Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:GAR)
MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsFAQDiscussionReassessmentReport
Reviewing initiatives:Backlog driveMentorshipReview circlesPledges
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 and if necessary, delist them. 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, 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 GAN discussion 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 good article criteria. Many common problems (including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment may be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles may be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delisting.

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 criteria 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 criteria 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. Comments should focus on the article's contents and adherence to the criteria.
  2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
  3. Interested editors can indicate their intention to fix the article and give updates on their progress in the GAR. Commentators should periodically check the GAR and give additional comments when necessary. Wikipedia is not compulsory and editors should not insist that commentators, interested editors, or past GAN nominators make the suggested changes, nor should they state that edits should have been completed before the GAR was opened.
  4. 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.
  5. If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at the GAN discussion page. 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 two weeks (14 days).
  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 good article criteria, the reassessment may be closed as keep.
    • If there is no consensus, the reassessment may also be closed as keep.
    • If the article has been kept, consider awarding the Good Article Rescue Barnstar to the editor(s) who contributed significantly to bringing it up to standard.
  4. After at least two weeks (14 days), if the article's issues are unresolved, and editors have clearly ceased making good-faith improvements to the article, and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed 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 may post at the GAN discussion page and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the coordinators.

Articles needing possible reassessment

Good article reassessment

Talk notices given
  1. The Chariot (band) 2025-02-12
  2. Dragon Quest 2025-03-13
  3. 18th Military Police Brigade (United States) 2025-05-01
Find more: 2023 GA Sweeps Project
See also: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sweeps 2023 and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sweeps 2025

The good articles listed below have been flagged for the attention of reviewers for reassessment. If reassessment is appropriate, please open a community reassessment and remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page. For cases where no reassessment is needed, remove the template from the article talk page.

The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a featured article candidate, please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed.

Articles listed for reassessment

Linfield F.C.

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

As I noted on the article's talk page, this 2014 promotion (which is part of the 2025 Sweeps listing) contains significant amounts of uncited material. Additionally, there are some tone issues but the extent of this problem is much less significant than the sourcing issues. Hog Farm Talk 01:05, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sivaji: The Boss

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

The last GAR was closed on 1 April 2015 (what a joke). Almost 10 years later it has significantly decayed due to lack of monitoring as many great editors have retired. Due to my current job, I cannot find enough time to improve it, but it cannot be a GA in the current condition. Kailash29792 (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Marsileaceae

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Venetica

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

Lots of "citation needed" templates from February 2023. Z1720 (talk) 03:32, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: As far as I can tell, most of those seem to have been put in place of the citations that were there before, see the diff. Apparently Angeldeb82 removed the previous source
  • Woger, Martin (2009-12-23). "Venetica". Eurogamer.de (in German). Retrieved 2019-08-25.
and replaced it with the CN templates. I could just restore the source but I'd like to hear her explanation first. Regards SoWhy 19:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought that Eurogamer only applies to the English version of the website, as described under Template:Video game reviews. Angeldeb82 (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Katsuhiko Nakajima

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

There is a lot of uncited text, including whole paragraphs. An orange banner outlining this has been in the article since 2024. There are very large paragraphs in the article, which are hard for users to read, especially on mobile. I recommend that these be divided into multiple paragraphs or summarised more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Conn Smythe

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

There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This one actually seems doable to fix up. A lot of it is written like an essay. Conyo14 (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is one person who is well-represented in sources. The lead did not take much to fix up. Alaney2k (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Philadelphia Phillies season

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

Uncited statements, including the entire "Broadcasting" section. Z1720 (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article has 186 unique citations and you started a GAR over three uncited paragraphs? Killervogel5 has been gone for over a decade. I will fix those three paragraphs tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Enron scandal

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

This article is quite long. I think some places can be summarised more effectively like the lead, "Corporate governance" section (perhaps removing some of the headings as well), "Timeline of downfall", "Restructuring losses and SEC investigation" and "Proposed buyout by Dynegy" sections. There are also some uncited statements with "citation needed" templates from 2020. Z1720 (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma State Highway 74

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

Uncited statements throughout the article. The "Spurs" section also suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION and might need to be expanded. Z1720 (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ransomware

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

There are uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. There is an "Update needed" orange banner at the top of the "Criminal arrests and convictions" section. Is this banner valid? Perhaps this section should be removed as WP:TMI? Z1720 (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

St. Martin, Idstein

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I looked and found the paragraphs about the music performed in church services not cited. What can we do? Same problem as at Bach's time: there was no press coverage of his cantatas except the one that he performed when he assumed the post (and it only said it was good, without details). There has been no press coverage for musical groups doing church work in Idstein, not even for the choir jubilee. It still happened, there are images. What do you think about splitting the details of church music in a separate article, like splitting the recordings off BWV 1? - Happy Wikipedia jubilee! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In a first step, I looked at the section Chorale concerts. It comes with an introduction which summarizes information that is referenced in the table below, to highlight certain aspects, such as period instruments and ecumenical collaboration. This summary had no references, like a lead has no references, but I copied now the individual references to the summary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Second step: adding a ref to Klaus Schmidt having sung with choir from the beginning, - until his death. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Getty Center

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and the "Arrival court and central rotunda" section. Z1720 (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's worth having an entire "In popular culture" heading that's only content is a mention that there is a location loosely based on the Getty Center in a video game. Especially not when the only source for that is just two sentences in a listicle. I think this section should be either expanded to include actually notable instances of the Getty Center in popular culture to help justify the section, or the section should be removed entirely. GranCavallo (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rock wren

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

As @NegativeMP1 says, this article's GA review might not be entirely valid, so I'm starting a GAR to find out if this is actually GA-level. Cheers! (leave a message on my talk page if you need PDFs of any of the paywalled sources) monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending
  • Lead has citations of content not present in body.
  • Has a ton of one- and two-sentence paragraphs.
  • Multiple permanent dead links throughout.
  • "Investigation" header has a {{refimprove}}.
  • Has a lot of ALL CAPS TEXT that should not be there.
  • Also had a bullet list of "In popular culture" that violated WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOTTVTROPES so I removed it.

Last GAR was in 2007.

