Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
MainCriteriaNominationsDiscussionInstructionsReassessmentReportHelp Desk
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. From the article talk page, transclude the individual assessment page as follows: Create a new section named "Individual reassessment" 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.
  5. Notify major contributing editors, relevant WikiProjects for the article, and, if recently GA reviewed, 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. During the reassessment discussion, you must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria. When the reassessment discussion has concluded, you may close it.
  8. To close the discussion, edit the individual reassessment page of the article. State 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.
  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).


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 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)
    • 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)

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. From the article talk page, transclude the community assessment page as follows: Create a new section named "Community reassessment" and 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.
  5. Notify major contributing editors, relevant WikiProjects for the article, and 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 reassessment discussion, consensus must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria. When the reassessment 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 and will add it 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 {{GAR request}} from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, simply delete 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. To add an article to this list, add {{GAR request}} to the article talk page.

See also

Articles listed for community reassessment[edit]

Smartsheet[edit]

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

The GA status of this article strikes me as fishy- it was initiated by CorporateM (talk · contribs), a wikipedian who admits to running a business that "contributed more than 50 Good Article-ranked pages about businesses and individuals", and completed by Samtar (talk · contribs), who I wasn't able to find much on.

As for the article itself, it's decently NPOV and does an okay job of talking about the company and the product, but there's not a lot of content. If GA is supposed to identify articles that are better than average, but not at FA status, I wouldn't argue that this page meets that criteria. Given my inexperience as an editor, I'm nominating it for community reassessment. Rivselis (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I reviewed the article and I must say I was not really impressed. I could immediately tell that criteria 1a and 1b of GAC needed attention. I also uploaded a new logo, added two {{citation needed}} tags, two {{Clarification needed}} tags, and fixed one contradictory statement. (And I learned about all of these today.) It still needs more work. flowing dreams (talk page) 10:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It is odd. The review is signed Samtar, but has only been edited by There'sNoTime. Maybe they renamed their account, but I would have expected the contribs to be linked. Anyway TNT has been around a long time and I think is even an admin, so the review is not as much as a concern as first impressions might suggest. CorporateM is pretty open about what they do so that is not really an issue. I would say going through the GA process is a good thing for paid editing as it brings other eyes to the article. AIRcorn (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Turkey[edit]

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

Would love some help in trying to bring this back up to GA standards and perhaps FA in the process. I am asking for help by way of a review because it's an article with a contentious history and I think multiple editors should be involved. We have a few problems that have arisen since this was look at in 2015.....we have ref needed tags, update tags, when tags, whole paragraphs missing sources , and a religious section that looks like it was copy and pasted from the main articles bloating the article.--Moxy 🍁 22:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Have you asked at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Turkey? If so unfortunately I think unless the ECHR orders the Block of Wikipedia in Turkey to be lifted it seems no one else but you has the editing access, time and inclination to fix it. So if you cannot fix it yourself I think it should be derated.Chidgk1 (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Skåneland[edit]

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

The page has been tagged {{POV}} since Sept. 2014. I am not sure if the tag is still appropriate, but if it is, this article needs to be delisted per WP:GAFAIL #3. --MrClog (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


Laozi[edit]

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

There are several reasons this article's status as a Good Article needs to be reviewed.

  • First, & most visible, is the presence of a "Todo" list on the Talk page. While one can add a list of Todos to a Good Article to help an editor improve it to Featured Article level, a disinterested consideration of these 3 items will show these clearly question the GA rating.
  • Second, but also critical, is that the GA review for this article was performed in January 2008 (it can be found here), & while it was satisfactory for its time, that review IMHO does not meet current standards. That review was little more than a critique of the wording & grammar, & failed to consider any issues of content or coverage.

The following points address short comings concerning content & coverage.

  • The section about his name is poorly organized. The issue about his name -- Lao Tzu -- is that it could be interpreted as either "Master Lao" or "The Old Master". Thus there is no certainty about his personal name. What we know about his personal name comes from Sima Qian, as does practically everything we know about the historic Lao Tzu, as opposed to the later legends that accreted to the man. That we depend so much on Sima Qian is obscured by the organization of this section, which quotes solely & crudely from secondary sources.

