Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 73: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:44, 15 October 2023

This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← (Page 72)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 74) →

Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2009. There are multiple statements and/or paragraphs that lack sources, and there is no Reception section. Many sources used are unreliable (IMDB, YouTube) or self-published. Needs a lot of work to maintain GA status. Spinixster (chat!) 08:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have confirmed the issues listed in the nomination remain present. As it has been a month since listing with no improvements, I will be delisting. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Diane Lane

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Kept, with thanks to Yerktnery. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited sections, bloating in the "Recent work" section and updates needed in "Family", "Charity", "Theater" and possibly "Recent work" sections. Z1720 (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to resolve all of these issues within a couple of days. --Yerktnery (talk) 04:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yerktnery, thanks for your efforts; I believe the honors and awards sections are still uncited. Do you think you can source them? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29 I added citations to the honors and awards text, and moved the template to its own article. --Yerktnery (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Benjamin G. Humphreys Bridge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged with an "update needed" tag since 2017, the article seems to be missing information about its demolition and is therefore no longer considered comprehensive. Z1720 (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Lacks comprehensive coverage and it also relies heavily on a single, outdated website originally created by the Mississippi Department of Transportation. I think it would need to be rewritten with new sources to satisfy GA requirements. Ppt91 ^talk 02:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mitsubishi i

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was kept as GAR in 2009, but GA standards have improved since then, I don't feel that the article is comprehensive enough to be a GA anymore. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What information do you feel should be included Grandmaster Huon? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tourism in Nunavut

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is significantly out of date, with no statistics later than 2008 being cited. Recent reports are freely available online, but a complete overhaul of the article would be required to retain GA status. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Netball in the Cook Islands

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A 2011 listing, this article has not been updated in more than a decade. The history and development section, along with the competitive history table and international history, need updates to meet GA criterion 3a). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nativity scene

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Per ILT GAR precedent, speedily delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last ItsLassieTime-related GAR, I promise. This is another situation where the primary author is a banned sockpuppet of the above and had a history of copyvios (see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime) but honestly I'd be sending this here even if that wasn't the case. The traditions and controversies sections almost feel like random picking and choosing and some of it feels a bit like undue weight. A lot of the sources are offline with no page numbers, which normally would not be only a minor issue, but because of the copyright concerns above it makes many of the refs impossible to verify. Wizardman 02:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some copyvio has already been confirmed per the edit history, and sadly I'm sure there's a lot more yet. Wizardman 02:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dennō Senshi Porygon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

article was promoted in 2008 with this "review". the article contains many unsourced statements, many duly tagged with {{citation needed}}. ltbdl (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Evan Lysacek

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: I am in agreement with SnowFire. No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many uncited passages, not much information post-2015, and formatting concerns with lots of short paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. The article seems acceptably cited. Short paragraphs are a stylistic choice, not an error, and can be valid when there are many pieces of not strongly linked information along the lines of "A went to this competition, then this competition, etc." For information post-2015 - as the article already notes, he sorta retired in 2010, he came back for a bit, he suffered a groin injury, he retired again for real in 2014. Since 2015, he hasn't done Wikipedia-notable things aside from getting married in 2019, which is indeed in the article. According to [1] , he's working in real estate with his wife and stopped skating for 5 straight years. That's wonderful for him but not particularly notable enough to cover in the Wikipedia article. SnowFire (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Barbara Gordon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails criteria 2, 3, and 4. The article needs more citations (preferably from secondary sources), it is tagged as needing updates, it goes into excessive detail significantly beyond what is appropriate for the article, and the commentary section uses a non-neutral structure. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quatermass (TV serial)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2008. The article uses several unreliable sources (IMDB) and some paragraphs aren't formatted correctly, and the Casting section contains unrelated information. I'm also concerned about the sourcing; the reception section is sourced to books that presumably quotes the original reviews instead of the original reviews, though I know it is probably not a good reason to delist. Spinixster (chat!) 08:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per the sourcing issues and the disorganized "casting and crew" section. Though personally, I think taking reviews from a book gives more legitimacy to their weight than finding random reviews online. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Drosera

