources?
The coverage is certainly not trivial, and the attempt to downplay it by cherry-picking coverage gaps or questioning the reliability of established tech journalism (and patently ignoring the sources that *are* reliable) does not seem motivated by Wikipedia policy.
It's not "cherry-picking" to state the plain fact that the sources used are not reliable for the purposes they are being used for. Kotaku's Odds and Ends culture section is not News. Kotaku is deemed reliable for News Posts during this time period. Articles which circularly refer to Kotaku's Odds and Ends piece within the same week as the Kotaku article does not represent WP:SIGCOV. Brocade River Poems (She/They)23:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What a concerning post. It’s extremely strange that my editing patterns are being used to cast suspicion on the subject’s notability and its GA status. As someone who works in AI, I naturally took interest in reviewing the 15.ai article given its significance in voice synthesis - in its heyday, it was literally the biggest thing in the voice AI space. The implication that my “return” to defend it from deletion was suspicious ignores the simple fact that many editors follow topics they find an interest in, and the fact that one can stay logged into my account without wanting to contribute to Wikipedia.
I suggest stepping back and seeing how presumptuous (and frankly alienating) your comments are. You’ve crafted an elaborate theory about coordinated editing and suspicious motives based solely on contribution patterns. Not every editor needs to be constantly active to make valid contributions, and returning to defend an article I reviewed from deletion is perfectly natural. Occam’s Razor applies here, and I hope anyone else who reads this can see it for themselves as well.
There appears to be coordinated disruptive editing going on. While the 15.ai article has experienced vandalism before, the current situation is unprecedented. The above editor's removal of well-sourced content followed by claims of insufficient citations is particularly concerning. That a non-neutral paragraph that blatantly violated WP:YESPOV (which I reverted recently) was "approved at DRN" is also strongly questionable, especially given the unusual spike in DRN activity as well.
I plan to restore the article next week in accordance with WP:BRD, and I hope other long-term editors familiar with the article's development can assist (including yourself). Per WP:ATD, I don't believe GA status should be removed until we've made a good-faith effort to address any legitimate concerns through collaborative editing. The current issues, while worth discussing, can be resolved through normal Wikipedia processes rather than immediately reverting to non-GA status. HackerKnownAs (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest stepping back and seeing how presumptuous (and frankly alienating) your comments are.
There is broad evidence of off-Wiki coordination to edit the article, coupled with the emergence of clear WP:SPA activity and manipulation in both the AfD and the editing of the article. It is not, frankly, presumptuous or absurd to suspect something is suspicious about an editor who erroneously assesses 2 articles as good, one of which is full of copyvio, and then disappears for an extended amount of time and returns only to defend this article.Brocade River Poems (She/They)23:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve said multiple times that you have evidence of off-wiki coordination to edit the article, and yet you haven’t posted solid evidence at all. I wasn’t aware of any forum before I came across this article while surfing through random AI related articles two years ago, so how does that make my involvement with the article a coordinated affair? The burden of proof lies with the editor making serious accusations, and forum discussions and editing patterns alone don’t constitute evidence whatsoever. If you have actual evidence of coordination, please post them instead of throwing unfounded accusations at editors who just want to help.
It would be bludgeoning and belaboring the point to reiterate, again, the issues I already pointed to in the talk-page discussion and above, if you are not inclined to read what is already provided, I cannot help you. Whether you yourself were involved in the coordination is immaterial, my point is that because there was demonstrable coordination it is not unreasonable to view your assesment, disappearance, and return solely to defend the article, subsequent re-disappearance, and subsequent re-return to defend the article, with suspicion given the fact that the AfD was manipulated. I have levied no specific accusation against you beyond the fact that your assesment was improper, that your only other assesment was deleted for copyvio, that you were an inexperienced editor, and that you did little else after the review was done. All of these statements are easily verifiable. After your approval of 15.ai you made 9 Talk Page Edits, 7 Edits flagged as minor, and 8 Mainspace edits and then you disappeared. If you feel particularly aggreived at my characterization of your activity as "little" prior to reviewing the articles, I quite specifically mean that within your first 25 edits on Wikipedia you assessed an article now deleted for copyvio as good and then assessed an article that utilized a source deemed unreliable since 2020 and sources deemed unreliable when the article was a draft as good. That isn't a whole lot of activity and represents a lack of experience. Your improper assesment of the article as Good was also used at the AfD with the discussion being relisted by an admin who commented I'm very reluctant to delete an article that is a current GA.Brocade River Poems (She/They)12:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out that I haven’t done “little else” on Wikipedia, I was responsible for creating the Berlin draw section in the Berlin Defence article, which has since been heavily cited numerous times in Chess.com articles, Youtube videos, and other places on the Internet. It’s not fair to pass judgment for not being active on Wikipedia when I prefer to edit articles where I’m familiar with the subject rather than editing as many articles as possible to pump my contributions number up.
