Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Severa (talk | contribs) at 02:54, 21 December 2007 (→‎Abortion: Clarify.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:GAR" redirects here. For For the guide to abuse reports use WP:GTAR, see WP:GAR (disambiguation).
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
Shortcuts
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment

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.

Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment instructions

Before opening a reassessment

  1. Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
  2. Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
  3. Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
  4. If there are many similar articles already nominated at GAR, consider delaying the reassessment request. If an editor notices that many similar GARs are open and requests a hold, such requests should generally be granted.

Opening a reassessment

  1. To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
  2. The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment).
  3. Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.
Manual opening steps
  1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
  2. Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
  3. 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.
  4. The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

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

Closing a reassessment

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

  1. GARs typically remain open for at least one week.
  2. Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
  3. If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time.
  4. After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
    • If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.
Manual closing steps
  1. 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.
  2. 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 or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (example)
    • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. 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 or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page, setting currentstatus to DGA (delisted good article). (example)
      • blank the class parameter of the WikiProject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment
      • remove the {{good article}} template from the article page (example)
      • remove the article from the relevant list at good articles (example)
  3. Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)

Disputing a reassessment

  1. A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect. A closure should only be disputed within the first seven days following the close.
  2. Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
  3. If discussing does not resolve concerns, editors should post at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the coordinators.

Articles needing reassessment (add new articles above the top article in the list)

Note: Please remember to put a note on the article's talk page informing editors that it has been brought to WP:GAR for reassessment and possible delisting of its Good article status. Include [[WP:GAR|Good article reassessment]] in the section heading.

Abortion

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, Article talk.

Recent edits by a few editors have thrown off the balance that was formerly achieved in the coverage of this contentious topic (compare the current version to an older one, particularly everything in the "Suggested effects" section, and it's clear how far the article has shifted to one side of the fence). I'm sad to bring this here, as I and a number of other editors worked for over a year to bring this article to GA status, but it no longer meets the guidelines on neutrality and stability. Severa (!!!) 02:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Nukem Forever

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, Article talk.

Delist as technically the article is no longer stable - as with news direct from the source and new information in the last couple of days, the game has gone no longer from being the infamous "vaporware" to actual reality. In addition the Development section is presented tagged with a reasonable "timeline" concern, which can be cleaned up otherwise. MASEM 20:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question. Let me see if I understand the circumstances. A press release and other material were released during the past two days. This material has inspired editors to add and modify material. Is that it? Majoreditor (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be more specific, the game since 2001 has been "vaporware", and had become a long running joke in the video game community (it topped Wired's "vaporware" list for several years straight. Under that guise, that the game was always mythologically discussed as never likely ever coming out and that's why the game's notable, GA'ing the article seems appropriate since there was no likely point when the game would be out, and therefore the article is "stable". Now we actually have reliable sources directly from the producers that say that it is actually being worked on, though no release date has been set, but they are much closer to a finished product than before. This changes the game from being vaporware to a real product, and thus it is expected that the content of the article will change over the course of the next several months as news continues. Thus, the article is no longer stable, and compared to other video game articles, it won't be broad until it is released and has critical reception. --MASEM 23:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Philippe (2005)

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Article was passed with little comments. Article lacks sources and information. I'm suggesting a delistment. Mitch32contribs 03:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Mitch. I don't think this is a controversial delistment. Could you delist the article yourself following the delisting guidelines? Then we don't need to have a GAR for it. Thanks, Geometry guy 16:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not sure I agree with that Geometry guy. The article is of a narrow focus, and it is sourced to a very reliable source. While it is only one source, I would consider NOAA to be fairly definative on this one, and see no real problems with this. This seems to comply with WP:SCG, the relevent guideline for articles like this. I don't see anything here wanting based on WP:WIAGA standards... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is an interesting case. Does this short article pass criterion 3-a (broad coverage)? One could argue either way. Concerning broad coverage, WIAGA specifically says: "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics to be listed." And then there's the the issue of a single reference source. I'd suggest the article would be better if it cited other secondary sources such as reliable media reports. I'll have to think on this one before recommending delist/keep. Majoreditor (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that a statement on the Reviewing Good Articles detailed guidelines page: "Small articles that are referenced to a single source may still be adequately referenced without the use of inline references." In other words, smaller articles may have a single source and still qualify as a Good Article.
That said, the article is almost exclusively focused on the huricane as a meteorolgical event. Did it have any other significance, such as disruption of shipping, emergency preparation, etc? If so, the article doesn't discuss these aspects. Majoreditor (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting issue and one that I've been curious about myself. I made a new section on Wikipedia talk:Reviewing good articles. If anyone has input on this issue, by all means discuss. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 19:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't any reason at all why this article should be delisted. A single, reliable source is perfectly acceptable for a short article (even though its repeated citation at the end of every paragraph looks faintly ridiculous IMO), and the article does mention that storm warnings were issued, but the hurricane pretty much petered out without any significant fuss. What else is there to say about it? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The proverbial tempest in a teapot. A quick scan of media reports doesn't reveal significant details not already covered by the article. Per above comments, it's well-referenced using a reliable source. It's short but reasonably complete. Majoreditor (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Per the existing GA guideline, the single source is sufficient. The guideline, however, appears to contradict WP:N. I would like to see the discrepancy resolved before taking action one way or another. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 19:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Raoul Wallenberg