    What I would do with this section is to begin with the ambiguity of the meaning of "Lao Tzu", then note that Sima Qian provides several names of people who were identified with him from different sources. As for the legendary names (e.g. "Supreme Old Lord"), while they could be mentioned here -- along with Huang-Lao -- I feel they would fit better in the section "Influence", for reasons I provide below.

  • There is nothing about the date of Lao Tzu, except for a sentence in the lead paragraphs. This is a complex issue that deserves discussion in detail. On the one hand, one of the anecdotes Sima Qian records makes Lao Tzu an older contemporary of Confucius, which would put his flourit in the 6th century BC. On the other hand, the state of the Guodian Manuscripts suggest that this work may have been assembled from a number of texts during the late 4th / early 3rd Centuries BC; William H. Baxter provides an analysis of the rhymes in the Tao Te Ching -- which is an important & widely recognized method for reconstructing the words of Classical Chinese -- which dates this work to the "late 4th or early 3rd century BCE". Thus it is likely that the person(s) responsible wrote later in a pseudepigraphical mode, presenting ideas they believed the Old Master advocated.
  • The issue of authorship is treated in a binary form: either the Tao Te Ching had one author & thus one voice, or it is an anthology of sayings lacking any unifying point of view. It does not recognize that at the time Chinese culture did not recognize the idea of a work having a single author, but as the statement of a corporate body, a school of thought. Thus this work could both be a unified whole & the product of several people.
  • Here again the fact that all we know of the historic Lao Tzu comes from Sima Qian's brief biography; an English translation is barely longer than a single printed page. Yet this brief biography is full of problems. Sima Qian even admits at one point the material he had is unreliable. Thus this work needs explication by experts. One expert source would be A.C. Graham's essay "The Origins of the Legend of Lao Tan", which deconstructs this biography, providing a convincing theory of why Lao Tzu was associated with the attested Lao Tan (the older contemporary of Confucius), & how other traditions accreted around this germ of an idea.
  • Here I have point out that many of the sources cited in this article are unsatisfactory. Few of them appear to be written by experts on Chinese history, let alone experts of the period Lao Tzu belongs to, which is the Warring States period. The few that are reliable sources are cited in an unsatisfactory way. For example, Kohn & LaFargue's book Lao-tzu and the Tao-te-ching is a collection of essays & the articles it comprises need to be cited separately, not as if Kohn & LaFargue wrote the entire book.
  • The later legends presented in this section would be better discussed in the "Influence" section for reasons I discuss below.
  • The section about the Tao Te Ching is one of the strongest parts of the article, yet is still unsatisfactory. While the section provides a discussion of how this work relates to Philosophical Taoism, it omits any mention of how it relates to the Taoist Religion, a movement that includes such practices as alchemy, meditation, sexual practices, search for immortality, & related interests. (There are several essays in Kohn & LaFargue's book which could provide material to fill this gap.) But that he was associated with the Taoist religion is clear from the names later Chinese gave him mentioned above, as well as his incorporation into the personage "Huang-Lao".
  • The section "Influence" is probably the most unsatisfactory part of this article. It gives undue emphasis to its claimed influence on Libertarianism. That some Libertarians claim Lao Tzu was an ancient precursor is undeniable, yet his greatest influence is not even in politics but in religion. He is better known in the West for his reputation as a mystic. And as I noted at several points above, there is very little in this article about his influence in later Chinese thought. (I note here that there is no native libertarian tradition in Chinese intellectual thought; rather, China is known for creating the first organized government bureaucracy, which lasted from the Han dynasty down to 1911.)