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many paragraphs lack references and some are only half-referenced. The subsection "Habit" and the section "Habitat" have no references at all. This is a violation of criterion 2b. The last GAR happened 13 years ago, see Talk:Drosera/GA1. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~This is wrongly listed under Physics and astronomy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [now fixed]~~[reply]

Delist. Expectations regarding citations have risen significantly since this article became a GA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hurricane Lili

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Kept. ¹⁴¹ Pr {contribs} 19:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting reassessment to this GA article. The most pressing things to work out here appear to be removing dead links, addressing the maintenance tag, and modernizing the track map. ChessEric 18:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless a major issue is being made apparent by the maintenance tag. Dead links and map styles aren't really GA issues. That just leaves a tag that vaguely indicates inconsistency. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

University of Toronto

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous uncited paragraphs, including most of the Notable people section and residences. Demographics section needs an update of the prose, and the history section needs an update of COVID-19 information (and I'd argue that it needs to be expanded to include many more significant events). Z1720 (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per citation issues and outdated demographics. This history section overall does seem lopsided, though I don't know if COVID-19 is due, unless it uniquely had a major effect on the university. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the article does look outdated somewhat. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 12:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

House of Lords Act 1999

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous uncited passages, including the entire "2014 and 2015 reform acts" section. Z1720 (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Think I've rectified most of the issues. Willbb234 21:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after Willbb234's work, though it's not following MOS:PARA as well as it could. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Malvern College

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails criteria 1, 3, and 4. The lead section is far too long for the article length and includes a random paragraph (with typos) about an alumni who was convicted of corruption in Malaysia. Additionally, the history section needs significant reorganization. It also appears that the article isn't up to date, as the last dated event in the article is hiring a new headmaster in 2019. Finally, there's a fair amount of PEACOCKing. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately GA often accumulate trash edits, school articles in particular, and especially if the creator or caretaker is retired from Wikipedia. The solution to this of course is simply to restore to a stable version that still meets the GA criteria on which it passed GA. 2001:44C8:4180:42D:D0AF:62A2:39D7:66AA (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with reverting is that the article passed GA in 2010. That version of the article would fail 3a as the article would be out of date by 13 years. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have tidied the lead. I'd agree it still needs work. KJP1 (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speech is silver, silence is golden

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Feel free to rv if you think this is controversial; GAR coords haven't bothered, so closing as no consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only four sources in the whole article? Seems like a massive 3A/3B failure. Also it skips from antiquity to the 20th century without hinting much at the in-betweens. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer most of the article is dedicated to "the in-betweens". There is no GA criterion for minimum number of sources—the only relevant requirement is that the article should address the main aspects of the topic. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel there is not enough content to satisfy 3A/3B. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with TPH's assessment. More troublingly, it's a little difficult for me to determine the scope here. The proverb is most recognized in English by its abbreviated "silence is golden" form; is this meant to be discussed in this article or somewhere else? "Somewhere else" seems overly splitter, but there is no discussion of it here, and none of the disambigs are on the proverb itself. Shouldn't the article touch on how the proverb evolved, given this is certainly a main aspect of the topic? I don't think in and of itself a low number of sources is problematic, especially when books are involved (though on a personal level I'm not a huge fan of the "book cited once as a solid chapter, with {{rp}} for pages" structure), but I wonder about things like this. Vaticidalprophet 09:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:GAR coordinators: please close. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look tomorrow. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it passes notability guidelines, there's no requirement for an exacting amount of sources. I'm not sure we can delist on a 3A/3B as I don't think the article misses much about the history of the phrase - any ideas if anything happened pre-20th century we need to include? It's certainly not "in unnecessary detail" for 3B either Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article, I question if it's really notable, but that's outside of scope as far as GA goes and therefore does not impact keep/delist. I don't think it's really a worthwhile article personally, but I also can't point to any criterion it fails to meet. However, I am concerned by the overreliance on one source for almost all of the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Black Lab

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. Article suffers from a lack of citations and a lack of expansion post-2007. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the main contributor to its initial GA push, I would be happy if this were speedily delisted as a GA; I have no intention of spending the time necessary to change it to meet current standards. Chubbles (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gunfight at the O.K. Corral

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many uncited statements, and questionable sources such as IMDB and history.com. Z1720 (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fujiwara no Teika

