Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:GAR)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsDiscussionReassessmentReport
Good article reassessment

Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process primarily used to determine whether an article that is listed as good article (GA) still merits its good article status according to the good article criteria, and to delist it if not. There are two types of reassessment: individual reassessment and community reassessment. An individual reassessment is discussed on the article talk page and concluded by a single editor in much the same way as a review of a good article nomination. Community reassessments are listed for discussion on this page and are concluded according to consensus. Where possible, editors should conduct an individual reassessment, while community reassessment should be used if delisting is likely to be controversial. Community reassessments can also be used to challenge a fail during a good article nomination. This is not a peer review process; for that use Wikipedia:Peer review. The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not. Many problems (including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for delisting.

Unless an article's issues are extensive, consider taking the following steps before initiating a reassessment:

  1. Fix any simple problems yourself. Do not waste minutes explaining or justifying a problem that you could fix in seconds. GAR is not a forum to shame editors over easily fixed problems.
  2. Tag serious problems that you cannot fix with appropriate template messages, if the templates will help other editors find the problems. Do not tag bomb the article.
  3. Notify major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects. Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.

A list of all open GA reassessment nominees may be found at Category:Good article reassessment nominees.

Articles needing possible reassessment

Occasionally, rather than initiating either individual or community reassessment, an editor will merely tag the article as possibly needing reassessment. These tagged articles are listed on this page and each needs the attention of an editor to decide if reassessment is required. To tag an article, {{GAR request}} is placed at the top of the article talk page.

Individual reassessment

When to use this process

  • Use the individual reassessment process when you find an article listed as a good article that you don't believe satisfies the good article criteria and:
    • You would like to receive input from a community of editors who watch the article talk page
    • You believe the decision to continue listing the article or to delist it should be yours, at the conclusion of a good article reassessment discussion (unless you believe a decision made by you is likely to be controversial, then opt for community reassessment instead)
  • Use the individual reassessment process if:
    • You are confident in your ability to assess the article
    • You are not a major contributor to the article
    • You know the article has not been delisted before
    • You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war
    • You are logged in (unless you are not a registered user, then you may try asking another editor to reassess the article)

Note

  • Individual reassessments do not appear below on the good article reassessment page; those are all community reassessments.

How to use this process

  • The instructions for individual reassessment are:
  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 first bold link in the template to create an individual reassessment page (while the second bold link creates a community reassessment page). The individual reassessment page for this article is created as a subpage of the article talk page.
  3. Leave an assessment on this page detailing your reasons for bringing the article to good article reassessment. List the problems you found with the article in comparison to the good article criteria. Save the page.
  4. Transclude the individual assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste in{{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}}. 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.
  5. Notify major contributing editors, relevant WikiProjects for the article, the nominator and the reviewer. The {{GARMessage}} template can be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=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.
  6. Wait for other editors to respond.
  7. After discussion, you must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria. Edit the individual reassessment page of the article to close the discussion. Explain the outcome of the reassessment. If there is no activity after seven days, reviewers may close the assessment as well.
  8. 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, delete the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page and update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page.
    • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this, remove the article from the relevant list at good articles, remove the {{good article}} template from the article page, remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page, update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (see example), and restore any project assessment values on the article talk page (check history to see what they were).


Good article reassessment
Community reassessment

When to use this process

  • Use the community reassessment process when you find an article listed as a good article that you don't believe satisfies the good article criteria and:
    • You would like to receive input from a community of editors who watch the good article reassessment page
    • You believe the decision to continue listing the article or to delist it should be the result of consensus, at the conclusion of a good article reassessment discussion (unless you believe a decision made by you is not likely to be controversial, then opt for individual reassessment instead)
  • Use the community reassessment process if:
    • You are not confident in your ability to assess the article
    • You are a major contributor to the article
    • You disagree with an earlier delist decision
    • You are logged in (unless you are not a registered user, then you may try asking another editor to reassess the article)
    • You disagree with a fail at Wikipedia:Good article nominations (however, it is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for this; it is usually simpler to renominate it)

Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate, wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment. If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered.

How to use this process

  • The instructions for community reassessment are:
  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 second bold link in the template to create a community reassessment page (while the first bold link creates an individual reassessment page). The community reassessment page for this article is created as a subpage of the good article reassessment page.
  3. Leave an assessment on this page detailing your reasons for bringing the article to good article reassessment. List the problems you found with the article in comparison to the good article criteria. Save the page. A bot will add the assessment to the GA reassessment page.
  4. Transclude the community assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and create a new section named "GA Reassessment". Paste in{{WP:Good article reassessment/ArticleName/n}}. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display the community reassessment discussion.
  5. Notify major contributing editors, relevant WikiProjects for the article, the nominator and the reviewer. The {{GARMessage}} template can 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.
  6. Wait for other editors to respond.
  7. During the community reassessment discussion, consensus must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria. When the discussion has concluded, any uninvolved editor may close it (if needed, a request may be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure).
  8. To close the discussion, edit the community reassessment page of the article and locate {{GAR/current}}. 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, but it will have to be manually added to the current archive.
  9. 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, delete the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page and update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page.
    • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this, remove the article from the relevant list at good articles, remove the {{good article}} template from the article page, remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page, update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (see example), and restore any project assessment values on the article talk page (check history to see what they were). A bot will remove and archive the assessment from the GA reassessment page.


Articles needing possible reassessment[edit]

The Good articles listed below would benefit from the attention of reviewers as to whether they need to be reassessed. In cases where they do, please open an individual or community reassessment and remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, remove the template from the article talk page.