If you want more volunteers to help improve Wikipedia, I suggest not scrutinizing casual editors. I’m honestly a bit offended that I somehow have less credibility just because I don’t edit articles frequently.
I was responsible for creating the Berlin draw section in the Berlin Defence article
Which you did before the assesment. My statement, which you are apparently misunderstanding, was The one who reviewed the article has done little else...after the review. Which is to say, you made few edits after you assesed the article and then you left for 6 months and returned only for the AfD and then departed again.Brocade River Poems (She/They)12:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn’t aware editors were required to edit Wikipedia 24/7 to have their past contributions count. It doesn’t look like it from reading WP:VOLUNTEER. Apologies for having a life outside Wikipedia. I’ll try to do better.
Ignoring the maelstrom above, much of which seems to have little to do with the GA criteria (notability concerns should be taken to WP:AFD, conduct concerns to WP:ANI, COI concerns to WP:COIN), the point of relevant contention seems to be whether the article is overdependent on a Kotaku source? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main point of contention for the Good Article Criteria is reliability of sources and breadth of coverage. The Kotaku used isn't from the part of Kotaku that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Reliable_sources clarifies is generally reliable. The Kotaku used comes from Kotaku's "Odds and Ends" section, with VGRSN noting that caution should be applied to Kotaku's geeky/blog content, and all of the coverage of 15.ai comes either the same way of the Kotaku article, almost always referncing the Kotaku Article, or comes a year later with trivial mentions of 15.ai while covering the Voiceuniverse plagarism controversy. Prior to my excising them, the article relied heavily on WP:SPS and stuff posted on Gwern and other personal blogs. Gwern, notably, describes itself as The goal of these pages is not to be a model of concision, maximizing entertainment value per word, or to preach to a choir by elegantly repeating a conclusion. Rather, I am attempting to explain things to my future self, who is intelligent and interested, but has forgotten as well as fansites such as "Equestria Daily", which have been previously noted at WP:RSN to generally be reliable when dealing with interviews of the cast/crew of My Little Pony or official coverage from Hasbro only Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_100#Two_My_Little_Pony:_Frienship_is_Magic_sources.
In terms of "Broad Coverage", it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail, the article does not seem to stay focused on 15.ai and a number of the sources used and a great deal of the content is simply about the underlying technology and a scandal.
The neutrality of the article is also up for debate as the "Reception" section includes only positive mentions and sources misrepresented to praise 15.ai specifically. For instance, Rock, Paper, Shotgun that is cited says Machine learning is absolutely fascinating and yet I mostly just enjoy when people use impressive tech to create weird skits and memes, the article currently represents this statement in the reception section as Lauren Morton of Rock, Paper, Shotgun and Natalie Clayton of PCGamer called it "fascinating,". Similarly, the PCGamer piece actually reads Spotted by Kotaku over the weekend, 15.ai is a deep-learning text-to-speech tool trained on a library of audio clips for dozens of characters. It's all very fascinating to read about These quotes have been misconstrued into being glowing reviews of 15.ai itself when the articles are simply saying that the underlying technology is fascinating or fascinating to read about. Brocade River Poems (She/They)01:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Fails criteria 2, several uncited claims in the article. Fails 4, the article is written to promote and celebrate 15.ai, its creations, and whatever the "Pony Preservation Project" is. Its also written by people who have a habit of defending the article whenever it is called into question and then running away. Probably fails 5 as well, with the large-scale edits being made. 210.10.4.224 (talk) 13:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that this user in question (User:BrocadeRiverPoems) has a history of sockpuppeting/alting and virulently defending ideologically driven edits, particularly those related to Yasuke, while engaging in hostile and aggressive behavior towards other users who disagree with their position. I would very much like an admin to look into the disruptive editing patterns and possible sockpuppeting activities of this user, particularly in relation to the ongoing edit wars and harassment on the article.