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva (1989 Telugu film)

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

It was promoted to GA in 2016. Almost ten years later, it has decayed as its key architect Veera Narayana, once praised by me as the Messiah of Telugu cinema articles, has become inactive and couldn't monitor the article since or prevent vandalism. Even I cannot find much time to focus on GAs and FAs as I could once upon a time, but hopefully the GAR can bring in others to resolve issues. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speakers' Corner, Singapore

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

tagged for llm text since october 2025. article was promoted to ga in 2012. ltbdl (taste) 07:12, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:QF Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 15:29, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the LLM allegations tie more to the rewrites, particularly the lead, rather than the main content which seems to me adequately cited except for some additions since the article got awarded GA. I might devote a bit of time to rework this article, comparing with GA version (written in 2012) and updating accordingly.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 14:09, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ltbdl: I have reverted the article back to when it attained GA status; feel free to raise any issues/concerns (one I'm thinking is external links in the prose). Anyways, hopefully Zkang and others will spend some time rewriting the article. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 14:24, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting a decade+ worth of edits is a new one! 😂😂😂 Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:09, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Big innovation right there Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 03:40, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Glee (TV series)

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

Excessive WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. Each season describes “themes” which are not sourced. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:15, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One Sweet Day

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

Uncited statements, especially in "Live performances". Z1720 (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... RedShellMomentum 01:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Guerrero

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

Mostly unreferenced filmography, failing WP:GACR6 #2. Also one citation needed tag and one needs update tag. jolielover♥talk 14:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

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

Lots of uncited statements, especially for summarising various parts of the document. The "Reservations" section has too many short paragraphs that should be summarised and merged together. Z1720 (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gun show loophole

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

Two orange banners, the "neutrality" and "weasel words" banners, were added to the article in 2024. Although the editor posted their concerns on the talk page, the issue was not resolved. In April 2025 an orange "undue weight" banner was added to the "Government studies and positions" section. These issues should be resolved for this article to keep its GA status. Z1720 (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as the editor that added these banners, I have tried to reconcile those issues on the talk page, but as one can clearly see, the editors that made these changes have either not responded or refused to discuss them. If the only issues found by the reviewer(s) here are the banners themselves, and they do not share any concerns for the issues I have brought up, do we simply remove the banners? DN (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Darknipples: Well, the banners describe issues that would cause the article to not meet the GA criteria: I would only remove the banners if the issues are resolved or there is a consensus that they should be removed as they are not problems in the article. Perhaps we can wait to additional comments below before determining what to do. Z1720 (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture of the Song dynasty

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

Uncited sections, including entire paragraphs and sections. Min968 (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Min968 Hello! Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Unfortunately I do not have time to address this because I'm too busy with the featured article review for Augustus. Maybe a month from now I can revisit this? If I don't respond please remind me in February to tackle this, since I was the one who brought this article to Good status in the first place. It has unfortunately declined in quality since then, but was never very good in the first place (my main article on the Song dynasty is in much better shape). Pericles of AthensTalk 18:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PericlesofAthens: If you are interested in making the necessary improvements in February, this can stay open until then. Please note below when you are working on it so that others know not to close this. Z1720 (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Z1720 Thanks! Appreciate that, and will do. I just don't have any feasible time to work on it this month. Cheers. Pericles of AthensTalk 03:23, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Min968 Doing some cursory investigation, it appears the article was never that good in the first place per the version for this edit of mine back in 2009, but the current version is worse. Over the years, someone (multiple editors?) pretty much bulldozed a bunch of the research I did and removed citations even from Needham, a reliable secondary source (and at least not a primary source from the 12th century, like the Yingzao Fashi which is cited in various places). This is going to be a major fixer-upper and I'll definitely need until the end of February to rework entire sections, rearrange and reword entire paragraphs, and provide a wide enough variety of cited sources that this article can be considered of Good quality at least. Thanks for your patience! Pericles of AthensTalk 17:12, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rock & Chips

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending
  • Plot and cast sections seem way too long relative to the rest of the article.
  • The sections quoting Sullivan and Lyndhurst seem WP:UNDUE.
  • Informal tone like If only he could find the finance. in the episodes list.
  • What makes comedy.co.uk / British Comedy Guide a RS?
  • Source 13 is a bare URL that has gone dead.
  • "Home media" section is sourced entirely to Amazon.

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ten Pound Hammer, I will take a closer look at this article and see if I can fix the points raised. Mr Sitcom (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a look and improved upon the points raised. I have left the Amazon citations (and added a few more) in the "Home media" section, since the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources article states that, While Amazon itself is a reliable source for basic information about a work (such as release date, ISBN, etc.), it is unnecessary to cite Amazon when the work itself may serve as a source for that information. Let me know if anything else needs to be improved upon. Mr Sitcom (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr Sitcom: Between your edits and a couple more tweaks I made just now, I think this is close to being kept. I still feel the "home release" section should be cited to something other than Amazon if another source can be found. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The only other sources I have found are listings on Fishpond and from the British Comedy Guide. I'm not sure about their reliability. Mr Sitcom (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1996 Pacific hurricane season

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

Most of the sources don't work FrizzBTalk 20:32, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article could also benefit from a lot of the sub-articles being merged. The season article is short, and so are Alma, Boris, Cristina, Elida, and Fausto. I'm not sure how much that affects the GA review, but if the article is already being discussed, it's something I wanted to bring up. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1984 Pacific typhoon season

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

Uncited sections, including entire paragraphs and sections. Z1720 (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kenzō Tange

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

This article lists a handful of notable projects, similar to the (outstanding) page for I.M. Pei, but the selection seems kind of random (I didn't help here) and ends in 1975, 30 years before the end of Tange's career. Information about his work after '75 is lumped into a brief "later career" section, despite his extraordinary productivity until death. There are 14 subsections of individual projects, some of them for relatively minor or ephemeral items of his oeuvre (Hawaii Hochi and Syrian Pres. Palace) and others encompassing massive, multi-building projects (Singapore). The article is also basically devoid of information about his personal life. I've been tinkering with this article, but in some ways, it's messier than ever, and needs some TLC before returning to GA status. Theodore Christopher (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