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

See also

Articles listed for community reassessment[edit]

Scouts BSA[edit]

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

There is very little detail about how girls became a part of what used to be called "Boy Scouts". There is a history section with one unsourced sentence. If one or more editors could improve the article, that would be great. I just want to see what others say.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  • I agree that there are serious issues with this article. Large swathes lack verifiable sources so it's impossible to know if they're accurate. (t · c) buidhe 18:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Most of the editors involved with the creation of this article no longer edit. @North8000: thoughts? --evrik (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I'd be happy to do some work on it. IMO it hasn't slipped below GA level. I'm not sure that there is a lot of sourced material available about adding girls to this specific program. Speaking from experience, it got decided without a lot of fanfare and implemented and quickly became the norm. Since the change involved multiple programs (e.g. including Cub Scouts) most of the news etc. about the transition is not unique to this program and so coverage in sources is more at the BSA level and so the BSA article is where more sourcing/coverage would be available regarding the transition. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I see significant issues here. There's large quantities of uncited material, as well as an incredibly lacking history section. One section for the history of this organization is not enough. Membership figures are extremely outdated (2013). What makes ScoutXing a reliable source? A lot of this content is sourced to sources with 2007-2009 accessdates; there's no guarantee that some of the various procedures haven't changed in the last 10+ years. What makes Boy Scout Trail an RS? Ref 12 is dead. Most of the sourcing is either primary or to sites of dubious reliability. Needs significant work, so delist unless significant work is done soon. GAR is not a holding cell. Hog Farm Bacon 01:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not overly concerned about GA status of this article and so am just giving my opinion on that. I've done I think about a hundred GA reviews. My general opinion is that it hasn't slipped below the bar of GA. This isn't FA and doesn't demand that level of flawlessness. On another note, just to be clear, this isn't an /the article about the Boy Scouts of America this is an article about a mere program within the BSA. Since it started out as the sole program of the BSA, early history would be a duplication of that of the BSA. And the "changes" to that status are not changes to the topic of this article, they were creation of other programs within the BSA while this / the original program continued. Of course membership numbers need updating, but I think that generally the article has been kept updated in the important areas. The very recent addition of girls to this program and the structures related to that have been covered. Again, regarding plans of what to put in and expectations on what to see here, remember that this isn't an article about the Boy Scouts of America, it is an article about a mere program within the BSA. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • North8000 makes a valid point. There are separate articles for Boy Scouts of America and History of the Boy Scouts of America, as indicted by the History section hatnote. This article is about the one specific program and the History section just needs to be beefed up to cover the inclusion of girls in this previously boys-only program. There are numerous independent RS available on this wide-publicized change, such as NPR, CNN, CBS, etc. —  JGHowes  talk 19:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist, no comment on broadness (3) either way, but per Buidhe there remain swathes of unsourced text, months after this nomination. CMD (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Don't de-list (above I just made comments) This isn't FA, it's GA and IMO it meets that threshold.North8000 (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist - Laying aside the broadness issue entirely, there is a very significant amount of uncited text. Multiple sources (Scout Xing, The Scouting Pages) do not appear to be RS. Fails WP:GACR 2b. This seems to have met the 2008 GA criteria, but more is expected, and has been expected for years. Hog Farm Talk 14:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Stephen Harper[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

Article has several citation needed tags, a lead that doesn't meet MOS:LEAD, and a four-year old neutrality tag on one section. These issues need to be resolved for the article to remain a GA according to GA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 20:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I'm a bit unsure as to whether the {{POV}} tag matters anymore. It was from a dispute that ended four years ago. The section has since changed, though I would like consensus before removal. Username6892 (Peer Review) 21:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @Username6892: If the dispute has been resolved, it's OK to remove the POV tag—better than leaving it in place indefinitely. (t · c) buidhe 05:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist, quite a few tags and unsourced statements, no action for a few months. CMD (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Home Army[edit]

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

Comments by Buidhe[edit]

The article needs a reassessment due to longstanding issues with sources that do not meet the subject-specific sourcing requirements, a lead that does not meet MOS:LEAD, and various other cleanup tags. These prevent it from reaching the GA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 21:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The sourcing requirement you list is much newer than the article, through updating the few newpspaer sources to more academic one is a good practice. Can you be more clear about the problems with the lead? And it had no tags until you added a few, mostly about low quality sources. This should not be hard to fix. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Before I added a few additional tags earlier today[1], there was already a "vague" tag in the lead, and at least 18 tags for sourcing issues (cn or better source needed). The lead is six paragraphs; per MOS:LEAD it should be four or less. The sections on Ukrainians, already tagged as a POV issue by another editor, primarily cite Polish historians, raising WP:NPOV concerns, and rely heavily on Grzegorz Motyka, who adheres to the theory (not universally accepted) that Ukrainians killings of Poles constituted a genocide. (t · c) buidhe 02:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Easy to fix, although I don't see a problem with the Ukrainian section. Are there some key works in the field we are missing? Is there some criticism of Motyka that is missing from his article? As far as I know, he is considered to be an expert in the field and reliable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
The article seems to present Home Army actions in a favorable light compared to Ukrainian actions, even though HA was also responsible for (smaller scale) killings of Ukrainian civilians. Home Army commanders apparently criticized such killings, and "forbade the killing of Ukrainian women and children". Is this accepted, disputed, due or not due weight? I don't know because only one side of the story is being told here. The article also uses the vague term "Banderites" when it should specify which organization or faction was responsible. The "Relations with the Soviets" section also cites almost entirely right-wing Polish historians. (t · c) buidhe 05:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Again, the bias here is according to whom? You need to start by showing that other reliable sources exist and have a different narrative. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Other sources certainly exist:

In their memoranda on the ‘solution of the Ukrainian question’, the staff of the Home Army of Lviv mirrored the mood of the population. In July 1942 it recommended deporting between one and one and a half million Ukrainians to the Soviet Union and settling the remainder in other parts of Poland. In the eastern areas of Poland not more than 10 per cent of the population should consist of national minorities. Any suggestions regarding a limited autonomy for Ukrainians, as was being discussed in Warsaw and London, would find no support among the local population

— Mick, Christoph (2011). "Incompatible Experiences: Poles, Ukrainians and Jews in Lviv under Soviet and German Occupation, 1939-44". Journal of Contemporary History. 46 (2): 336–363. doi:10.1177/0022009410392409.

Snyder writes that AK sided with Red Army against Ukrainian forces:

Thousands of Polish men and women escaped to the Volhynian marshes and forests in 1943, joining Soviet partisan armies fighting the UPA and the Wehrmacht.34 At the same time, some Poles took revenge on Ukrainians who had been serving as German policemen... Polish partisans of all political stripes attacked the UPA, assassinated prominent Ukrainian civilians, and burned Ukrainian villages.... Throughout the spring of 1944, the AK and UPA battled intermittently for control of Eastern Galicia and its crown jewel, Lviv. The UPA attacked Polish civilians, but Polish preparations and Ukrainian warnings limited the deaths to perhaps ten thousand.37 In July 1944, the Red Army (aided by the AK) drove the Germans from Lviv.