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

As per the message left on the article's talk page, I believe the sections "The Holocaust" and "Raoul Wallenberg's mission neither manage to stay on topic nor cover their subject in a neutral fashion. I think the article does not merit GA status.–Joke 19:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It will take me some time to carefully review the article, but my first impression is that it's a borderline case. In its current form I would lean toward failing it because:
  • The introduction is clipped and needs further development, per WP:LEAD.
  • The section titled "Raoul Wallenberg's mission" is far too long, lacks citations for key facts and needs a proper copy edit and prose refresh.

Perhaps someone can spruce up the article. Majoreditor 20:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about it, the less and less I think that the article can be in any sense described as "borderline". The major contributor to the article, Attila Lajos, is someone who wrote a PhD thesis trying to reinterpret Wallenberg's story [1]. That's fine – it's great to have subject matter experts contributing to an article – but certainly if his point of view is to be represented, it has to be done as a contrast to the many other sources (on the internet and elsewhere) that tell an entirely different story. That story has been systematically removed from the article, although it was visible in the article before Attila started editing [2]. I am going to summarily delist, it is in no sense a "good article." –Joke 21:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analytical Marxism

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article doesn't appear to meet criteria 2a and 2b. Sections such as "Justice and Power" and "Denoument" have no in-line citations. For example, statements such as "Most of its practitioners agreed that the Marxism that in the beginning they had set out to interrogate and, to an extent, defend, was not theoretically or politically defensible" lack any cites. Additionally, all of article's in-line citations lack page references. Majoreditor (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist This has been a GA since Dec. '05; things have changed. I think it simply got a GA tag slapped on it... didn't check GAC.. not sure if GAC even existed then... It does have good content but needs a rewrite in the new GA zeitgeist. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Because of the paucity of citations and the use of weasel words. "Many Marxists would argue ..." --Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an excellent article, which satisfies 2a, in that it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout with an impressive bibliography. In my opinion, while lacking in inline citations, required under 2b (and page numbers), it at minimum, provides inline citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's too many assertions unsupported by in-line citations. Another example: "Analytical Marxism is usually understood to have taken off with the publication of G. A. Cohen's Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence (1978)." Who exactly "understands" this to be the case? That's why Good Articles require in-line citations. Without them the reader doesn't know whether the assertion is supported by a reliable source or is simply original research representing an editor's POV. Majoreditor (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. WP:QFC states "The article has any cleanup banners, including but not limited to ..." (emphasis added). Further, 10 in-line citations for an article of this length are not adequate. Weasel words and NOR violations abound. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 21:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Britain

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I have been reviewing all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" for GA sweeps, and am unsure if this article should remain a GA. The article is well-sourced in some areas, but in others, citations are lacking for entire sections or large paragraphs. I reviewed the article last week and left the article on hold for a week to address the issues I raised here concerning inline citations, but none were added. There are other statements that could be sourced as well, but I believe the statements I mentioned should at least be sourced. I don't know if this is just my obsessive desire for more referencing within articles (see Battle of France below), so I need alternate opinions on the status of the article. Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only a small way into the article, but am already finding exactly the same kind of sensational language (i.e., matters of opinion) unsupported by citations as I found in Battle of France. Example: "More shocking to the German pilots was the newer Spitfire Mk I, which was quickly recognised as a nimble, world-class fighter." By whom? And who says the German pilots were shocked? I notice that you mostly focus on uncited facts in your analysis, but it is the opinions that really need inline citation in my view: facts can be supported more easily by general sources. Anyway, I suggest you follow your instincts and continue the delisting process that you started. There's no need for a GAR on this in my view. Geometry guy 20:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Again, this smells a bit like a GA in places, but many statements are uncited, including statistics and expressions of opinion; some sections lack any citation at all. It doesn't need a WHOLE lot of work, but it is still not GA in its current state. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey Nehrams, good work on all the sweeps. I won't post a hopelessly distracting beer image here, but here's a link: Image:Lager beer in glass.jpg. :-) Hey, have you been posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history about any GAR's and delistings in this area? Those people are (sometimes) good about getting on top of problems like these.... Ling.Nut (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have left messages on the talk pages of the project/task forces when the article was on hold, but I didn't mention the GARs, so I'll do that right now. Thanks for the heads up. By the way, thanks for the picture, because I can't drink the actual thing for another six months! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. The article is almost up to GA standards. However, there are statements in the sections on "Tactics", "Channel battles" and "Main Assault" which need to be supported with in-line citations. Majoreditor (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pikachu