I would rewrite myself this article entirely, but I doubt the final product would meet GA standards. For one thing, I admit I don't know enough about Chinese intellectual tradition to explain Lao Tzu's role in it adequately. But perhaps there is someone who is able to make the necessary changes to get this article on an important subject to GA or even FA status. -- llywrch (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

None of the concerns/criticisms I raised here have been addressed, even though I waited 4 months for any kind of response. With regret, I am downgrading this article. -- llywrch (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Copenhagen Metro[edit]

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

Looking through this page, I have noticed that their are certain sections of the article that doesn't have any references in it at all which in my eyes would fail if it was done today. There is also the fact that in the section, "Future lines discussed", there isn't enough prose in this section to have this bit of the article. Add to the fact that their are sections which needs a reference and it's probably worth a shot at maybe reassessing this article. HawkAussie (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I agree that the article probably fails criteria 2a (list of all sources) and 2c (original research). I think it could be appropriate to just remove unreferenced material, since some of it is clearly unattributed speculation. Jc86035 (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist - in addition to these examples mentioned above, there are now several {{update}} tags. Unless someone updates this article very soon, this will be a pretty major problem and can't continue being a GA in the future. Unfortunately I don't speak Danish so I can't update it myself. I think we should also ping the recent editors who have been most active on this page, @CapnZapp and Valentinian:. epicgenius (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
No objections from me. I would say the article is pretty far from GA status (my recent edits only patch the worst holes). I would, however, consider it worthwhile to make sure the editors active around the time of the original GA award are made aware of this process (since they are presumably native Danes with the best access to DA language sources) CapnZapp (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Dough4872:, @Arsenikk: are the two that was around those people who nominated and did the nomination respectively in that year. HawkAussie (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Watford F.C.[edit]

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

I fail to see how this passed GA before, the current article is not up to current GA standards.

  • The chronological order in early history doesn't seem clear.
  • Missing the period (era) when Jack Petchey owned the football club as there is no mention of him what so ever.

I really feel the article needs to be reassessed and the current GA be dropped. Govvy (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The first review Talk:Watford F.C./GA1 was hardly in-depth. However, the reassessment happens here before being removed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Govvy, are you looking to make improvements to the article yourself or simply want it downgraded? Kosack (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kosack: For the moment, just to downgrade the article. It's doesn't help either that there is currently an argument over the found date of the club, that also makes me feel that GA is void. Govvy (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
It'd be a shame as I think the core of the article is there and the majority of the damage has been done post-review. Kosack (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I actually disagree to an extent, I didn't think the previous version was fantastic. However, there being a dispute over the date (with both sides being sourced) isn't an issue to stop this being a GA. Realistically, all sources should be used and associated in the text. The GAR is here to let people have a chance to fix issues with the text, so usually, you'd want to point out the biggest issues with the text. with that being said, this article does need a massive shakeup Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh there's definitely issues here no doubt about it and I think standards have improved in the seven years since this was promoted but we're not starting from scratch here. Kosack (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the article that can't be fixed. Also @Govvy:, why couldn't you just add that stuff yourself. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 23:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@KingSkyLord: Firstly, you can't vote keep, a non-partisan reviewer is required to assess the article for or against. Secondly, I have mentioned there are issues here that modern GA assessment would deem this a fail that haven't been address, Petchey era 1987 to 1994, this certainly isn't the Elton John era! 1990 to 2000, a whole decade seems a bit dry on content. Club identity has alignment and white space issues. As noted above there seemed to be edit-war, WP:OR problems with the found date! There are a few basic issues to address and I frankly think it's a bit rude of you asking me to address all the issues. Govvy (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Golden State Killer[edit]

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

Passed as a GA by an editor making only their 95th edit. Talk:Golden State Killer/GA1 was brief, to say the least. Although not unprecedented, I'd say it's unusual for an article of this length to pass without any changes being needed, no matter how small.

The article is a strange hybrid of information about an uncaught serial killer, and biography of the suspect. Yes I'm aware he's innocent until proven guilty per WP:BLP, but you have to look at things such as this pre-arrest section which still largely exists at Golden State Killer#Suspect profile and Golden State Killer#Suspects. Removing information about exonerated suspects, redundant lines of inquiry about construction work near 1979 Goleta murder etc. does't violate BLP, it keeps the article up to date and on-topic.