— Snyder, Timothy (1999). ""To Resolve the Ukrainian Problem Once and for All": The Ethnic Cleansing of Ukrainians in Poland, 1943–1947". Journal of Cold War Studies. 1 (2): 86–120. doi:10.1162/15203979952559531.

See also this book around page 233: Liber, George (2016). Total Wars and the Making of Modern Ukraine, 1914-1954. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-1-4426-2144-2. (t · c) buidhe 07:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem if you want to add something from this to the article, but I think all the important facts are already mentioned. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
As I stated above, what I see here is a POV issue not a coverage issue. (t · c) buidhe 04:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
And I don't see a POV issue here. Neiter does Molobo below. We can of coruse wait and see what others say. I have no problem with addressing the POV, once sources are found that show that this section is biased. Just criticizing it for using Polish sources is not helpful. Foreign language sources are permitted, and we don't have a quota system where an article or section is considered non-neutral if it uses primaralily sources from one country. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
You stated, You need to start by showing that other reliable sources exist and have a different narrative. Once I do that, you still insist that there is no issue? Parts of this read like apologia rather than an encyclopedia article: our article on the Wehrmacht doesn't say, "one Wehrmacht commander objected to war crimes and ordered his soldiers not to commit any". Again, I wasn't the one who tagged this section for POV issues and the issue needs to be resolved to stay a GA article. (t · c) buidhe 18:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
You have failed to demonstrate that there is anything substantial missing or that there is bias. Once agian, the fact that the article uses Polish sources does not mean it is biased. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
The sections on Ukrainians, already tagged as a POV issue by another editor, primarily cite Polish historians, raising WP:NPOV

Sorry, what is the ground on which you allege NPOV? Only thing you mentioned in the sentence is Polish nationality, which by itself upon no circumstances can be seen as ground to doubt a historian. We do not judge historians based on their ethnicity or nationality.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  • In this case, there are substantial differences in how Ukrainians and Poles view this conflict. The Polish government—and the main historian who is supplying many of the citations in this section—calls it a genocide, but this is not much accepted outside of Poland as far as I can tell. In order to provide NPOV, it is essential to ensure that all perspectives are represented according to their due weight. Similarly, I doubt you could write a NPOV article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based exclusively on sources created by one side. (t · c) buidhe 22:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

All issues have been fixed, including a rewrite to the Ukrainian section using at least one of the sources linked above. The only remaining issue is to add better sources than the newspaper article for the cursed soldiers section, although since nobody pointed out any errors, and the newspaper is considered mainstream and reliable, I don't think it is a major issue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Brigade Piron[edit]

In addition to the concerns cited above, I would also suggest that this article needs a cleanup to meet GA standards. In particular:

  1. Images (MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE). There are quite a few images used in this article but most appear to serve a decorative function and do not seem particularly relevant to their surrounding text. In fact, the inevitable preponderance of photos of the 1944-45 period gives a rather distorting feel to the article. I think this is the most important issue with the article as it stands - it is better to have fewer, more appropriate images if necessary.
  2. Prestige-based claims (WP:PUFFERY) I sympathise with the difficulty in avoiding the temptation of showcasing particular plaudits but I think the article goes too far as it is. Home Army#Intelligence has several examples of this but actually tells us relatively little about what intelligence gathering actually consisted of, how it was organised, whether it changed over time, how it was communicated to the Allies, etc. which are clearly more important to the reader. Although certainly defensible, the showcasing of medals and memorials in the images arguably contributes to this sense. It may also touch on the NPOV issue highlighted above.
  3. Omission. Underground media in German-occupied Europe had huge symbolic importance but Polish underground press does not even seem to be linked. I find it very surprising that this aspect receives such minimal coverage. Equally, Home Army#Assassinations of Nazi leaders seems oddly incomplete. I do not know much about the Polish case, but I'd imagine that these operations were fairly rare because of large-scale German reprisal killings but there is no mention of this. I was also surprised by the lack of discussion of the nature of the relationship between the government in London and the AK.
  4. Tone (WP:TONE and WP:EMPHATIC). Again, this may touch on the NPOV issue identified above. There are plenty of instances of word-choices which, although small, contribute to the sense of particular sympathy with one side rather than the other. For example, in Home Army#Postwar there is "the Soviet threat", "a number of such broken promises", "increasing persecution", "a major victory", "locked up in communist prisons", etc. These could easily be rephrase in more neutral language. If the problem is linguistic, it might be worth getting the WP:GUILD involved? There are also a few places in which the language seems rather stilted.