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous uncited sections. I also think the amount and length of block quotes should be reduced. Z1720 (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Andy Murray

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted per the above issues and significant uncited material. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails 1a (concision) and 3b (unnecessary detail). This article has ballooned up to 19,000 words. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Usher (musician)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At over 14,000 words, this article can probably be trimmed. The "Personal life" section is excessively long, and the "History" section gives too much weight to more recent events. Some sources should be removed (IMDB, Gawker) while others should be reevaluated for inclusion. Z1720 (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Postal codes in Canada

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Several unsourced sections, including almost the entire "Components of a postal code" section. Z1720 (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dolph Ziggler

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited sections and use of unreliable sources like onlineworldofwrestling and Wrestle Zone. Z1720 (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

KevJumba

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very reliant on unreliable sources, and with many citation needed tags, this 2008 listing violates GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. This article is a relic from the early days of YouTube history, and became a GA at a time when Wikipedia's standards for sourcing was less strict compared to 2023's standards. Unfortunately, the developing stronger standards for GA coincided with Kev's declining popularity due to his decreasing activity online. So unlike most other e-celeb articles, there most likely aren't any active editors willing to put in the work for this article for the foreseeable future. I would work on it myself, but I'm already stretched thin with other plans. Unless someone steps up, I'd sadly have to vote Delist. PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gil Grissom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Violations of GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. There are many parts without sources or uses unreliable/primary sources. For instance, many claims in the Reception section are sourced to primary sources or none at all. I also see a lot of WP:CRUFT. Would need a lot of work to maintain GA status. Spinixster (chat!) 09:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that there's cruft. However, I am not especially well-versed in the fine line between cruft and not. Certainly the details and quote about his father's death is something to be removed as cruft.--SidP (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stacy Keibler

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple uncited paragraphs, IMDB and Online World of Wrestling sources need to be replaced. Z1720 (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arlen Specter

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: In addition to the below, problems with GA criterion 2b) such as not meeting MOS:OVERSECTION ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous uncited sections, including whole paragraphs. Fox News sources might need to be replaced with different, more reputable sources per WP:FOXNEWS. Z1720 (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Osteopathic medicine in the United States

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. Real4jyy (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 listing has two problems:

Significant uncited material in the International practice rights section, violating GA criterion 2b), and
A lack of updated material, resulting in citations from the early 2000s or earlier being described as current. I'm not sure if the information has to meet WP:MEDRS as its not strictly WP:BMI, but a lack of updates means the article violates both GA criteria 3 and 4. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29, do you have any reason to believe that the profession has materially changed in the last 15–20 years? (I don't, but perhaps you know more about it than I do.) If nothing's actually changed, then I don't understand why the date on the citation would affect whether the article addresses the main topic, stays focused on that topic, and complies with NPOV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing, the article talks in 2000s-voice extensively about how the differences between osteopathic and other disciplines of medicines have decreased (There is currently a debate within the osteopathic community over the feasibility of maintaining osteopathic medicine as a distinct entity within US health care sourced to nine citations, none later than 2008; The president of the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine commented on the current climate of crisis within the profession sourced to a 2009 source; However, the proportion of osteopathic students choosing primary care fields, like that of their MD peers, is declining. Currently, only one in five osteopathic medical students enters a family medicine residency (the largest primary care field) sourced to two sources from 2005). The article also talks about how this change was very recent (in 2007): In 2004, only 32% of osteopathic seniors planned careers in any primary care field; this percentage was down from a peak in 1996 of more than 50%.

So to take this to its logical conclusion: either the trends evident in 2007 have continued or they have stopped. There is not, however, evidence of either in the article. Can you really therefore say that the article addresses the main aspects of the topic or is neutral, when it actively or passively ignores the last fifteen years of what by all accounts was a fundamental threat to the profession in 2007? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Another example would be a section about "Attitudes" cited entirely to 1998 and 2005 (and overquoting). The Research emphasis section and the Primary care sections certainly should be updated.
There are MOS:CURRENT issues everywhere (eg, "At the same time, recent studies show an increasingly positive attitude of patients and physicians (MD and DO) towards the use of manual therapy as a valid, safe, and effective treatment modality", recent being cited to 2002 is poor prose, and this is found throughout. But I don't know if that problem is an issue at GA-level (not that familiar with what GA expects, but if the datedness is a concern, most of the medicine GAs are in the same boat).
More importantly, there is considerable uncited text throughout; even if the uncited or content cited to dated sources is correct, this article does not meet GA standards based on the uncited text alone. And the overquoting throughout means the article does not rise to the expected prose standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia, the Wikipedia:Good article criteria explicitly says that GAs must comply with the MOS pages on "lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation" and no others. Violations of MOS:CURRENT are consequently irrelevant for decisions about whether to list or de-list. It would, of course, be a better article if it complied with all of the MOS pages, but it can be a Good Article™ without doing so.