USS Ampere

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

There are only two sources, one of which (Navsource) is self published. The GA was never closed and a secondary review was requested but never started. Information in the lead and infoboxes are not cited in the prose, and some information regarding the ship class change(?) is never explained in the article body. GGOTCC 00:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this needs to be reassessed. I also agree that it is insufficiently sourced and not GA quality. However, the talk page history shows that Auntieruth55 closed the GA and passed it a few weeks later despite no response to her request for an additional review. So while it is defective, it was closed and labelled GA by the original assessor and is not open to challenge for that technicality alone - not that this is being requested. For whatever it is worth, I thought noting that the GA was passed and closed by the assessor should be mentioned. Donner60 (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for this correction, @Donner60:, I misunderstood the edit history of the GA review and updated the reassessment accordingly. GGOTCC 06:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oriana Skylar Mastro

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

Really short, large portions of unsourced/poorly sourced content, and article leaves much to be desired. Sources are largely primary(source 1 is an interview, 13 is a product page for a book, etc) and this page really doesn't show that she's notable. monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No interview Yes Yes ✘ No
No dead link, though based of title alone(she also is in the air force) this probably not independent ✘ No
No stuck loading, dead, though this is a press release of her work ✘ No
No same as above - this is her work ✘ No
No literally just her author profile Yes No no content about her ✘ No
No she works there Yes ✘ No
No see above Yes ✘ No
No she works there Yes ✘ No
No she also works there Yes ✘ No
No it's her book. ✘ No
No interview :p Yes No not about her, per sey, she's acting as a pundit here ✘ No
No her work ✘ No
No also her work ✘ No
No still her work ✘ No
No ✘ No
No bit confusing, but she's part of the research team ✘ No
No ditto, her work ✘ No
No she's a visiting professor No Yes ✘ No
No this is her hubby ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

comment that the sources that were removed after these edits are also all written by her monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delist, article is so substantially below GA standards for length, tone, scope, and sourcing that I'm amazed it even came remotely close to passing. The bullet list of her works is longer than the rest of the article! It doesn't say anything about her before her professional career, and there's only one line about her personal life at all. As shown above by Monkeysmashingkeyboards, none of the sources in the article are wholly independent of her, several of them are 404, and only a couple are even reliable. Had I seen this at GAN, I would have quick-failed it on length alone.
@Lee Vilenski:, @Chipmunkdavis:, @Trainsandotherthings: do any of you support the motion to speedy-delist this? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:02, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should really be speedy delisting GAs outside of blatent copyvios and housekeeping. However, if the person isn't notable, AfD is the solution. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:07, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm cautious about speedy delisting for length, as the community has never found a firm consensus that would help guide that. I agree with Lee that if sourcing is an issue, AfD is the correct forum. I also encouraging tagging the article appropriately for sourcing concerns given the source assessment analysis. CMD (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I added a handful of maintenance tags. Monkeysmashingkeyboards already proved the lack of secondary sourcing, so I added a {{primary sources}}. Also, I added {{missing}} and {{expand section}} to appropriate sections. If the article's short length alone may not be enough for a speedy delist, then I think the other maintenance issues are. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree the issues are egregious, speedy delist is usually only for cut-and-dry cases, as @Lee Vilenski says: copyvios/housekeeping, and other uncontestable issues - perhaps attack pages, if one ever makes it through GAN. This delist is possibly maybe perhaps??? contestable, so I'd suggest just leave it be.
Pinging author and reviewer: @W9793, @Riley1012 monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Lee Vilenski and CMD that we don't need to speedy delist this article. That doesn't mean the issues aren't serious, but those should be addressed through normal editing. If substantial improvements aren't forthcoming, this will close as a delist, of course, but I don't see a reason not to let the reassessment play out. I'm not sure why this was initially passed with sourcing in this state though. I wouldn't pass any article at GAN without secondary sourcing, and it's made significantly worse that we're talking about a BLP without secondary sourcing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsandotherthings: The FAR process has the WP:ROT13 rule, stating that FAs can be speedily delisted if they're deemed to be extremely below the standards. I've considered whether WP:ROT13 should also extend to GARs, but I can also see the argument that GAR is less formalized and therefore less needing of a "speedy delist" equivalent. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike at FAC and FAR, the coordinators here aren't god-kings but normal community members who have volunteered to be points of contact when there are questions or disputes in the GAR process. We are a lot less formalized, which makes sense given the lower stakes between GA and FA status. This already has attention of the GAR process, so it will be delisted if not improved sufficiently to meet the criteria. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm reading this correctly, tl;dr is "we don't have a formalized speedy delete because we really don't have an urgent need for it" monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this is poorly sourced, notability is not shown, and even if the article were to be kept, it isn't even close to GA standards. The military history project banner shell is incomplete, which may be the reason or a large contributing factor as to why it was never assessed by the military history project bot or a human assessor. I would favor deletion on the basis of non-notability but it should go through the proper deletion process to accomplish this. I am a military history project coordinator and have assessed many military history articles. Given the deficiencies that have already been pointed out, if the article were kept, I would rate it as Start class for the project. I also agree that as a matter of propriety, this GAN should probably run the proper course of time even though I doubt it will be upgraded. It may eventually be deleted. I am not familiar with any guideline with allows the GA rating to be removed without running the full course of time with time given for any editor who can improve the article to come forward to do it. Donner60 (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian

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

Unresolved issues with the article include:

  • The "Health" section has some MEDRS claims cited to sources that are over 20 years old. That's not acceptable.
  • There are also extensive issues with missing time periods and other clarification needed, some of them are tagged.
  • Extensive excessive detail issues (eg. the Nicaragua history section or pop culture details about specific works)

I think this article would need a substantial rewrite to be considered GA quality. fyi Z1720 (t · c) buIdhe 19:06, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would add that there are multiple single-sentence paragraphs, indicating that information has been gradually added in without regards to formatting the full article. Due to the article's length and breadth of topic, information should be summarised more effectively and prose should be considered for spinning out. Z1720 (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the very long 'History' section with a 'main' link to the existing History of lesbianism, and a 2-paragraph summary. This resolves the length issue: there is no need to spin out anything else. It seems also to have removed most of the excessive detail, time periods, and clarifications needed matters. I've closed up several short paragraphs. I've removed some non-MEDRS materials from the 'Health' section.
On culture, the treatments of literature, film, and theatre seem largely unexceptionable; I've done a little copy-editing. The television section too is largely and properly thematic, not a list of "and xyz was also a lesbian production" as I expected from the comments above. I've trimmed one lengthy item but see little need for a rewrite here. The 'Chic and popular culture' section too is clearly thematic with well-chosen and reliably-cited examples; I've copy-edited a little, and removed one paragraph of rather vague generalisations, but found the section clear, neutral, and encyclopedic.