Please accept these comments in the spirit in which they are intended. They are, of course, only a personal opinion and I admit to having little grounding in the Polish literature on the subject. I would urge that a copy-edit is requested as a particular priority, however. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to ping Piotrus. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
@Brigade Piron: Thank you for the comments. Would you mind suggesting images for removal? For the intelligence section, I think it is pretty well written, and if you could be more specific which sentences you think are redundant, I'd appreciate it. Regarding the underground press, the article currently states 'The Home Army published a weekly Biuletyn Informacyjny (Information Bulletin), with a top circulation (in November 1943) of 50,000'. I agree this could be expanded with more content and links - I will try to do it in the near future. For assassination, that section was longer in the past but I shortened it as I couldn't verify some claims. Operation Heads is longer but poorly referenced. I can see if I can find something more to add here in the future. As for non-neutral tone, I will ping User:Nihil novi and see if he feels like anything can be improved, I read your examples above but I am not sure I see how they can be made more neutral. Soviets were a threat to AK, they broke some promises, and increasingly persecuted, locked AK members in prisons (and often, much worse - summary or staged trials and executions were a norm), etc. I think those are neutral facts, and I don't think the wording cited is biased, but I am open to discuss this further, as I certainly agree less involved editors are better at detecting bias in such cases. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm a bit disappointed you do not see any real basis for any of my comments. For example, I note that at least half of all the non-biographic images in the article unambiguously depict the Warsaw Uprising and associated operations. The inclusion of "Soldiers of Kedyw Kolegium A" (all conspicuously male!) in the section on Home Army#Women in the Home Army is probably the most blatant example of disconnection between the article and its images. It cultivates the false impression that the uniformed and armed partisan-style warfare in 1944 was typical of the earlier period too. As to the others, I really don't see how I can clarify them further without simply repeating my points. Perhaps you could be more specific about what you do not agree with?
After a certain amount of reflection, I think the problems above really stem from the abandoning of a more chronology-based structure in Home Army#History and operations in favour of the current thematic approach. As I see it, there are really four "phases" of the AK's history which are really entirely different - (i) the emergence of resistance and its consolidation between 1939 and 1943/44, (ii) its increasingly ambitious operations in 1944 and 1945 and their ultimate defeat, (iii) its early relationship with the Soviets and the post-war repression and (iv) its subsequent legacy and rehabilitation etc. This seems more natural if the article was reworked around this structure. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
@Brigade Piron: I'm a bit disappointed you see my friendly requests for clarification as some disagreement. I never said I see "no real basis" for your comments, on the contrary, I said above they are welcome and valuable, I just asked you to provide more examples. Since - see comment by NN below - here's a copyeditor, whom I believe to be a native speaker, who also has trouble seeing the neutrality problems in tone. Let's try to work together here (since I value your input), and for that, sometimes you need to explain what seems obvious to you, as it is not always obvious to others. So let's backtrack and resume, shall we? I appreciate your volunteering to help, and I hope you don't mind if I or others say we don't fully understand some things.
Now, I have removed two images and moved another one (good comment about the women section, I never noticed this but it clearly wasn't the best placement for that image; I have replaced it with another image which I think shows a female AK soldier). Feel free to be bold and remove any other excess images, or replace them with better ones. You are also correct about the chronology/sections. I have separated history and operations, which indeed do not warrant merging. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Piotrus, I am sorry if my previous comment sounded sarcastic. As you say, let's backtrack and deal with one issue at a time. I think the restructuring so far is already a big improvement, although a discrete section is really needed between the current Home Army#World War II and Home Army#Postwar sections dealing with the Warsaw Uprising and 1944-45 period.
As regards the pictures, I do think that the over-representation of Warsaw Uprising pictures is quite noticeable at the moment in view of how little prose is currently devoted to the subject. At the moment, the following pictures with a direct connection to the Warsaw Uprising are included:
  • File:Band of Polish Home Army (Armia Krajowa).PNG - the current caption is really too vague to be useful, but my understanding of this kind of insignia in Western Europe would be that it was worn in the Liberation period only if not long after the war. Note too that the AK's icon is already shown in the infobox anyway.
  • File:26PPAK relief Warsaw Uprising.jpg - this is a non-free file and, by virtue of its size and subject, not a particularly helpful one although I do see the logic of the subject within the article as a whole.
  • File:Warsaw Uprising poster 345.jpg - why is this poster significant, since this what our attention is currently drawn to in the caption? what points does it make or corroborate?
  • File:1Comp obwSambor inspecDrohobycz Burza3.jpg - another non-free file and not one I think we could justify using on the basis of the currently stated justification. Even if it was, I am not convinced it adds anything to the article.
  • File:MWP Kubus 3.JPG - I see the logic of including this as a picture but its significance is not really addressed either in the text or caption
  • File:Błyskawica and other insurgent weapons.jpg - this is really another Warsaw Uprising picture although not currently attested as such. Is the important thing in it the Błyskawica sub-machine gun, as per the caption? If so, we need to know why this is important and more specific pictures are probably available.
  • File:Filipinka sidolówka.jpg - the grenades in question are mentioned in the article, but what does this picture add? Is the fact that the AK developed its own rudimentary hand-grenades important enough to showcase this prominently in the article, especially given the two other pictures of improvised weapons above?
I have ignored the new picture of the female AK members which seems reasonable. I would also add to the list:
The foregoing list is really set out to encourage some reflection on why the images should be included and I offer no judgments on this, other than to say that 2-3 images of the Warsaw Uprising would seem a normal proportion for an article of this size even considering the historical importance of the subject. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
@Brigade Piron: Thank you for taking care to point to specific pictures. I removed several, leaving for now File:Warsaw Uprising poster 345.jpg (since it shows both a poster and a female soldier, two interesting things in one image - here my logic is the same as NN's below, as he commented on that one pic already). For Kubus/Blyskawica/grenades, I commented the grenade one out. They do illustrate concepts discussed in the text, but the grenades one doesn't really add anything, but the two others do illustrate mentioned concepts and I don't think they clutter the section too much otherwise. As for the plaque, I am tempted to replace it with a zoomed-out picture at commons:Category:„Gęsiówka” commemorative plaque at Anielewicza Street in Warsaw. I think it is in a section of the article that is not cluttered with other pics, and it shows an example of post-war commemoration and is relevant to the Polish-Jewish section (added bonus that it is in three languages). (Perhaps the image should be moved a bit down to the 'The Warsaw ghetto uprising' section that mentions it, but it would put it closer to another image...?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
@Piotrus:, I do think it's an improvement. To clarify my broader point about the pictures, there are really two entirely different issues. The first is that the visual over-emphasis on the Warsaw Uprising tacitly implies that it was typical of the other activities conducted by the AK during the war which is clearly wrong, but certainly not unique to this (or Polish) articles (cf the obvious focus on the summer of 1944 in the images at French Resistance!). I am happy that this has been pretty much addressed. The second issue, more pressingly, is that the pictures do not engage with the text. Any of the images I mentioned (and many others) could be justified in principle as long as the prose engaged with their significance. For example, the Kubuś is an excellent illustration of the degree of planning made ahead of the Warsaw Uprising and the degree of co-ordination achieved by the AK itself - but this is not apparent from the current explanation that "the difficult conditions meant that only infantry forces armed with light weapons could be fielded. Any use of artillery, armor or aircraft was impossible (except for a few instances during the Warsaw Uprising, such as the Kubuś armored car)". Do you see what I mean? This aspect still needs some work. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd add that File:1Comp obwSambor inspecDrohobycz Burza3.jpg really does need to be removed for copyright reasons. There is no way that the current stated "purpose of use" is sufficient to justify its inclusion on Wikipedia at all. Feel free to replace it with another image if you think it helpful. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
@Piotrus: and Nihil novi, I realise that this discussion has lapsed which is a shame. I have taken the liberty of nominating it for a copy edit myself at WP:GOCE/REQ which may take some time to produce results. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I am not opposed to the removal of the image, although let's face it, any copyright concerns here are pure meta:copyright paranoia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic to this kind of argument in general, but the cited rationale is probably the worst I have ever seen. It currently states that its rationale for inclusion is: "Shows Armia Krajowa soldiers training wearing captured German helmets. Shows that the organization was sufficiently well organize to capture equipment, and use the captured equipment in organized training exercises that were photographed" and states that it is "irreplaceable". Even if this was legit, it seems a bit rich since there are already two other pictures in the same article which also clearly do the same thing! I feel this issue has been addressed now, but this still leaves the others I originally raised. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Do you mean the tone? I hope the request the GoCE will help, as NN (below) already looked at this and doesn't see a problem, and neither do I. Sometimes tone is a very subjective issue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
It's not a subjective issue, it's a basic wikipedia policy requirement to be WP:IMPARTIAL. (t · c) buidhe 07:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
And in my opinion, which I think User:Nihil novi shares, it already is. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Piotrus: the tone is absolutely fine - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
If that really is your opinion, I do not think you have read the article properly. There are dozens of examples of non-neutral and/or non-encyclopedic phrasing. As well as the various cases mentioned above and many others like them, I missed our current award to Witold Pilecki of the epithet "the hero of Auschwitz". I also note that the Lede currently offers "[t]he Home Army also defended Polish civilians against atrocities by Germany's Ukrainian and Lithuanian collaborators" as the only summary of the lengthy and rather more ambiguous sections on "Relations with other factions"... —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
No, I’ve read the article carefully (if your above comment is directed at me), but I got your points, and I'm afraid I still have to disagree. Pilecki is described as a hero by RS...[2] however, if you want to work on more comprehensive/encyclopedic wording, I'm for it..give it a try but keep RS is mind, please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
This comment betrays an incomplete understanding of WP:NPOV—read it again. Wikipedia avoids value-judgement terms like "hero", "freedom fighter" or "terrorist" in our own voice, regardless of whether sources use them. (t · c) buidhe 05:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Quote - ...regardless of whether sources use them --> where do you see that Buidhe?? - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
GizzyCatBella, "[t]he tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view" (WP:IMPARTIAL). This must include whether he has been described as a hero. This is really fundamental to Wikipedia. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Since the cited source doesn't use the word hero, at least I don't see it, I removed it. If some other reliable source uses it, it could be restored with an attribution ("described as hero by ..."). Thanks for catching this. Anything else? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Could you deal with the lede summary issue I mentioned too? —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@Brigade Piron: Ah. "The Home Army also defended Polish civilians against atrocities by Germany's Ukrainian and Lithuanian collaborators." Just to be clear, your concern here is not tone, but you think this sentence should be expanded? I am mildly concerned about making the lead too long. Any suggestions which facts/aspects to put in the lead for the requested expansion would be appreciated too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Piotrus:, I wouldn't worry about length at this stage. WP:LEAD states that "the lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." There is already a good first paragraph and the coverage of the post-war period seems reasonable to me, but I think it is important that the lead does indeed engage with the long and difficult relations sections. It also might be worth re-working the current second/third paragraphs to present a better picture of the AK's actual activities - my understanding is that the "weapons" and "membership" sections point towards the complexity of the AK's organisation which is not really addressed at this stage. Do you have any thoughts, Buidhe? —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
For reference, Tenryuu has kindly begun a Guild copy-edit.—Brigade Piron (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I've gone through my first pass and started a discussion on the talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I've finished my copyedit. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I have read up through the "Assassinations of Nazi leaders" section of this long article, doing some copyediting along the way.
What I have read seems to maintain a "neutral tone".
The article could, however, benefit from more copyediting for clarity and English-language style.
Thanks.
Nihil novi (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Brigade Piron, Could you clarify what you are asking for here: [3]. Are you asking for a reference, or do you think the language used is not neutral? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