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Speedy delisted with no notice on talk page, and edit summary of "lacks real world information". However, unlike most pokemon articles, this particular one does seem to have information about the real world, in the cultural impact section. Most of the article seems referenced, though a few of the links might be questionable. I'm on the fence about this because some of the references I just don't know about, but one thing I do know is that this article definently has real world information in it. Homestarmy (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - does the real-world content in this article meet the updated WP:FICT? -Malkinann (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Updated? Man, nobody tells me these things anymore.... Homestarmy (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But to answer the question, it does seem notable per that guideline, a float appeared in a Macy's day parade, and there's something about a plane. Of course, that's the first time i've read the "updated" WP:FICT, so I might not be understanding it right... Homestarmy (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or it might have been WP:WAF - I forget which one, but one of the fiction guidelines has been made more stringent of late. I note that the "biological characteristics" section is still very in-universe.-Malkinann (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - lede needs additional sourcing to support assertions about the character's notoriety and status as mascot and the source of the name. Sex differences in the bio-characteristics section needs a source. If there must be a pop culture section then the bit about the first balloon being retired and the new balloon need sources. Otto4711 (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ohana, this is the detailed review. The main problem is that text itself isn't hugely convincing. I know that puff phrases aren't allowed, but have you tried Google Scholar? As Pikachu featured in the anime there might be a few sources out there that examine Pikachu in particular. -Malkinann (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The in-universeness of the "Biological characteristics" has been given a going over, and a scholarly source has been provided to say that Pikachu is the most popular Pokemon. Sex differences have been sourced, and the article has been tagged with fact tags at various places. The stricter WP:FICT is currently being disputed. -Malkinann (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that WP:FICT is a guideline, not a policy. It should be "treated with common sense and occasional exception". Common sense tells us this article is important and in good quality, even though it was written slightly "in-universe". OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Batman (1989 film)

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I'm doubting this statusdue to the following concerns:

  1. The lead section is far too sparse to be a concise overview of the article.

Done User:Wildroot 16:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The Plot section is too long.

Done User:Wildroot 16:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC) I will get to work on the other three problems.[reply]

  1. The non-free images in the article besides the identifying image have insufficient fair use rationales.

Wildroot 15:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The Box office performance section is too sparse to warrant its own section.

Wildroot 15:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. There is no Critical reaction section from independent perspectives to comment on the film.

Hopefully these concerns can be addressed. Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Batman Forever

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I was concerned to see that an editor who has only been editing since November 3, 2007 passed this as a Good Article. These are the following issues:

  1. Non-free images in the article besides the identifying poster image lack sufficient fair use rationale.

Done I'll get to work on the other two improvements later. Wildroot 11:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The "Critical analysis" section barely has any reviewers talking about the film. A lot of the content is from people involved with the film itself. It would be appropriate to have more independent perspectives -- see Road to Perdition#Reception for such a section.

Done I think you should see for yourself. I wrote it in the same format/style that you wrote in Road to Perdition#Reception. The reason why I included quotes from Schumacher were because of his reaction towards the reviews, so to speak. Now, I'm just trying my best to find those articles you listed. They are of course hard to find, but I did purchase two magazines off EBAY with a total of three dollars each. They were original published material specifically from Warner Brothers. I'm going to see what I can dig up, catch you later. Wildroot 11:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Purely online sources are not sufficient for shaping an article's content. Take a look at User:Erik/Batman Forever for many sources that should be used in the article. Even Good Articles require some research beyond what's accessible via Google.