Overall, the now much-shorter article is in good shape, so this seems a clear Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While your edits are definitely an improvement, the article still needs major work. The sections on popular culture are decently written but don't follow summary style and due weight, with excessive information on mostly American pop culture items and American celebrities. It looks like they're roughly a third of the non-lead article count, which seems excessive. The demographics section also needs a lot of work. The Kinsey report is fringe/undue, of mainly historical interest now, and the population estimates are mostly for the US which fails wp:worldwide. Outdated health information has also not been addressed. There is still no information on lesbian relationships in non-western societies. (t · c) buIdhe 17:36, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I've trimmed sharply, especially the American side, but the preponderance of Hollywood is not avoidable. The television section is down to 2 paragraphs. Kinsey is by no means fringe, and "once notable, always notable". The history is fully international already, and given the relative paucity of information, perfect balance may not be possible. The demographics already covered US, UK, and Australia; I've added France, Israel, Philippines, and Sri Lanka. On health, I had already removed old and flaky sources, and have done more in that line now; I'll see if it can be updated a bit...... Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This hasn't fixed the Worldwide issues. The History section is not fully international, it's just Western history except a couple of sentences, and it's largely a list of examples with no discussion of how, for example, social attitudes changed over time. The only mention of Africa is a specific advocacy group. Most of the sources in the health section are around 20 years old and I suspect there are worldwide issues there as well. The issues with the media section have not been fixed at all. (t · c) buIdhe 19:38, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to keep looking for sources, but searches definitely confirm my suspicion that studies have largely been in the West, and that historically it has been much easier for lesbians to report their feelings in the West than in countries where there is longstanding persecution or simple denial that female-female relationships exist. The assertion of no non-Western coverage is mistaken: both History and Demographics now provide such coverage. The History summary is already divided into ancient (3 sentences), Western (11 sentences), and rest-of-world (6 sentences). In fields where research is limited, all that a Good Article can do is to report honestly on what can be found. On the Health side, I have updated by adding new material and removing the oldest, so the coverage is already substantially more up to date. If you have any specific items that can be included, I'll be happy to work them in. Meanwhile I'll continue the hunt. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
longstanding persecution or simple denial that female-female relationships exist uhh this is a very ignorant statement. there are many books and studies on different cultures worldwide, and every culture has a different attitude towards such relationships. (t · c) buIdhe 20:16, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It could easily be sourced, I'm afraid, but I don't intend to put that in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The classic work on homosexuality in Africa is Boy-Wives and Female Husbands. That we don't have any citations to this seminal work in the article is a problem. A quick search in The Journal of Lesbian Studies will find more work on lesbians in Africa, i.e. this entire issue published in 2017 [1]. Katzrockso (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap, your recent edit added but are starting to be studied by scholars to the article. Not only does one sentence suffice to fix this problem (not that I expect it to be fixed immediately), but I think that this phrase misrepresents the source. The first sentence of the body of the cited article is Although not an entirely new topic of inquiry, “lesbian”/female same-sex sexualities in Africa is still an emerging field of studies located at the moving junction of various disciplinary formations. "not an entirely new topic of inquiry" does not support "starting to be studied by scholars". In addition, a topic that has been subject to significant academic attention for over 30 years now (and probably earlier too) cannot said to be something that is "starting to be studied", rather than something that "is studied. The absence of this body of research from the article is a breach of WP:GAR#3a, which requires that good articles addresses the main aspects of the topic. An article that contains an undue proportion of content about American lesbianism while only giving lip service to lesbianism in e.g. Africa cannot be said to address the main aspects of the topic. Katzrockso (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the phrase; please feel free to edit the text to represent the topic better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Katzrockso: I've added mention of the book and from the source you indicate, thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore

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

There's uncited statements in the article, including the whole "Activities" section There's a "Promotional" orange banner at the top of the article. The lead is too short and doesn't summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just delist it and slap a Start-class orange circle ngl Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 01:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, actually, § Activities is fully unreferenced, so WP:GAFAIL criterion 3 applies Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 13:36, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Homerpalooza

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending
  • Plot has several lines of dialogue in it that I don't think are necessary.
  • "Cultural references" section had a {{trivia}} tag from July 2024. I personally think this section is fine, but could see the argument for removing it or integrating the info elsewhere.
  • More strongly though, I think the "reception" section is a train wreck. It's a cavalcade of random listicles and rankings on arbitrary best-of lists with no rhyme or reason for what was chosen and why.
  • I also feel the article is overly reliant on DVD commentary and other primary sources relative to the secondary sources.

Z1720 raised similar issues on the talk page in November 2025 and these went unaddressed.

It looks like the last GA sweeps from 2007 and 2009 barely skimmed the surface on what the article even had, and fancruft has since bloated it up.