No problem. The issue is the one I raised above about it being a poor summary of the content in the lengthy "relations with" sections. It does edge on POV, but I added the tag as a visual reminder. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

As this GAR appears to still be live, I'd like to offer the following comments to help with improving the article and ensuring that it meets the GA criteria:

  • The second para of the lead discusses the Home Army's successes, but not its failures. Many historians regard the decision to fight semi-conventional battles with the Germans as being a mistake, with the Warsaw Uprising being a disaster (this is a common mistake guerrilla forces make globally, with the French Resistance making similar mistakes in 1944)
  • Ditto the 'Major operations' sub-section
  • The first and last sentences in the first para of the 'women' section are contradictory: "a number of women operatives" suggests that there were only a few, but it's then stated that women made up a big chunk of the force
  • "After the end of the uprising, over 2,000 women soldiers were taken captive (and about 5,000 perished)" - read literally, this states that the Germans killed 5000 women after the end of the uprising. Is this correct, or were 5000 women fighter killed during the uprising?
  • The women section would benefit from a broader description of the role of women in the force (was it the same as men?)
  • The 'structure' section would benefit from specifying the dates the organisations provided are as at
  • " even described as "the only [A]llied intelligence assets on the Continent" following the French capitulation" - this seems like puffery given that the only reason for this is that the Allied Western European countries on the continent had suddenly collapsed. Intelligence networks were fairly quickly developed in the occupied countries. Nick-D (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @Nick-D: Thank you for your feedback. I think you are right this article needs to address the criticism of the AK's operations in 1944. Would you happen to have any sources handy? Regarding the numbers of women, I am not sure I see a contradiction. They might have formed a majority of medical personnel (nurses), but were clearly a minority in other departments (certainly they were few in the combat department). I'd like to expand this section, but I didn't see that much more in the sources found. I'll add a clarification to the intelligence assets, but I think it is well referenced. I have no problem rewriting this further is someone finds some more relevant context in the sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
      • From memory, The Eagle Unbowed includes critical assessments of the AK's operations including the Warsaw Uprising. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
        • @Nick-D: Do you think we need a new section titled 'assessment', or do you see a good place to add a few sentences about the pros and cons of Warsaw Uprising to the article? I note there is some relevant content at Warsaw_Uprising#After_the_war in the paragraph that begins "At present, Poland largely lacks..." and later. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
          • I'd try to integrate the material in the existing structure in the first instance, but I'm not familiar with the scope and detail in the overall literature on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