The uncited paragraphs, of course, do not comply with the recently amended rules about citing ~everything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that part ... which is why I said the vagueness in the text as a result of MOS:CURRENT is a prose problem. The text is meaningless without an as of date. How we can say something is current or recent when it's not (or at least needs checking)? How can an article be "good" if it misleads readers? Maybe these issues don't occur in other content areas, but in biomedicine topics, they do matter, and if that's what a "good article" can do, then (as I've said before), I truly don't understand what GA is or means, at least in the biomedical or any dynamic topic (perhaps not a problem on more static topics, whatever those may be). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Articles can be good without being Good™, and they can be Good™ without being good. (AIUI readers are almost completely unaware of the little green GA icons, so they are not relying on this designation.)

Renaming GA to something like Wikipedia:Articles that, in the opinion of a single human, meet six specific criteria, which suggests they are probably better than most articles but you wouldn't necessarily want to call them 'good' because there is definitely room for improvement, especially since they're not required to comply with all of the policies and guidelines, some of which are obviously important might give editors a clearer idea of what the process is really supposed to achieve. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, well anyway, uncited text, and I don't think dated text should qualify for a GA. If that means I'm wrong, the process has Coords now, and they'll have to earn their big bucks and ignore my "delist". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be misunderstanding "fundamental threat to the profession" re. primary care -- primary care means a specific subset of medical specialities, the exact same that are less popular amongst graduating MDs in the past couple decades as well, that DOs were and still are markedly overrepresented in compared to MDs. My impression is that the trends described (DO educations becoming more like MD educations, DOs not being 100% locked into primary care all the time in every circumstance but still much more likely to match to it than MDs) have continued. I'm not sure how to source it. Vaticidalprophet 20:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's just the thing. I don't have any reason to believe that the situation has changed. @AirshipJungleman29, you say that the bit about "the feasibility of maintaining osteopathic medicine as a distinct entity" is sourced to 2008, and surely things have changed because it's been a whole 15 years since then. That sounds reasonable on the surface, but I'm remembering that this debate was going on in the 1960s (and perhaps before then, but I know that in the 1960s, California told all the DOs they could legally become MDs if they wanted to, and nearly all of them wanted to, which triggered the same doomsday thinking among DOs), so if it hadn't resolved in the half-century between the 1960s and the 2000s, why should it have been resolved in the 15 years since then, especially since we've spent the last few years distracted by a pandemic?

If you want current statistics, then https://osteopathic.org/about/aoa-statistics/ has the newest numbers, but I'm not sure that they're directly comparable. For example, it says that last year, 57% of DOs were matched to primary care residency programs, but "seniors planned" (=the stat in the article) and "seniors actually got" (=the stat in the report) are different things, and primary care (=57% in the report) is much bigger than family medicine (=20% in the article), but these are also different things. So, have the numbers changed? Probably, but maybe not materially. It's hard to tell at a glance whether these differences are important, or just the usual year-to-year variation (maybe with a bit of pandemic chaos thrown on top).