I think this might be salvageable, but in its current state it's not a GA to my eyes. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Saw (video game)

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot 'em up

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

Uncited text, including entire paragraphs. There is an orange "update needed" banner from 2017. Z1720 (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester City F.C. in international football

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Newton's theorem of revolving orbits

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

There are uncited statements throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. While some are not necessary per WP:CALC, other text should be cited if it makes a definitive statement that are not calculations. There are lots of sources listed in the "Bibliography" that are not used as inline citations and in the "Further reading" section. Does this article cover all major aspects of the topic? Some sections are too long and make it difficult to navigate (especially on mobile) such as "Historical context", "Precession of the Moon's orbit", "Proposition 43; Problem 30" and "Modern derivation". These should be summarised more effectively or split up using additional headers. Z1720 (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the long sections were an artifact of misapplied markup syntax and a bit of image over-use. "Modern derivation" does not seem overlong to me, and it has no natural splitting point. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 09:42, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the "Further reading" items really belonged in the "Bibliography", because they were cited in the text. After sorting out that kind of thing, all the "Bibliography" items are actually used. "Further reading" is down to 4 entries, which seems reasonable. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Monifieth

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and the "Education" section. The "Demography" section also needs to be updated with the latest census figures. Z1720 (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bacliff, Texas

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

There are a lot of uncited statements, mostly in the "2010 census" section. However, the article doesn't have information from the 2020 census, so I suggest replacing the 2010 section with a (cited) 2020 census section. There is a paragraph in the "History" section that has a citation needed tag since 2013. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging GA nominee @WhisperToMe. Looks to me like the biggest issue with the article is that the information is stale; there are a lot of statistics and news articles from the 2000s and 2010s. In addition to updating the information in the demographics section, the other sections such as infrastructure, economy, crime, and education should be updated as well. Stedil (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weston-super-Mare

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

The orange banner at the top of the page needs to be addressed: it states that there is original research and the article is not in an encyclopedic tone. There are a lot of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Tom Memorial Park

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

The "Overview" section is not clearly defined. Is this supposed to be a lead for the article? Information about the planning process? I think this information should be moved to other places in the article and cited. There are other uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and the entire "Murals" section. Z1720 (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Years after promotion, a user weirdly duplicated the history section, then it'd turned into this weird overview section. I'm not sure what the goal was. It looks like maybe it was an attempt to make a better lead? I'll try to clean it up and update the article. --TorsodogTalk 16:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pakenham line

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

There are uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. There is a "Updates needed" orange banner at the top of the "Depot" section from May 2023, which needs to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will do some work on this this week. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay – starting now with uncited claims. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 18:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea for a reassessment to bring it to peoples attention. I had this article at GA quality a few years ago and then a user by the name of NotOrrio decided to bring it up to FA article status, reorganised everything and added banners everywhere and then promptly abandoned his efforts 1 week later leaving the article far from GA status. HoHo3143 (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Heart

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The article is also quite long and I think several sections can be summarised more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be split into three separate articles: vertebrate heart, human heart and invertebrate heart. The preamble summarizes information about human heart and doesn't cover other animals.
As I think, the preamble about the vertebrate heart should describe basic principles of heart functioning, the differences between the animal classes and the evolution of the vertebrate heart (the most important information as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section). One of the main aspects of an article about the vertebrate heart is its evolution ([3]), but the current article doesn't cover this aspect of the vertebrate heart.
An article about invertebrate heart can describe invertebrate heart diseases ([4]). Trying to summarize information about human, vertebrate, and invertebrate heart diseases might lead to a big mess and a possible original research (Wikipedia:No original research), unless a comparative review source exists. D6194c-1cc (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are you volunteering to do the work necessary to split this article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Lucious Left Foot: The Son of Chico Dusty

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

There is an orange "unbalanced" banner from January 2023 which needs to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one on. Doesn't look to be too bad. In addition to resolving the unbalanced banner, I'll also go through and do some light copyediting, as well as update and replace dead refs. Famous Hobo (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ferris Bueller's Day Off

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

Uncited statements, including an entire paragraph. Z1720 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like User: The lorax is working on this. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 05:24, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I made some small improvements, hopefully that looks like enough to keep the article's GA status! The Lorax 🗣️🌳 (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Sinatra

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

The article is too large and too detailed. Many of the quotes and statements can be summarised more effectively, and less important details should be trimmed. There are some uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, it's already been trimmed down and is pretty concise, you would expect an article on somebody as big as Sinatra to be this developed, given that he had several big careers going and the amount of material which exists. Elvis too has a big article. This has been up 10 years now, pick on something else which actually needs the work. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:09, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dr. Blofeld: There are lots of sections in this article that could be spun out, summarised more effectively, and/or have more headings to prevent overly-long sections (which is particularly a problem on mobile). These include the following sections: "1935–1942: Hoboken Four, Harry James, and Tommy Dorsey", "1942–1945: Onset of Sinatramania and Role in World War II", "1946–1952: Columbia years and career slump", "1953–1960: Career revival and the Capitol years", "1960–1970: Reprise years", "1970–1981: "Retirement" and return", "1982–1997: Later career and final projects", "Artistry", "Television and radio career", "Personal life" (before the "Style and personality" sub-heading), "Political views and activism", and "Legacy and honors". Shortening these sections would allow the article to fulfil GA criteria 1b (MOS:LAYOUT) and 3b (WP:SS). Z1720 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthenium

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

Multiple uncited paragraphs and {{cn}} tags. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:20, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for the record that PeriodicEditor has added some sources on 10 January. For clarity as to whether this could be closed or should remain open: PeriodicEditor, is it your intention to do further work on this article during the course of this WP:GAR? TompaDompa (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

yes it is my intention to do further work on this article, do you have anything else that needs fixing? PeriodicEditor (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed all {{cn}} tags except the one in physical properties and one in isotopes, which I cannot find any reliable sources for. PeriodicEditor (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

12 Gauge (Kalmah album)

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

Uncited statements, including "citation needed" templates from September 2021. Z1720 (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist per nom. Unless citations can be found for the claims that are supported by the templates, I'll be more than happy to change my vote. RedShellMomentum 18:24, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will clean this up, but I'm frankly surprised that the article passed in the way it was in the first place. The [citation needed] tags are due to the absence of the once-cited Metal Experience, which the original reviewer should have flagged as unreliable. I can trim those spots because I'm not optimistic that suitable sources exist for a band as obscure in most of the world as Kalmah. mftp dan oops 20:41, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made some progress. Unfortunately, I'm not finding much in the way of surviving sourcing for this album. Like I said, Kalmah is obscure to the English-speaking world, and simply removing material attached to these tags will not be enough for every instance they appear. I've reduced the number of [citation needed] tags from nine to five by carefully selecting what could feasibly be pruned, but in my opinion not every one of them can be without compromising the GA coverage of the article. I'm gonna keep looking, but I'm not optimistic. mftp dan oops 13:37, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cripple Creek miners' strike of 1894