McGill University[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

As I stated on the talk page, "Lead does not meet MOS:LEAD, article has a lot of unsourced information and cleanup tags." Information needs to be verifiable according to the GA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 08:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

  • To the extent that there are issues with this page, they look very fixable to me, especially since it looks like basically every piece of information that's not sourced to featured standard has been tagged as such. If this were an FA there'd be cause for serious concern, but I've seen many GAs that are a lot worse. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist, plenty of unsourced areas (2c), many tiny paragraphs and sections (1b), quite a few tags scattered about. Issues have remained for a few months. CMD (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I navigated to this page for reading, but my preferences indicated this was a GA undergoing GAR. I will not make a comment on whether to keep or delist personally; however, it should be noted that the above comment from December which said that "there's worse GAs" is irrelevant. If there are worse and they do indeed have lots of problems, as this review insinuates, they should too be addressed and discussed or even reviewed like this article. dannymusiceditor oops 03:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Triple H[edit]

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

More than a year ago, this article was suggested to need Good Article reassessment. I notice that it still has some tags flagging issues with non-cited content and potentially unreliable sources, so I've brought it here. (t · c) buidhe 05:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there are some CN templates (a few titles, a few quotes and the filmography). Also, I have seen Bleacher report, which is unreliable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

McKinsey & Company[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

As stated on Talk:McKinsey_&_Company#Lead_should_obviously_mention_some_of_the_controversies, there are concerns that the article does not meet the GA criteria. Although I disagree that the article should be cut down (it's 43 kb of readable prose which is about the recommended article size), I agree with other editors that it's poorly written and disorganized. (t · c) buidhe 01:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I would comment right off the bat that the decision to nest almost all of the controversies underneath "Influence" rather than a standard "Controversies" or "Criticisms" section seems very questionable to me. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I would vote against this retaining GA status. At the very least the lede needs reorganization/rewriting and it needs to drop shoddy references (there aren't many, but there are some, BizNews.com, for instance). Agree with Buidhe that the whole article also needs reorganization, and some trimming where there's fluff. — Mainly 16:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Beside questionable sources, the lead also needs to be rid of most or not all of its citations per WP:LEADCITE.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Serranus Clinton Hastings[edit]

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

I do not believe this biographical article meets the criteria for a good article, given the relative lack of coverage of the subject's being a significant participant in the California genocide. The article covers Hastings' career as a judge, and founding his namesake institution, one of the major US law schools. However, apart from a minor mention I just added as a placeholder,[4] the article does not cover his personal participation in the murder of dozens and perhaps hundreds of innocent Native American men, women, and children, on an ongoing basis during a span of years of his life on a forced labor camp he ran, as well as "Indian hunts" he organized. This is covered by major mainstream media articles and a commission created by his law school, so the verifiability and significance is not reasonably in dispute. This mostly unmentioned aspect of his life would appear to be one of the primary, if not the primary, biographically significant pieces of his life.

  • The criterion it fails is 3a, failing a requirement that it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Although I added a brief mention, it would take considerable effort to rewrite the article to reflect this history – not a quick or easy fix.

- Wikidemon (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

There appear to be several major problems with this article. There are section tags expressing concerns over sourcing, missing citations, failed verifications, and claims cited to blogs and other unreliable sites. This is an extremely complex and contentious subject and the article has changed almost beyond recognition compared to 2008, when it was awarded GA status. I think we need a high degree of confidence in it before we can say it's still GA. Popcornfud (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Why don’t you just take your concerns to the talk page and be more specific about the parts of the article that needs improvement? A quick scan over doesn’t show the article in desperate need of revision. And certainly doesn’t appear to be in need of a GA reassessment which seems to be a bit extreme for minor issues. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
All items in question have been fixed, updated, and removed. If anything remains, Talk Page is available. TruthGuardians (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Peter Penfold[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

This article fails multiple GA criteria. Firstly, there are many uncited claims and sentences in the article, and some paragraphs only have 2 or 3 citations. Secondly, there is literally no media on the page, not even a picture of the main subject, and while not technically failing criteria #6, there should be media on this page. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep the entire article is cited, except the lead which does not need to be per MOS:CITELEAD. Perhaps there is no media extant, otherwise you could add it. (t · c) buidhe 18:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment: There may simply be no public domain images we can find of this living individual. That lack of media does not seem a reason to delist. SecretName101 (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Mara Carfagna[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

Article promoted to GA in 2008, looking like this, shortly after the subject made global news for topping a list of attractive female politicians. Updates since then have been bit-part since the subject has been out of government since 2011, but now back in government so the article should be immaculate if it is a GA. 2013 to 2016 is covered by three lines, and then it jumps to a new paragraph about a campaign in 2018, then another one in 2019. I would also question the six uses of Il Giornale as references in this article, as this is a right-wing newspaper owned by the Berlusconis. Additionally, I question the due weight of this fascination with a list made by a magazine in 2008. I am opening this to the community as I am not confident in my own ability to upgrade this page. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


Silver center cent[edit]

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

As User:Another Believer has mentioned on this article's talk page in March 2019, there are several errors in the references section. There is also a section on the coin's design which is totally unsourced. Additionally, a group of Turkish users who were attempting to translate the article and expand the Turkish version noticed that the references listed in the article are broken. If any of these arguments is true, then the article cannot be kept as a good article. That's why I am asking the community to reassess the page. Keivan.fTalk 21:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Keivan.f, As much as I don't want to see a numismatics article demoted, the current article is not up to standards, IMO. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Looks like Tsange has improved the article significantly. Does it meet the criteria now? (t · c) buidhe 18:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

? Nycticebus linglom[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

I think this article might have a bit of a notability issue—during the initial assessment it was kind of implied that there was only the one real source discussing this specimen (the one in use), and not much else. Google Scholar, for instance, has just four results. I don't have the expertise to judge the worthiness of the other three articles, but my major problem with the article is more that there's just one source represented. Usually three would be required for basic notability, but for a good article I would at least expect more than one.