The lead doesn't summarise the article properly. To give just two examples, the claim about Virginia's DNA database being seen as the most effective and that Michelle McNamara coined the term Golden State Killer. While both are true, neither of these appears in the main body of the article.

The book source in footnote #2 is frequently cited without an accompanying page number. Footnote #9 appears to be a television show that is no longer available on the A&E Networks website, therefore unverifiable and needing to be replaced. Footnote #24 is hosted on googlepages and does not appear to be reliable. Footnotes #30, #34 and #38 s a podcast on Soundcloud hosted by "12-26-75". Simillarly Casefile podcast is used repeatedly. I listen to casefile, it's won awards, but it hasn't won them for its reporting and accuracy but for being entertaining. There's nothing in Wikipedia:Reliable sources about podcasts being reliable, although you could easily make a case for the LA Time's "Man In The Window" podcast about the Golden State Killer being reliable for example. Footnotes #36 and #37 are for what appears to be a self-published website about the Visalia Ransacker, the website's contact form makes it clear by the use of "don't hesitate to contact them [law enforcement]" makes it clear the publisher is independent of law enforcement. Why are we citing the opinions of random website creators about whether the Visalia Ransacker case was linked the Golden State Killer, when we should really be citing law enforcement and/or other reliable sources? Footnote #119 is a website titled "The Quester Files" containing all sorts of information about Bigfoot, UFOs, the Bermuda Triangle, the occult and cold cases. His about page makes lots of grandiose claims such as he is the "controversial and highest profiled independent investigator of the East Area Rapist/Original Night Stalker. His work as presented on the Q Files and in books has inspired the reopening of cases, national press conferences, and various news reports." Given the many reliable sources covering the case, do we really need to scrape the barrel with sources like this? This shouldn't be considering an exhaustive list of problematic sources, just ones that jumped off the page at me. The whole sourcing needs to be properly checked, and the many self-published ones replaced with more reliable sources. On the subject of sources the table of East Area Rapist attacks at Golden State Killer#East Area Rapist (June 1976–July 1979) contains many entries lacking a citation.

The above shouldn't be taken as a complete list of the problems with the article, hopefully other editors will be able to bring up any issues they see as well. Rising5554 (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I too was startled to see this had passed GA. The concerns above are all valid, and here's another: the topic is huge, with many twists and turns and side trips, and even determining whether the article meets crit. 3 ("Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail") would take a substantial amount of work, probably including interaction with the principal editors. EEng 17:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I will also add that I haven't even checked if any of the sentences are accurately sourced by the sources cited. However picking one at random this source is being used to source the sentence "The FBI announced on June 15, 2016, that it was confident that the East Area Rapist murdered the Maggiores". While it is quite possible the FBI did indeed say that at their news conference it isn't covered in this source, the closest it gets is "Investigators believe the rapes and dozens of burglaries that were often used to scout neighborhoods escalated in 1978, when the killer fatally shot U.S. Air Force Sgt. Brian Maggiore and his wife Katie as they walked their dog". It's unclear whether the "investigators" referred to are police or FBI, and there's nothing about them being "confident". Based on this I would suggest the article needs to be carefully scrutinized. Also in the table of East Area Rapist attacks frequently contains sources such as this copy of a Sacramento Bee article. I'm not an expert on US copyright law, but it seems to me to be in violation of WP:COPYLINK? Rising5554 (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    Another no-no. The review is obviously bogus and the GA status should be withdrawn. EEng 20:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist It seems very unlikely that, after a reasonably thorough review of an article of this size, a reviewer would find no WP:GACR violations, and not even have any questions, comments, or suggestions. The issues found by Rising5554 above are more than enough to convince me that the reviewer did not exercise sufficient care, or misunderstood the GA criteria or process. This was their first (and so far only) GA review, and as Rising5554 points out, they hadn't made many edits when they did the review, so likely just a case of inexperience rather than acting in bad faith. Pinging the reviewer, @Muttnick: (not to shame them, but just to make them aware of the reassessment, and give them an opportunity to respond - FYI, Rising, I think it's conventional to notify the reviewer and nominator with a {{GARMessage}} template on their talk page). Colin M (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