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

Uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. Some of these have been tagged with "citation needed" templates from 2021 or 2019, and there's even a citation needed template in a reference (which I have never seen before) added in 2016. Z1720 (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 taking account of the citation needed templates, I see no entire paragraphs without citations; is there anything else you've identified that is not satisfying the GA criteria? I'll look to clean this up; please give me a week. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Goldsztajn: I placed a citation needed template in the article. The uncited paragraphs are the second paragraph of "Causes of the strike", last paragraph of "Dynamiting the Strong mine", and the third and fifth paragraphs of "Impact of the strike". I would also suggest expanding the lead to cover all major aspects of the topic. Z1720 (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Z1720 - this is taking a little longer to finish than I had expected, I expect to finish by 11 Jan. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CQC-6

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

There are lots of uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. There are many short, one-sentence paragraphs in the article that should be merged together. Z1720 (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for the record that Reaper Eternal has edited the article substantially on 25 December. For clarity as to whether this could be closed or should remain open: Z1720, have your concerns been addressed satisfactorily? Reaper Eternal, is it your intention to do further work on this article during the course of this WP:GAR? TompaDompa (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • TompaDompa I added a "citation needed" template, and "The Daily Caller" isn't considered a reliable source so it should probably be replaced. I also think the lead still needs to be expanded and the latter parts of "Variants" formatted more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Franck Ribéry

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending
  • There are uncited statements, including an entire paragraph with a "citation needed" tag since 2015. Bild, considered an unreliable per this RfC (among others), is used in the article several times. This should be replaced or have the text it is citing removed. Z1720 (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "regarded as one of the best in the world" puffery in the lead is the type of material I see being removed across football articles. Seasider53 (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for the record that while there have been no further comments here indicating interest in resolving the issues outlined above, ItsNotGoingToHappen has resolved a {{citation needed}} tag by adding a source. For clarity as to whether this could be closed or should remain open: ItsNotGoingToHappen, is it your intention to resolve the issues raised above during the course of this WP:GAR? TompaDompa (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is. ItsNotGoingToHappen (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Credit Suisse

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to help with this, but I have reduced capacity for content work over the next month. Could I please ask for this to be left open slightly longer if needed? Toadspike [Talk] 11:42, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liao dynasty

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

The article is quite large and has a "too long" yellow banner at the top from September 2025. When I skimmed through the article, I found lots of places that had too much detail, not fulfilling the GA criteria 3b which says the article "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail." I think much of the prose could be summarised more effectively and/or have information moved to spun out articles, especially in the "History" section. Z1720 (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason not replace all the instances of "Yila" by "Yelü""? (or vice versa - tho Yelü has a supermajority) Lavateraguy (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yila and Yelü are not the same words. Is there a reason why one would replace the other? Qiushufang (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem from Yelü, Yila is another spelling for the name, which I missed.Qiushufang (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This source goes into more detail on the difference between Yila (Ila) and Yelü (Yerud). They are different names for the same clan but adopted at different times. I would keep both of them. Qiushufang (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for the record that while there have been no further comments here indicating interest in addressing the issues raised above, I have refrained from closing the discussion as a fair amount of editing has been undertaken by Qiushufang in the meantime. For clarity as to whether this could be closed or should remain open: Qiushufang, is it your intention to resolve the issues raised above during the course of this WP:GAR? TompaDompa (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I've been cutting down on unnecessary verbage and may eventually put parts of the article in their own individual articles. Qiushufang (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kashrut

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look and see what I can find to add to the article. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a fair amount of uncited material still on the article. For clarity as to whether this could be closed or should remain open: Sir Joseph, is it your intention to do further work on this article during the course of this WP:GAR? TompaDompa (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes, I will continue to go through the article and find sources. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the article has been vastly improved from where it was. Are there specific areas of concern that needs to be addressed? Sir Joseph (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sir Joseph: I have added citation needed templates in various places in the article. Unreliable sources are used in the article and should be replaced or removed like Peta.org, https://judaism.stackexchange.com/, and uses of Chabad.org will need to be evaluated to ensure that the statements verified from this source are equated to the particular Jewish denomination or verified by sources that are more reliable to the whole Jewish population. I also think some of the smaller paragraphs throughout the article can be merged together. Z1720 (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take a look at the tags. I try to vary the refs I used but there's only so much variety in such a topic. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Budapest Gambit