Briefly, I think this article could have issues with verifiability and/or neutrality. –LogStar100 (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@LogStar100: WP:Treeoflife rules are that all species re considered inherently notable. The single source is considered fine for meeting those notability guidelines.--Kevmin § 23:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@Kevmin: Notable, sure, but is it enough to merit "good" status? In particular, the article is based off just a single primary source, meaning that it's difficult to call it entirely verifiable/reliable/neutral. –LogStar100 (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I, too, am unconvinced it merits GA status. I don't have worries about verifiability or neutrality, as the source validly writes about a new taxon of dubious/uncertain nomenclature which it tentatively ascribes to the genus Nycticebus. In a sense, the whole source is original research, and yet a validly published new species account is acceptable per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. On the one hand this very short article seems to present all that is known about this putative taxon, but therein lies the dilemma. Is that short source sufficient for a GA article? Personally, I'm not comfortable with that - and would prefer it to have an A rating, and await until further taxonomic research and publications ascribes this with greater certainty to one genus or another. It's the combination of taxonomic uncertainty and overall brevity that concerns me here. But if others feel it does merit remaining as a GA, I won't be wailing or gnashing my teeth! Nick Moyes (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
All an article in an encyclopedia can hope to do is to adequately represent the state of current published knowledge, and if there is only one main source on a notable topic, then the best possible version of the article on that topic is going to rely on only one main source. Assuming breadth of coverage (in the good-article context), or comprehensiveness (in the featured-article context) measures the current state of the article against a theoretical best possible version of that article, I don't see why an article should be held back just because few people have written about it. That would, in effect, create tiers of notability, where only the most notable (and thus most written about) subjects could ever see their articles become good articles. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Ron Paul[edit]

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

This article seems rather un-comprehensive of Paul's biography and career. Take for example the "Later congressional career (1997–2013)" section. For a man who was very active in congress for those 16 years, the "tenure" subsection there is incredibly short. Yes, many things are spun-off into their own articles (such as his political positions and legislation sponsored), so those things can be forgiven for brevity here. But even when that is considered, the other sections of the article (those without spun-off articles) are too bare for this to feel right as a good article, let alone an "A-Class" good article. SecretName101 (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe this was up-to-snuff by Wikipedia standards back in 2007, when it was approved. But, it does not appear to meet our current standards. SecretName101 (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

South Bend, Indiana[edit]

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

Has a valid maintenance "citations needed" tag, which is an immediate red flag. May have been a "good article" in 2008, when it was listed, but I feel its current form would need some work in order for it to be validly called a "good article". SecretName101 (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delist - In addition to the cleanup tag, there is also stuff that is quite dated. For instance "There are currently plans to extend the data center into a fully operating high tech data hub in the old Studebaker "Ivy Tower" assembly plant next door, creating what will be called the Renaissance District" from 2015. Sections such as Redevelopment are not current, and I don't think we need to have a complete list of places of worship in the article. This just doesn't meet the GA criteria at all. Hog Farm Talk 03:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Michigan State Spartans[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending
  • Not well written: Article contains many choppy, one-sentence paragraphs. Baseball section has no content, just a link to its main page. Awards and Academic All-Americans are just "See footnote" with a reference.
  • Not verifiable: Many unreferenced claims: many missing in Men's basketball, Football, and Other varsity sports, while none exist in Women's basketball.
  • Media not are relevant to topic: Questionable placement of old/alternative logos, e.g. the "Michigan State's classic 'S' logo" is in the football section with no reference to it. Not sure about the Big Ten logo below the infobox.

Overall, article is in a rough state and would need a significant amount of effort to bring it back up to GA standards. Pbrks (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


Algonquin Hotel[edit]

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

I don't believe this article meets several of the modern good article criteria. Entire paragraphs are unsourced, failing WP:GACR #2 "Verifiable with no original research". For example, most of the "Algonquin Round Table" section is completely unsourced, with only one reference to a paragraph at the beginning. Other unsourced paragraphs exist in the "Cats" and "Lunch discounts for struggling writers" sections.

There is scant mention of the hotel's history, failing criterion #3 "Broad in its coverage". For instance, there is no mention of the circumstances under which the hotel was developed, other than in the lead, where the opening date is unsourced. There is no mention of architecture at all, which is surprising considering the hotel is a New York City landmark with significant architectural features. The lead fails to mention most of these details, either, per MOS:LEAD.

Furthermore, the article may fail criterion #1 "Well written", as several paragraphs are one sentence long, while other sentences contain unencyclopedic and dated writing, such as More recently, a newer drink has hit the Algonquin's menu.... While some of these issues are fixable, I believe this would have to be significantly rewritten to be a good article. Epicgenius (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


She Has a Name[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

Starting an overdue GAR for this article six years after Neelixgate and after two separate articles, quite overstuffed themselves, were merged into it. This is a 5000-word piece on a minor community theatre play created by someone with...quite the penchant for 5000-word pieces on minor parts of the anti-sex-work movement. I think this deserves a fair shake nonetheless, and I don't enjoy reviewing at the best of times, so I'm putting it to the community. Vaticidalprophet 05:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


Death Cab for Cutie[edit]

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

This 2008 promotion has a very large amount of uncited text, which is problematic with WP:GACR #2. It needs either improvement or delisting. Hog Farm Talk 01:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


Idi Amin[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

Indy beetle wrote: I see many deficencies with this article compared to GA criteria, but I'm not experienced enough with the clerking required for a GAR, so I'd appreciate it if someone else could start one.