International Phonetic Alphabet[edit]

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

There are long chunks of unreferenced sentences. I have identified and tagged, removed or corrected some OR and inaccuracies from time to time,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] but problems persist. IMHO it does a poor job particularly of differentiating what is the official, canonical IPA as set out by the International Phonetic Association and what are applications of the IPA; for example, [brackets] and /slashes/ are the only enclosing symbols recognized by the IPA, but the article only distinguishes them and other conventions as "principal" and "less common", with hardly any citation.

It may have deserved GA in 2006 when it became one, but I don't think it meets the standards we now expect from GAs. Nardog (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm not seeing reason to delist. It seems understandable that a fairly prominent article like this would get some noisy contributions from time to time, but the diffs you linked don't seem like major issues. Something like this for example is a fine correction, but it's quite a small detail - the 'wrongness' of the previous wording isn't such that it would affect my thinking about GA status. The content you showed that you had removed for being unsourced or tagged with {{citation needed}} don't seem like they belong to one of the categories of statements for which the WP:GACR require inline citations. You clearly have a lot of expertise on this topic. On the one hand, that gives you a better ability than me to sniff out factually questionable claims or missing coverage. But it might also lead you to hold the article to higher standards than an average reader (or reviewer) would. I don't think I follow your issue about differentiating "official, canonical IPA" and "applications of the IPA" in the current state of the article - but I'd be interested in reading more if you'd like to elaborate. Colin M (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Wizards of the Coast[edit]

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

This was reasonably promoted to GA status ten years ago. Since then, however, I believe the article has suffered sufficiently that it is no longer GA. There are numerous reasons for this, however, for brevity I note the following three, specifically:

  1. Approximately 25-percent of all sources in the article are to the company's own website or press releases. While much of this content is relatively basic information, it's previously been demonstrated (e.g. here) that the company publishes significant exaggerations about it and its employees' accomplishments and even the most basic content cited to the company itself should be viewed with a great deal of suspicion.
  2. The article omits a major, mid 2000s abortive initiative [10], [11], [12] that was characterized by many sources as a "critical failure", though there are more RS about this than just about any other aspect of the company.
  3. The article omits a major IP dispute that led to a protracted, federal lawsuit against Pokemon even though, again, there are more RS about this than pretty much the rest of the company's history combined (see: [13], [14], [15], [16], etc.).

Chetsford (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: These all seem fixable. I will see what I can do this week with the limited time that I have. BOZ (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • That's great, thank you! This was a GAR in progress and I hadn't fully submitted it yet but I'll just backburner it until you have time to look at it further. Chetsford (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I guess that was my error then; I saw your edit to the article's talk page and found this page. I think these can be fixed, especially with some assistance. :) BOZ (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a bit of time today so I'm adding in citations next to the press releases. I'm leaving up the press release citations for right now so someone else can confirm the new citations are a good replacement. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I did a first sweep through the following sections: Acquisition by Hasbro, 2000s–2010s Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Chetsford Per point 3, the article does mention the lawsuit towards the end of the "Acquisition of TSR and Pokémon TCG" section. I only compared random revisions back to August 2011 but it appears to have been included for a while. I was actually thinking of moving the bit on the lawsuit into the "2000 – 2010" section to improve readability. Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    I haven't reviewed your work on the article in detail, but hopefully it resolved the bulk of the above raised concerns? BOZ (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sariel Xilo - I just read all your updates and revisions. You did an amazing job and definitely addressed all my concerns. Thank you for your thoroughness! Chetsford (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree that possibly something about Gleemax should be included, per Chetsford, but not TOO much - failed multi-million dollar projects are not really uncommon at large corporations. It also leads into the slightly sensationalistic murder of Melissa Batten, which I'm not sure is super-relevant.
For the Magic The Gathering section, it goes into great detail about the change in Core Sets, which is weird and not exactly super-relevant? Core Sets are a small part of Magic's overall sales from a corporate perspective: it's like talking extensively about ticket sales to preseason football games. They exist, but they aren't the important part. Overall sales of Magic would be much more interesting to talk about, as would good & bad years / expansions. (For example, Mirrodin block in 2004-2005 set sales records that weren't exceeded for some time afterward, implying a dropoff later.) SnowFire (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Manzikert[edit]

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

1. The lede of the article has a number of references, which should be avoided. A lede should summarise the article, and references there are unnecessary.