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

There are uncited statements. While some of the statements are examples and might not need citations, others are explaining concepts or the history of the technique and need a citation. The article has some unnecessary detail, such as the "Illustrative games" section which might be able to be removed. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can list issues with the article and address them on a case by case basis. However this article hasn't had much work done on it lately, the current crop of chess editors don't seem very interested in it and I don't really care if it loses GA status. Being a minor opening not played by top level players, the article probably doesn't need to be as substantial as it is, but if we can justify it with sources we can keep the detail. One issue I can see is that the lead is too big. The lead should be a summary of the article. Many, perhaps even most wikipedia readers read only the lead of an article to get an overview of the topic. Long paragraphs are inappropriate in the lead. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article is more substantial than the topic really deserves. But the paragraphs about its history are interesting and, as I superficially glance over them, seem to have sufficient citations. (There are places where citations are placed at the end of a paragraph rather than at the ends of individual sentences, which I assume used to be a more common practice than it is now.) I don't much like the section on "Performance"; it relies heavily on retrospective evaluations of who was Nth-best player and when, which we nowadays warn against in WP:CHESSRATING. I am happy with the "Illustrative game"; when I was a kid reading print encyclopedias, I always looked for articles about chess players, hoping to find games to play over. Overall, I did not find any claims with insufficient citations, but I may well have missed some -- please suggest where to look. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bruce leverett: I have added citation needed tags to the article. As for the illustrative games: Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK articles should describe. While one examples might be appropriate while describing a concept a separate section in an article is probably not appropriate, as is the case for this article. I would remove these examples or integrate them into the text. Z1720 (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the citation needed templates. Some of them might be easily "curable", but for most of them, I would have to consult the sources. These are books (Lalic, Taylor, etc.). I think they are only available in print; googling "Internet Archive budapest defense" I only found Borik and Gutman. This is looking like an expensive project. Probably I should defer to someone who already has Budapest sources handy.
    My argument by reminiscence in favor of "Illustrative games" may not be entirely convincing. We have "notable games" sections for chess player biographies, and this practice was what I was remembering from print encyclopedias, but this is not a chess player biography. The game is attractive and perhaps instructive, but I do not know if we have found the best way of integrating it into the article. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bruce leverett: If a particular game is notable (perhaps because it would pass WP:GNG) then the information can be spun out into a new article. If it is an illustrative game, it can be incorporated into prose text (albeit summarised more effectively). For a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia, I do not think it should be incorporated like it currently is. Z1720 (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's a clear difference between being notable enough to warrant a separate article (few individual chess games pass that bar), and notable enough for mention on a more general topic. The lesser-known Beatles song "You Won't See Me" is probably not notable enough for an article, but the band and the album Rubber Soul certainly are. (Does that analogy work?) MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone ahead and deleted the game. For what it's worth, it still appears in the article on Ashot Nadanian. You could illustrate an opening like this with any number of well-played games; there should be some reason to choose a specific game like this over all other candidates. Why choose a game of Nadanian's, when he's otherwise unmentioned in the article? Why pick only a Black win? Why not a grinding positional win by White? Why not a well-played draw? Why does only 4.Nf3 get an illustrative game, when 4.Bf4 is more critical? Without thought being given to questions like these, I'd argue the selection of this one game is a violation of NPOV. Cobblet (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at the tagged statements, and it seems to me that these are not overly concerning. I'm away from my chess library until January, but when I'm back home I can tackle these issues. I agree the lead should be condensed. One issue I'd like to examine when I have access to literature is whether the terms "Rubinstein Variation", "Adler Variation", "Alekhine Variation" have actually seen much use beyond one or two sources. As far as I recall, writers usually just refer to 4.Bf4, 4.Nf3 and 4.e4. Cobblet (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

III Armored Corps

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few of these adds come from after the 2010 GAN from @The howling cow, Buckshot06, and Maliepa:; pinging to see if they can cite their additions. If not, it might be best I just cut uncited content out. —Ed!(talk) 03:44, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so at this point several of those sections have been cited. Now, there are just a few uncited areas remaining; a few lines or graphs from the early history, and some covering the unit's actions after the 2010 GAN. My thought is to cut the parts of the early history with no references. I am not seeing easy book sources that could help fill the gap on the 2010s deployments. —Ed!(talk) 02:30, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, most of the remaining uncited content is from the "21st Century" section, including a few sentences here and there and the two large graphs about the 2010 and 2013 deployments. Seems like some of it is original research, but also old enough there should be some sources. Any ideas for where it could be cited? —Ed!(talk) 02:13, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ed!: Sorry, I'm not understanding your question above. Is this question asking where there are uncited statements in the article, where to find new sources, or something else? Z1720 (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's a call for sources; I think we've largely contained the uncited info to one section but I'm struggling to find where the additions are being sourced from. —Ed!(talk) 22:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

James Blunt

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

There are lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and many of the awards. Unreliable sources are used in the article, such as Hello Magazine. These should be replaced with better sources or the text it supports removed. The 2017-2019 section is underdeveloped. This should have more text added to this section or merged with another section. Z1720 (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific about your concerns re sourcing; you identified only one source that doesn't meet requirements. I am working on this, but it will be slow progress due to real life and other wiki-commitments. I have been collecting additional information on a page in my userspace that will allow updating in a more organized fashion. This shouldn't be a rush, especially at this time of year. Risker (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please also be specific about what issues you have with Hello! Magazine being used as a source. It is comparable to People magazine, which is used as a reliable source in multiple BLPs, including several FAs. Risker (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Risker: Per WP:GAR, "Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article." This GAR will not be closed while you or any other editor are making improvements (even if they might take a while). As for Hello Magazine, the source was posted on WP:RS/N in 2019 with the conclusion that it was not a reliable source (discussion linked here. If you think the consensus has changed for this source, I think it would be appropriate to open a new discussion. Other unreliable sources I see in the article are Daily Express, International Business Times and Discogs. Please let me know if you would like me to add "citation needed" templates to the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's almost as if my complaint from seven years ago bore merit. mftp dan oops 21:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity as to whether this could be closed or should remain open: @Z1720, Risker, and MFTP Dan: what's the status on this? TompaDompa (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will continue to work on it now that the holiday break is over. It will take a while to do this. CN templates would be helpful, and perhaps more specifics on what you feel is missing. Risker (talk) 07:15, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Risker: I have added citation needed template to the article. I have no opinion as to whether the "2017–2019: The Afterlove and Walk Away" needs more text or if it should be merged with another section: it depends on if the sources have sufficient information about that period in his life/career. Z1720 (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Asthma

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

This top-importance Medicine article was listed in 2013, and has not been kept up-to-date. Opening the GAR in the hope of finding someone who would like to give the article a once-over

  • In contrast to WP:MEDDATE, the article's median source year is 2011
  • The economics section is US-focussed, and ends in 2010
  • The 2007 NICE guidelines are cited, even though the 2024 guidelines are out
  • The genetic evidence stops in 2005(!). Surely, more is known now about which genes contribute to asthma risk. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m willing to take this on if I can have some time to wrap up my studies and the Coeliac disease article (studies wrap up in 2 weeks and i’m hoping the CD article will wrap up around them as well) IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 05:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay so this seems to be quite a big project. This is not something I will reasonably be able to do in under a month but I'm going to chip away at it. I'm going to start by removing some information that is not mentioned in recent sources and go from there. Seeing as this is a huge article I don't think it needs tons of info added moreso just some reshuffling of existing info and updating. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 18:52, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline updates

  • NHLBI guidelines: The scope of the 2020 NHLBI focused update is substantially narrower than that of the 2007 NHLBI/NAEPP guidelines (EPR-3). The 2007 guideline therefore remains generally valid except where its recommendations have been superseded by the 2020 focused update. Consequently, most citations to the 2007 guideline cannot be replaced by the 2020 update.