I added a bunch of {{citation needed}} tags where there are unsourced statements, so now there's 22; some of those can be resolved by cutting material, but at least one cn tag has been there since 2010. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to lack information about several aspects such as preparations made besides watches and warnings, the impact in Haiti, and aftermath, the last of which there is no section for. Also, the impact section overall looks small for a storm this deadly. —JCMLuis💬18:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are uncited passages throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. The lead does not summarise all the major points in the article. There are some sections and paragraphs that are quite long; these should be split up or reduced. Z1720 (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2016 breakup is not adequately covered. Instead of prose, the article uses a long blockquote one of the artists posted on Facebook. This needs coverage from independent, secondary sources and information presented in prose. There is lots of uncited text and one-sentence paragraphs that should be considered for expansion or merged together. Z1720 (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article uses lots of long block quotes: these create copyright concerns and make the text very long. I suggest that these are summarised, reduced, or removed. The article is over 11,000 words and contains too much detail: WP:TOOBIG recommends that articles of this size are spun out to other articles and the prose reduced. I think summarising the block quotes will help with this, as well as removing other material. The article also contains uncited prose. Z1720 (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the quotes in this article provide no substantive contribution to it, and seem to be included only for aesthetic reasons. You could argue that this article also uses too many images for the same reason. Removing some of these would be for the best. As for prose issues, I've been working on cleaning up the worst of it (the Personal life section). genderBiohazard (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is quite long, especially for an article of this length. This should be trimmed. The article overrelies upon quotes and block quotes. This creates copyright concerns and also might not be the most effective way to give information to the reader. There are some uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: strictly on the blockquotes, I'm not sure I see a huge problem -- the man was a politician and an orator, so there are a number of good reasons to give readers his own words rather than someone else's summary of them. There's no copyright concern regarding the secondary sources, since only the original publisher of a work can claim (or pass on through inheritance) copyright over it, and giving a speech in public qualifies as publication: even though we quote Bevan from Campbell 1987, that wouldn't give Campbell any claim over the copyright unless he had co-written the speech in question. Even then, quoting a person's words in an article about them, especially one which discusses those words, is textbook fair use. I can see an argument for cutting the Trafalgar quotation purely to make the point clearer, but wouldn't worry under WP:NFCC, WP:COPYVIO or any similar PAG. UndercoverClassicist22:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are several uncited paragraphs, particularily in the "Wind circulation in the northern and southern hemispheres" section. Z1720 (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article seems to be fine. I'm concerned about the completeness, but I am not a subject-matter expert and would prefer someone who would be able to evaluate that. Z1720 (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've started outlining the work that needs to be done with citation needed tags, moved a reference and commented out some info. I didn't see the GA concerns until this reassessment appeared under the GAR listings; for whatever reason it's listed under physics and not chemistry and as such doesn't appear on the Chemistry article alerts. Corrections should be straightforward as a lot of the info is going to come from the main article pages (Vanadium, Niobium, Tantalum, Dubnium) and should already be cited there. Reconrabbit16:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it looks like a lot of the information that should be in the parent articles (several of which like Vanadium compounds appeared to be copied over in part) is not there. I'll still work on this though. May be useful in maintaining quality of the parents (which would otherwise be subject to similar reassessments). Reconrabbit19:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found a source that at least mentions the configuration. Other obvious issues have been addressed - all that seems missing is a page number for "Inorganic Chemistry" as it's a fairly large reference work and I added the citation based on a preview/ use in another article. Reconrabbit15:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720, it was annoying finding where in that textbook the information on oxyhalides was, but I found it. Everything that seemed clearly missing references has been addressed from where I can see it. Reconrabbit00:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yet another driveby nomination with absolutely no attempt to fix the situation yourself, which would be easily doable since most of the article is still sourced. Seriously, stop with the frivolous delisting as it's tatamount to disruptive. Focus on fixing it first, and attempt to delist if the article is unfixable without a major rewrite of all content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He posted about it a month ago—Talk:Wild Arms (video game)#GA concerns—and apparently no one is maintaining the article. Degradation in the article's quality isn't the nominator's burden to correct. This is easily a multi-hour project to bring the article back up to quality. czar13:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This looks very easily fixable. The plot summary is a little long by 2024 standards, but the uncited paragraphs are few and mostly stuff like "unneed details about Alter Code F that can easily be cut". Please don't close this without pinging me, I'll take a look. SnowFire (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs and the "Portrayals in media" section. There are also lots of large block quotes of secondary sources which should be summarised and used as prose instead. Z1720 (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think this meets the GA standards at the moment, but it's not the worst that I've seen. I think all the (remaining?) block quotes are quotations from primary documents (though they are quoted in secondary sources), which is generally forgivable (it's a textbook FUR when they are quotations of or about the article's subject) if not necessarily best practice. Most of the uncited material is short paragraphs, which makes me wonder if they are simply meant to be covered by the citation of the following paragraph? If anybody does want to pick this up, I don't expect it would be a huge job. UndercoverClassicist21:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pinging @MasterAlSpain: as it looks like much of the unsourced text (in "Background" especially) was added through their three edits here, which added nearly 14,000 bytes to the article. It appears some references were added during these edits, but unless other sources can be found for the paragraphs missing citations, much of that material is liable to be removed if it remains unreferenced. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging and pointing out the missing references on the added information. I've now solved this issue, so all relevant paragraphs are properly referenced. Further references may be added in the next few days if necessary. MasterAlSpain (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MasterAlSpain: Thank you for your swift response and for taking care of these! @Z1720: If you have further concerns about the article in its current state, please don't hesitate to raise them here. It's been almost a decade since I put this through GAN, so I certainly understand if it could use some cleanup. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bcschneider53: There is still lots of uncited information. WP:GA? states that there should be a citation at the end of each paragraph, minimum. I also think the lead needs to be expanded so that all major aspects of the article (typically everything with a level 2 heading) are mentioned. Z1720 (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out. Currently working on adding references to every paragraph while extending the lead. There's also room for improving and optimizing the text without losing any relevant information. MasterAlSpain (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article was promoted to GAR in 2016, the article was significantly reduced in content. The reasoning being the sources put forward by me at the time were contested as unreliable. In consequence, I doubt the article still meets the criteria of significantly broad in coverage. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as GA thanks to the efforts of JuneGloom07 in removing unsourced info and adding more sources, there are now no unsourced sections, and there is nothing to me that strikes me out as not meeting the GA requirements. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've done next to nothing. I only noticed the GAR by chance and thought I'd help out a little, but some of those sections need rewriting, like the cast info. - JuneGloom07Talk23:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is uncited prose, including entire paragraphs. The plot section, at over 1,100 words, is more than recommended at MOS:PLOT. While PLOT only mentions films, I think this is too much detail. Z1720 (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems within the bounds of being able to fix the issue. GAR is intended as a "last resort" emergency when fixing the article fails. Based on the article history, you have done nothing to edit the page besides a driveby nomination, so this does not seem like a last resort. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: No article has to have good article status and I cannot find where it says that a reviewer has to edit the article before posting it to GAR. Wikipedia is not compulsory and editors can choose where to spend time editing articles. If other interested, topic-expert editors wish to bring this article back to GA status, they are welcome to do so and I am happy to re-review. Z1720 (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's right in WP:GAR in bolded text. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. That means if you have not at least tried to bring the article up to standard first, you are doing something wrong. It should be obvious that it cannot be fixed by anything less than massive effort. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: When I post an article on GAR, it is because I believe there needs to be a significant amount of work to bring an article up to the criteria. I am fine if others disagree. For me, to update this article would take hours, if not days. If others can and want to fix the article more quickly, I encourage them to do so and I am happy to re-review. Z1720 (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the "Game summary" is cited almost entirely by the "General" citation to the play-by-play, which describes the result of every at bat. The Aftermath seems reasonable well cited, though could probably use a couple additions. Staxringoldtalk03:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple uncited sentences and paragraphs throughout the article. The climate table seems to cite sources from the early 1900s. Are there any current sources that can be used? Z1720 (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re the climate data: there was a weather station on the summit until 1904 and "The twenty years worth of readings still provide the most comprehensive set of data on mountain weather in Great Britain", to quote from the article. It would be more than could be expected to have comparable modern data. PamD18:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hike395: I have added cn tags. Some of the uncited information can probably be removed or the citation moved to the end of the sentence. Other information will need research to resolve. Z1720 (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At over 13,000 words, it is recommended at WP:TOOBIG that the article length be reduced. Some of this material can be spun out (or removed because they have already been spun out) or reduced as too much detail. There are some sections that are too long: when trimming text, I recommend that each section have a maximum of four paragraphs. There are also some uncited sections, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Larger aircraft (prose) articles often have their operational history section split off in to another article. The 'Aircraft on display' section is another section that is often split off, it could be added to Concorde aircraft histories with that article being moved to Concorde histories and aircraft on display (or similar title). I can do both if there are no objections. Some of the engine section may be replicating Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593 and could be trimmed, as the 593 was the only engine type used by Concorde its article could contain airframe details (I think it already does). Nimbus(Cumulusnimbusfloats by)14:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's been a couple of days. I looked at the engine content and the 593 article, the text is different (not repetition), it focuses mostly on the airframe aspects and I think this section should be untouched. Will have a look at creating/splitting/merging, making sure to adhere to the attribution technicalities. Nimbus(Cumulusnimbusfloats by)12:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now been split, the current size is 93kb (from 230 kb) and 9,000 words (from 12,300). One section of five paragraphs was deleted bar one line as it duplicated information in the aircraft on display section and the BAC Concorde G-BBDG article.