2. The article lacks references.

2.1. The second paragraph in the "Background" chapter has the non-sequitur issue.
2.2. The first three paragraphs in the "Prelude" chapter is not referenced, and the text is sandwiched between the two images.
2.3 The second paragraph in the "Battle" chapter is not referenced.
2.4 The third paragraph in the "Captivity of Romanos Diogenes" chapter is not referenced.
2.5 The first two, fifth and sixth paragraphs in the "Aftermath" chapter are not referenced.

3. There is a problem with the references. The footnotes aren't uniformed. While some just use the author's name, title and page number, other use author's name, book title, publisher, place of publishing, etc. Sometimes, only a link is used. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

While I feel point #1 is not significant, points 2 & 3 are. I have started addressing point #3, & will give the citation format a complete overhaul in the next few days when I have the time. -- llywrch (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I forgot I made the following criticism about this article back in 2015:

I'm a little surprised that this article was considered GA quality. (I looked for the discussion that promoted this article, but it wasn't linked to this page.) While it is well-written, & I believe it explains its subject for the most part accurately, its sources are problematic. First, it appears to rely on the work of J.J. Norwich, although a decent historian, is more of a popularizer than standard references like Ostrogorsky & Vasiliev -- although mentioning Runciman helps. Another thing this article needs is a discussion of the primary sources: looking at the account in Vryonis' The decline of medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor: and the process of Islamization from the eleventh through the fifteenth century (another standard reference), primary sources for this battle include Niketas Choniates, & Michael the Syrian, & a letter by Manuel to the English king Henry II written shortly after the battle; except for a passing quotation from Anna Komnenos, the existence of these sources are completely ignored -- which hampers any reader who wants to go beyond the secondary sources. Lastly, although I wouldn't use this even as a reason to deny this article FA status, it would be very nice if Turkish sources were used in this article; I believe Turkish academics have written an article or more on this event, & may express some opinions or conclusions that would surprise even citizens of that country.

This concern also needs to be addressed. -- llywrch (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Fredrik Reinfeldt[edit]

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

This article has suffered significant POV damage since it was promoted to GA. Now that the subject no longer serves a very public role. It is a good time for a reassessment to bring this article to GA quality again or delist. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


The Shirelles[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending
  • Lead is way too short. Just mentions the members, doesn't summarize key points of their career.
  • "Founding" header is entirely unsourced.
  • "Current versions of the group": " Addie "Micki" Harris died on June 10, 1982 of a heart attack." is unsourced.
  • "Albums" section of discography is not properly formatted and does not source chart positions.
  • None of the non-charting singles is sourced, either.

Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. I can find all sorts of stuff confirming Micki's date of death, on 10 or 11 June (but which?), or at least year (1982); (google 'addie micki harris death'), but most of it looks like tertiary hearsay for WP purposes. The "best" source I've found is this, which is at least a book rather than a blog - though with only an ASIN and no ISBN, and so of questionable reliability. I've failed to google up anything which looks like a contemporary news report. There surely must be something in an Atlanta newspaper at least. Narky Blert (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: the lead is too short and the "Founding" section is unsourced for the same reason: the "Founding" section used to be part of the lead until some unhelpful edits by the IP 1.42.39.16 moved it into a separate section in January 2018. Given that everything in the "Founding" section is sourced later on in the article text, as it should be, restoring this part to the lead would go a long way to solving these two issues. The AllMusic Biography by Steve Huey lists Micki Harris' date and cause of death. Richard3120 (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