Overall, I think that recent sources give editors confidence that the article is (probably) neutral (i.e., that it fairly reflects the current views of sources), but if the underlying facts haven't changed materially, then spamming in a fancier citation is just so much window dressing. The article says about 20% of DOs go into family medicine; if that is still true, then the article is accurate and neutral regardless of whether the little blue clicky number leads you to a source from ten years ago or ten hours ago. It's ultimately the facts that matter, not the citation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a pretty strong impression from, like, Student Doctor Network that the situation on the ground has changed (at least, people still made "should I go DO or Caribbean?" threads in 2007 that could go either way, and ten years later the conclusion was always "what the hell, absolutely DO, there's no possible dispute about this"). I don't think {{cite sdn thread}} would go down very well, though. Vaticidalprophet 23:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That California dispute is outlined in the article, WhatamIdoing. The article says about 20% of DOs go into family medicine; if that is still true, then the article is accurate and neutral regardless of whether the little blue clicky number leads you to a source from ten years ago or ten hours ago. Sure. Is it true? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it is true. https://www.aafp.org/students-residents/residency-program-directors/national-resident-matching-program-results.html says 22.2% for the most recent round. The article says "about one in five", and 22.2% is fairly described as "about one in five".

Did you try to find sources to answer your question, or were you just hoping that someone would do it for you? I strongly doubt that anyone is going to clean up the article for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WhatamIdoing, as I have little knowledge of medical terminology, sources, or the US medical school system, I was indeed hoping that you would be able to answer my question and help improve the article. I have a further couple, if you don't mind; to quote that source "the percentage of DO students matching to family medicine (22.2%) continues to decline steadily"—do we know what it is declining steadily from? Presumably it was more than one in five (and incidentally it contradicts "the proportion of osteopathic students choosing primary care fields... is declining"). Also, is "the number of DO seniors matching to family medicine reached a record high" relevant? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The number of DO students has gone up over the last couple of decades. This makes it possible to have both a reduced percentage and a higher absolute number.

If you are interested in this, I suggest that you spend some time with your favorite web search engine. That's what I would have to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would keep GA status. The needed revisions seems minor, but should be addressed. Rytyho usa (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reopened per SandyGeorgia's concerns, which I share. Apologies for stepping on your toes, Airshipjungleman, but I think further discussion/improvement is needed here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to have to mar the article with maintenance tags, but I was quite surprised to see it closed as a Keep without further independent review, so did some cleanup and tagging; I maintain some hope that this is not representative of GA standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The other concern I have is that this article is quite typical of the state of most of the medical GAs, and I am still hoping we're not saying this kind of work is GA standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of involved as I reopened this, but for the record I am in favor of a delist in light of the numerous citation needed instances in the article at present. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Netball

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Significant uncited material, while the existing references are predominantly from 2011 or earlier; thus several sections are out of date, and GA criterion 3a is violated. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Things like the rules of netball don't need to be cited per WP:SKYISBLUE, and it's not obvious why an article on the sport of netball in general would require recent sources. Taking a look at the article, the citations and coverage seem to have held up pretty well over 10+ years, so you're going to have to be more specific than that about your concerns. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to work on the article to provide additional references. If the concern is criterion 3a "addresses the main aspects of the topic", then I agree with Sportsfan77777. Provide details of what you believe to be out of date, with appropriate references to back them up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bergen Light Rail

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2010. The article still holds up quite well as a description of the state in 2010/2011 and events leading up to 2010. However, there have been only the most cursory updates since then. Recent developments (of which there were quite a few) are only covered briefly, which provides a marked contrast to the extensive (still good) descriptions of earlier parts. Therefore, the article no longer fulfils GA criterias 1 and 3 for its subject. GeorgR (de) (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Selective glucocorticoid receptor modulator

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article (promoted nearly 15 years ago) is out of date and missing substantial information. For example, there are systematic reviews of the drugs' potential in asthma and arthritis both of which are barely mentioned in the article. None of the article's sources are more recent than 2015, while clinical trials of these drugs are ongoing as of 2023. (t · c) buidhe 09:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Feminism in India

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted/ ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to a GAR request from buidhe on July 29, 2023. I see numerous uncited passages, multiple citation needed tags, inappropriate external links in the body. This is sufficient in my mind to justify listing for reassessment. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sai Baba of Shirdi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited prose, including almost the entire "Worship and devotees" section. Z1720 (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Batgirl

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: More than a week, little to no movement towards improvement; article delisted. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails criteria 2 and 3: the article needs more citations (preferably from secondary sources), and it goes into excessive detail significantly beyond what is appropriate for the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