Boghog (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update

@Femke, IntentionallyDense, and Boghog: What is the status of this GAR? Z1720 (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done genetic evidence section completely rewritten and supported with recent MEDRS compliant sources
  •  Done GINA_2011 → GINA_2025
  •  Done SIGN 101 → SIGN 158
  •  Not done NHLBI_2007 → NHLBI_2020 (not possible since scope of NHLBI_2020 is much narrower than NHLBI_2007)
  • Boghog (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's being worked on, still left to do are the following:
  • Rework lead. Ideally no citations as especially with the rp template, they clutter things
  • Update associated conditions. Includes removing exact percentages as they aren't that helpful to readers IMO and they get outdated easily
  • Classification. Trim the second para and the asthma exacerbation subheading (overly technical at times) Condense the 3 subtypes remaining into above paragraphs. Add a bit more info on symptom control and severity
  • Causes. Currently working on this in a sandbox User:IntentionallyDense/Asthma but basically just condense info and update it
  • Pathophysiology. Update it and possibly simplify it a bit
  • Diagnosis. Update and condense
  • Update prognosis and epidemiology
  • Combine the economy and health disparities into a society and culture section
  • History needs a bit of tidying.
This is not an easy or quick job, I'm currently in school and working so my time is limited but as with the coeliac disease page, I will get it done, I just need some time. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 21:00, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Cancerning {{rp}}, these will be replaced later this year with Sub-referencing which is a much cleaner solution. Harvard-style referencing fragments citation information between inline notes and the reference list, requiring readers to jump between sections to understand precisely what part of a source supports a claim. Sub-referencing keeps page and chapter details directly beneath the full citation, allowing readers to verify sources immediately and with less effort. Boghog (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson

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

The article, at over 13,000 words, is too long and too detailed. Text should be summarised more effectively or spun out. There are uncited statements, including quotations. I also think there is an overreliance on quotes and block quotes which would be better as summarised prose. Z1720 (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, would you be OK with this article being split into 2-3 articles like Early life, Military career of Nelson like that done for John McCain? But I reckon this would need consensus on either the talk page or a special RFC, so this reassessment would have to be on hold till such a process concludes. Matarisvan (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan: I have no concerns with splitting articles if the new article would pass WP:GNG on its own. Z1720 (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720, I have reduced the article size from about 15,000 words when I started, to 13,100 now. As the article standa today, I just need to work on the reference and bibliography formatting. Thought I would post an update as it has been 1 month since the last comment here, and I know I am running a bit late. Matarisvan (talk) 11:45, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Matarisvan: I think the article needs further trimming. WP:TOOBIG says that at over 9,000 words the article probably needs to be divided or trimmed. I suggest going through the entire article again and trimming information that is not directly talking about Nelson or can be phrased more effectively. Information can also be spun out to other articles. Also, some sections are quite large, which makes reading them more difficult, especially on mobile. I suggest that a section be 2-4 paragraphs before using a new level 2 or level 3 heading. I have also added some citation needed tags to the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical criticism

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

There is an orange "lead needs to be rewritten" banner at the top of the aricle which needs to be resolved. It is also too detailed in its information and sections should be spun out to help with readability or sections summarised more effectively. There are a couple of uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment

Z1720 Out of the 6 criteria, two of them seem at issue if I am understanding you correctly.

#1, that it be well-written. The lead does seem to need rewriting. That's easy enough to fix, and I can get on with that in about a week if you can grant me that leeway. Real life is kicking my butt right now.
And #3. That it is Broad in its coverage without unnecessary detail.
I don't agree that it is too-detailed. This is a complex subject that spans an extended period of time. It cannot be adequately explained without addressing its many forms, aspects, controversies and changes over time.
I can try to do some copy-editing to shorten it some, but I do not agree the sections should be spun out into separate articles. There are already separate articles on each of these topics, and as a parent article, the sections -- with adequate descriptions -- are absolutely necessary.
What uncited statements?
I'm willing to come back and work on these things. Please don't do anything drastic until I can. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added cn tags to the article. If a section of the article is already spun out, then information should be moved to that spun out article and summarised more effectively here. I recommend that spun out text have a maximum of four paragraphs in the parent article (about the maximum size of the lead) and, of the reader is interested in learning more, they can go to the spun out article. Z1720 (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have copy edited the lead some. It's shorter anyway. Four paragraphs is arbitrary and not doable. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude! You said too much detail was part of the problem here! Why revert an edit that addresses that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity as to whether this could be closed or should remain open: Jenhawk777, is it your intention to do further work on this article during the course of this WP:GAR? TompaDompa (talk) 10:34, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I have been on hiatus. Sure, leave it open. I will be back in about two weeks. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:00, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Borodino

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, I can work on this, and get it back to GA standards within a month. Matarisvan (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citations in the lead should be removed per MOS:CITELEAD to better comply with criteria 1 for GA.
  • Perhaps the quote summarising the battle should not be in the lead and moved to the next in a nice quotation template.
  • Replace that quote with a small paragraph or sentence, on the historiography/legacy perhaps.
LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for the record that the article has during the course of this WP:GAR been edited by, besides participants in the discussion here: Kolya Muratov, ~2025-36440-83, ~2025-36951-37, Wham2001, Abductive, ~2025-38086-55, Rtrb, ~2025-39456-49, ~2025-41626-88, Aadirulez8, and LastJabberwocky. For clarity as to whether this could be closed or should remain open: Matarisvan and the editors listed in the previous sentence, is it your intention to resolve the issues raised above during the course of this GAR? TompaDompa (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My only contribution was a drive-by fix to an sfn reference error. I can help with formatting of references and copyediting if requested, but I won't be able to do any substantive work on the content. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I have recently made edits related to Check Wikipedia Project, some formatting issues and such, but I won't be able to do any substantive work on the content.
Thanks, Aadirulez8 (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa, I'll get to work on the article soon. I was tied up with the Horatio Nelson GAR, which is almost done, and so I didn't have much time left for this one. I expect to be done in about 3 weeks. Matarisvan (talk) 12:44, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment&oldid=1325173530"