Hopefully, these improvements can be made. Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I make no comments other than to refute the above single claim; that online sources alone are not sufficient. There are many online sources that are reliable enough to pass WP:RS. If individual online sources used by the article are not reliable, please note which references need replacing. However, one cannot summarily reject all online references as inherently unreliable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 15:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Duty 2

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

As I see it, fails the 'broad in coverage aspect', giving only a brief bit about anything besides gameplay and plot. The lead reflects this lack of information- it talks about mobile phone versions, but I haven't seen anything in the article about it. David Fuchs (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Gameplay synopsis is a TAD long, but not much, and there is enough on reception and press coverage that I don't see anything worth delisting over... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The refs are inconsistent with formatting - accessed 19 July 2007 and Retrieved on November 16, 2007. A lot of references are missing publisher and dates. With the IGN references say which page it is because all the refs look the same. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of France

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I have been reviewing all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" for GA sweeps, and am unsure if this article should remain a GA. The article is well-sourced in some areas, but in others, citations are lacking for entire sections or large paragraphs. Although multiple sources have been added since the last recommendation to include them, I don't believe it to be sufficient for the length of the article. Nehrams2020 06:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Much of the article is well-referenced; I count a total of 62 in-line citations. However, two sections lack any citations. The Prelude section would be stronger if it contained a citation on Hitler's peace overtures. The section on Dyle Plan also needs citations. Majoreditor 14:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the casualties section (which deals with hard numbers) had inline citations for the figures, i'd say this article would be well-referenced overall, neither unferenced section seems critically important, and there are general references at the bottom which probably cover some or most of the material in those sections. Homestarmy (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist It is not the number of citations that matters, but how they are used. Most of the citations here are to specific pages to support specific facts, but which facts get citations seems to be a bit of a lottery. Ironically, one of the few examples of multi-page citation (footnote 45) seems to support only a quotation (probably it is supporting the whole paragraph). The article might benefit from some general cites to its sources to support paragraphs containing uncontroversial material such as "Because of a low birthrate that had even further declined during the First World War, France had a severe manpower shortage relative to the total population — which furthermore was only half of that of Germany." On the other hand, there are also matters of opinion that really need specific citations which do not have them. One example is the section on "Allied reaction", which is full of such unsourced opinion statements. In the next subsection, there is also the assertion that "The Allies seemed incapable of coping with events." which surely needs a source. Geometry guy 20:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I would argue that it is both the number of citations and how they are used which matters. This is a large article of around 12,000 words, backed up by only 62 in-line citations. Some tracts of up to 1,500 words are entirely unreferenced, with the Blitzkrieg, Allied Reaction, Weygand Plan and Casualties sections of particular concern in my mind given their content - the former three make judgements about events which really should be referenced to published history, while casualty figures without references always look like conjecture. I recommend that the article be delisted and added to the Unreferenced GA Nominations list. Chrisfow (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per GG. I would agree that its never a "number" of citations that is a problem, its that statements that need citations don't have them. This article is rife with opinion. It may be good opinion. It may be justified opinions. It may be the majority opinion in the historical circles. But without references, we have no verification that these are proper opinions. It would be too much to list every place where such citations are needed. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, with regrets. No one has stepped up to address the citation issues. There's too many statements in the article lacking appropriate references. Majoreditor (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tofu

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article was found during sweep process. It carries a lot of information, but I feel that it's a little too much (per criteria 3b). The references are not uniform. Also, trivia section was found. It definetely doesn't deserve a bold delist, so I want others' opinions. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It clearly does not meet WP:LEAD at the moment. Although this doesn't deserve a bold delist, it might be appropriate to use a regular delisting procedure, as described in the guidelines at the top of this page: i.e., list your concerns on the talk page, maybe try to fix some of them, wait a week or so, and if the article still does not meet the criteria, delist it. Geometry guy 20:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Yes, the lead is definently too short, it can't possibly be summarizing most of the article. Homestarmy (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist lead is too short for an article this long. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 04:15, 26 November 2007 (GMT)
  • Comment - I've expanded the lead, how does the lead look now? -Malkinann (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Better! I've done a copyedit and some reordering. I suggest reviewers take another look at the article. Geometry guy 10:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is much improved. I'd be happy to support keeping it listed, once the Miscellanea section has been reworked as something like "Tofu and culture" with well-written prose. Geometry guy 23:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Calling a trivia section something else does not make it NOT trivia. The miscellaneous section has to go. Also, the "choosing tofu" section needs to be incorporated elsewhere in the article; it is unreferenced and seems kinda how-to-guide-ish. The Etymology section needs a reference, and should probably be moved to history section, perhaps under the origins part. But if those three fixes are made, this is GA quality IMHO. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment&oldid=179318497"