Two tables now exist in Concorde histories and aircraft on display, one with images and one without, they could possibly be combined.
During the split of 'Operational history' an automated warning appeared stating that seven sources were self-published and/or vanity press and to confirm their use. I would imagine that a few remain as the cite errors (sources not moved) didn't appear in the list IIRC.
I hope that I got all the technicalities with attributions correct, I have raised a query at the help desk ref an old article ID not displaying as it should. Cheers. Nimbus(Cumulusnimbusfloats by)13:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't planning to get involved in the review beyond the split but while I'm here...!! I removed the unsourced text marked with CN tags, one line was tangled up with a sourced but off topic line so both were removed. Had a quick look through and it looks well cited now apart from the footnotes, of the six only one is cited, will see what can be done there. Nimbus(Cumulusnimbusfloats by)10:09, 16 November 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]
@AirshipJungleman29 and Ceoil: The "Exhibition" section has some blockquote coding that needs to be fixed, and I think the poem quoted should be removed as the prose can summarise the poem instead. I added a cn tag about the Detroit Institute of Arts. The lead should have information about the artwork's influence, including info about the literature and visual arts it inspired. Overall, this is very close to a keep. Z1720 (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 agree, the lead could be expanded via info from the body. Will ping when done. cn tag has been addressed by another editor. Thanks both. Ceoil (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has an orange "additional citations needed" in the "Production logo" section from 2023 which needs to be resolved. It is over 11,000 words, which WP:TOOBIG states should probably be reduced. There are also a couple of uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was 11705 words as of October 5, the last edit before I became involved, and now is 11470 words. I'll see what else I can weed, but this is a studio where even the unproductive eras are the sole focus of multiplebooks. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanimum: This article might be a good candidate to WP:SPINOUT sections of its history. This has already started with Disney Renaissance. After spinning out these sections, this article can give an overview of that time period (I recommend 4 paragraphs max per spun-out article) to reduce the word count. If readers are interested in finding out more information, they can go to the relevant article. Z1720 (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: Some of the history sections have several paragraphs, which I think can be trimmed. My opinion is that each section should have four paragraphs, maximum, before the next heading breaks up the text. This article has several opportunities to WP:SPINOUT the text, letting this article be an overview of the most important information. Z1720 (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: I do not have four paragraphs as a hard and fast rule, but I use that as a rule of thumb as MOS:LEAD used to have that as the target number for the lead. Articles need to be readable: I do not believe sections with 10 paragraphs enhance readability. MOS:BODY talks about how headings enhance readability, and adding these headings to the table of contents help readers find information. WP:CANYOUREADTHIS talks about how "Readers of the mobile version of Wikipedia can be helped by ensuring that sections are not so long or so numerous as to impede navigation."
In answer to the question about spun out information: "1989–94: Beginning of the Disney Renaissance, successful releases, and impact on the animation industry", which already has a spunout article at Disney Renaissance, "1999–2005: Slump, downsizing, and conversion to computer animation; corporate issues", "1999–2005: Slump, downsizing, and conversion to computer animation; corporate issues", and "2019–present: Continued success, COVID-19 pandemic, expansion to television and financial struggles". If some of the information was cut instead of spun out, I would be OK with that too as the article has over 11,000 words. Z1720 (talk) 23:44, 15 November 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]
I have commented out a couple of bits I cannot find references for, also dead links and added a few to cover other parts requiring references. I think that covers all of the tags. The part about the Energy Plant needs an operational date and ref, I put in some update to say it would be operational by end 2019. Keith D (talk) 13:28, 13 November 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]
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)