 

Starts GA Reassessment; the review will follow the same sections of the Article. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

 


Observations[edit]

  • Lede tells being appointed Commander of the Uganda Army in 1965. Other sources suggest his rank was Colonel, then he was made a general by Obote, then appointed Chief of Staff. Consider
  • a Pan-Africanist group --> Pan-African group. (Africanist is one who studies African culture.)
  • Links in the Lede go to archived versions. As this is such an old article, it is recommended that links that are not archived be resourced on Archive.org
  • referenece 9 is available here: https://web.archive.org/web/20210310080859/https://www.theguardian.com/news/2003/aug/18/guardianobituaries
  • reference 10 is available here: https://web.archive.org/web/20210309152213/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3155925.stm
  • with regard to a traditional herbalist who treated members reference 14 (by Amin's son) confirms this.
  • reference 14 contains observations of the Amnesty International report of 1978
  • In Early life reference 12 indicates that Amin attended school in Bombo and won prizes for recital of the Koran. There should be some reference to this in the article.

In 1941 Amin joined Garaya Islamic school at Bombo, and again excelled in reciting the Koran under Mohammed Al Rajab from 1941 –1944.
Amin and Abdul Kadir Aliga won honours in reciting the Koran in 1943.

 

This is a reassessment in progress; it is not completed. --Whiteguru (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


  • Guweddeko is somewhat discredited by other writers. Guweddeko's claim that Amin was made Deputy Army Commander in 1964 conflicts with the Lede, and other sources. His rank at that time was Major.
  • The British Council confirms with other sources that in 1966, his rank was that of Colonel.
  • Reference 39 is a dead link. Consider https://www.loc.gov/item/92000513/
  • Reference 40 requires subscription
  • Reference 52 requires subscription
  • Reference 48 page 288 gives a much lower number of Asians emigrating from Uganda, and indicates that around 4,000 remained in the country.
  • Reference 59 contains considerable evaluation of Amin's leadership and governance and the threats posed to many nations by his erratic policies. There is (objective) material here which would enhance the article by way of reception of GOU as led by Idi Amin.

his is a reassessment in progress; it is not completed. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 

This is a reassessment in progress; it is not completed. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 

Evaluation is needed[edit]

  • There are significant challenges to an objective reception and evaluation of Idi Amin and his time as President. These challenges are somewhat exacerbated by the resumption of Obote as President and his bloody time as leader of this nation. There was no culture of peace in Uganda after Amin's exile to Saudi Arabia.
  • A Reception or Evaluation section is needed. Cartoons and reports of buffoonery are not an encyclopaedic evaluation of Amin nor his Presidency. It behooves editors to reconsider the section on Erratic behaviour, self-bestowed titles and media portrayal despite what other sources might have said at the time or during Amin's lifetime.
  • Another part of evaluation is Post Colonialism. As the British cut off all relations in 1977, post colonialism has to be part of any evaluation of Amin as President. Just as any any evaluation has to include subversive operations designed to destabilise (and prop up a corrupt regime) by several nations, including the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, Syria, Libya, Israel, East Germany.

This is a reassessment in progress; it is not completed. -- --Whiteguru (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 

Commentary by Indy beetle[edit]

  • Overall comments on the Presidency section:
    • Amin ruled through the army via a large patronage network, among other things. This is not mentioned. See Uganda Army (1971–1980).
    • Many sources talk about how professional administration, police, and courts collapsed under Amin's rule. This is not mentioned.
    • His actual day-today governance methods and relationship with his cabinet are not adequately discussed.
    • Some of his domestic initiatives like "Keep Uganda Clean" should probably be included. Right now most of the portion of the article about his presidency is how he marginalized certain groups.
  • The International relations section seems to be missing some key material as well as missing citations or misrepresenting sources.
    • His relationship with Organisation of African Unity is absent, despite his hosting of the OAU conference in 1975 and his serving as chairman of the meeting (mentioned in the lede but not supported anywhere in the body of the text).
    • Also sorely missing is his relationship with Mobutu of neighboring Zaire, the PLO, and Arab states other than Libya (which is only barely mentioned).
    • Amin's relationship with Tanzania was also very sour long before the 1978/1979 war, but this is not discussed.
    • The citing of a telegram by the US Ambassador on his opinion of Amin seems to be an improper use of primary material.
    • The opening paragraph about his initial support from Western powers mentions both West Germany and the Soviet Union, despite the New African article cited to support that info not mentioning either of those countries. This also seems an inappropriate place to discuss what role if any the UK had in his 1971 coup (should go above).
  • Legacy section
    • A leader of Amin's stature and impact on his country requires such a section. I added it several months ago. It is far from "broad" enough per GA standards to be considered reasonably complete.
  • Other overall comments
    • The sources are a mess of formats and styles. Many documents and books are not cited with page numbers.
    • Some sources are of dubious reliability, such as biography.com (reference 94 for Kay Amin).

-Indy beetle (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

 

Responses to Commentary[edit]

  • Reference 55 has considerable information about various regimes and their support and manipulation of Idi Amin and the seizure of power in the Ugandan coup d'état.
  • There is insufficient information about the arms and ammunition supplied by the Soviet Union and the support of East Germany. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

 

Amnesty International[edit]

Perhaps the definitive view is that of Amnesty International, as set out in a report in June 1978.

“Amnesty International’s main concerns are as follows:

1) the overthrow of the rule of law;

2) the extensive practice of murder by government security officers, which often reaches massacre proportions;

3) the institutionalised use of torture;

4) the denial of fundamental human rights guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

5) the regime’s constant disregard for the extreme concern expressed by international opinion and international organisations such as the United Nations, which results in the impression that gross human rights violations may be committed with impunity.”

Final comments:[edit]

I'm done here.

  • It is reasonably well written.
no, it needs objectivity, as mentioned above
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
no, there are many different estimates of mass killings, murders and how many Asians and Indians were exiled
  • It is broad in its coverage.
It needs significant updating with perspective, evaluation, inclusion of a new section on either Evaluatoin or Post Colonialism;
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: Yes
  • It is stable.
Artice has been vandalised repeatedly and should remain under semi-protection
  • It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
Yes
  • References:
This is an old page. Where possible, references should be from archive.org --Whiteguru (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Steve Cherry[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

This article relies too heavily on an autobiography and is not in compliance with policy at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:NPOV as a result.4meter4 (talk) 05:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


Subpages