HDMI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. More than a week, little movement towards addressing issues. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per multiple maintenance tags and other issues. Use of lists and tables may be excessive in some areas. The versions section resembles a WP:CHANGELOG at certain points. The applications section needs to be reorganized or rewritten. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Versions section is probably the best-written section on versions of a major technical spec I have ever seen. What is the particular criticism? --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 10:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the paragraphs are just a literal changelog update, and there are excessive lists and excessive tables. If I were a GA reviewer for this, I would recommend a few paragraphs that briefly describe the main points rather than an extensive list of every version and feature, just like you'd write for any other subject. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I understand your point of view now, but I do not share it. What you may see as mere temporal snapshots of an alleged single spec, I see as a family of specifications, all under the HDMI umbrella, with a rich and occasionally checkered history. Along with the physical specs, the Versions section + tables represent the heart of the article, the answer to the question, what is HDMI? If I were a GA reviewer, I would be fairly happy with this part of the article. {{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation: Major revisions needed to retain GA status. The topic HDMI is certainly an important one. However, it appears that the article has grown somewhat haphazardly since it first passed the Good Article criteria in 2008 without paying enough attention to being useful to the non-technical reader. There are also some issues that were identified when it failed a Feature Article nomination in 2009 which have not been addressed. Further It has a few issues that editors have identified in the current version which have not been addressed such as information about FRL, Personal computers and one citation needed. There are also many statements which are not sourced, or use low-reputation sources.
A little history. The Good Article review was on 27 June 2008 here. At that time it was 51,666 bytes, ~3500 words, and 91 references The article was fairly tight and passed without any comments.
It was nominated as a Feature Article which was declined 28 November 2009, this version. At that time it was 76,238 bytes, ~4500 words and 141 references.
A key comment at that time was “The main problem is that it is overfull of facts and doesn't explain (to the general reader) how and why…I think the article needs a fairly radical overhaul to make it an engaging read and focus more on getting the point across rather than bare facts.“
The current version as of October 2nd 2023 is 180,638 bytes, ~12,000 words with 225 references. It appears that nothing has been done to remedy the issue identified in 2009. There is a clear issue with too much detail WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTGUIDE could also be relevant, and too much detail about updates WP:NOTCHANGELOG. As noted in the earlier FA review, it fails the GA Well-written criteria as it is too technical and needs at least an introduction for a non-technical audience WP:TECHNICAL. There are many cases it seems to go into unnecessary detail WP:SS.
What appears to have happened is that more sections have been added, with no significant rethinking of this as an encyclopedic article. Many sections read as a depository of technical information which should be elsewhere. Examples of this include HDMI#Cables. There are also many sections which have lengthy descriptions which are poorly sourced and whose utility is unclear. For instance in the Blue Ray section the paragraph that starts with “Blu-ray permits” makes many statements without citations whose relevance is unclear.
When I do a quick Google Scholar search I find many refereed articles. However, I do not find many refereed high reputation sources in this article. For certain Press Releases and Blogs are not high reputation and should not be used. A non-exhaustive list of marginal sources is:

Press Releases: 6, 26, 82, 152, 196
Trade Magazines: 7, 14
Blogs or similar: 25, 26, 27
Manufacturers articles: 8

A few specifics:

The paragraph in History that starts “According to In-Stat” reads like an advertisement, as does the next paragraph. The whole section needs to be edited so it is WP:NPOV

In Compatibility with DVI the paragraph “From a user’s perspective” appears to be a digression. Either condense or make the relevance clearer.

As mentioned above, it is unclear what the relevance of all the technical information in Cables is.

The Extenders section appears to be a digression. Either condense, remove or make the relevance clearer.

The Version section can be compressed, more neutral please. I suspect everything except the latest should only be 2-3 sentences. Details that are in the Main specifications tables should not be duplicated.

The Personal computers section has a lot of old (obsolete) information. I don’t expect that many 2005 vintage computers are still running, or even 2012.

The Relationship with DisplayPort seems to wander without a clear focus. Similarly the MHL section

The two Podcasts from 2009 in the External links are very old, I suggest replacing with something newer.

Ldm1954 (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation (revised): Remove GA status. Editors are continuing to make minor changes, ignoring the comments here. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sai Baba of Shirdi/1}}
 {{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Batgirl/1}}
+{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/HDMI/1}}