B. J. Prager[edit]

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

The prose is choppy and basically a list of his accomplishments (which admittedly, are many). Each section is relatively short and only contains positive information. Many of the references are statistics, lists, or record books. None 1, 3, 4, and 6 of the criteria for a GA are not met in my opinion. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment Section 6 can't be covered as their is no images for it to go under. Therefore this automatically ticks that section. I do agree though, that their seems to be a lot of short sentences in consecutive sentences with the main problem being in the Background section. HawkAussie (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Faisal of Saudi Arabia[edit]

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

The article should have a {{POV|date=August 2019}} tag added and be entirely rewritten in a neutral POV. The article reads like an extended resume from a fan, especially the "Early experience" section (which is not even a real section title for biographies). The sentence "In 1962 Prince Faisal helped found the Muslim World League, a worldwide charity to which the Saudi royal family has reportedly since donated more than a billion dollars," is exceptionally braggy.

Sentences similar to "King Faisal seemed to hold the pluralist view," should be entirely rewritten; they are both puffery and biased. The article is also written like a dramatic play, with struggles and winners and losers. There are countless run-on sentences.

This is not a good article. It is poorly written, with unclear and unconcise prose (1a). The article is full of peacock language, and should be entirely rewritten to address the facts (1b). As well, it is not neutral, as the article alternates between a praise piece or governmental propaganda (4).

tldr; This is frankly the worst article I have ever read that qualified as a GA. The status should be removed. Zkidwiki (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: I was the reviewer who passed it as GA. I was also suspicious about the neutrality, but after looking closely I did not find anything problematic. e.g. "In 1962 Prince Faisal helped found the Muslim World League, a worldwide charity to which the Saudi royal family has reportedly since donated more than a billion dollars" is a factual statement supported by an RS. Are you suggesting that the fact that he founded an organization and his family donated to it should be hidden because it makes the subject sound good? Similarly to "King Faisal seemed to hold the pluralist view" I don't see how it is puffery or biased if it's supported by RS. I spot checked several similar statements in the article and they seem to hold up with references. I compared it with other biographies (such as Britannica) and I didn't find any major omission. If you were going to demonstrate neutrality problem with this article I suggest maybe show examples of (a) unsourced statements or those that misrepresent the source, or (b) omission of major facts or point of views (c) inappropriate language or wording. HaEr48 (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

You Ain't Goin' Nowhere[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending
  • For one, the article is completely missing any information on the song's composition. What do the lyrics consist of? What key is it in? What is the chord pattern?
  • The "Other covers" verison seems to be suffering from example creep, and other than maybe the solo Hillman/McGuinn and 4 + 2 versions, none of the covers seems to meet WP:COVERSONG.

Those are my main issues. Nominator left in 2014. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


Roger Miller[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending
  • Large chunks of the article are unsourced.
  • "In popular culture" list violating WP:TRIVIA; also has a footnote in the header which is disallowed.
  • "Personal life and death" falling victim to example-creep, several randomly appended one-sentence paragraphs.

Overall the article seems considerably less complete than other country music GAs; compare Trisha Yearwood, Tracy Lawrence, even Lonestar or McBride & the Ride which are broader in scope.

Last major editor left in 2013, GA nominator left in 2014. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC) •Delisted as per above. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


Tom Felton[edit]

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

This article was listed back in 2007, when Order of the Phoenix was brand new. 12 years later, it's had a ref tag for two & a half years and every piece of info added since 2007 in is its own paragraph, on top of an awards table that's completely unsourced. Clearly needs to be delisted. – zmbro (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Support: A lot of the sources are unreliable, plus refs 18 and 19 are not formatted properly. Also there is inconsistency in usage of websites on refs, awards and nominations has no references and many more issues. --Kyle Peake (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Amazon HQ2[edit]

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

When this article was given a GA review by Mgasparin back on 16 May 2019 and listed, the article's creator, SounderBruce, wrote have concerns with how fast and drive-by this review is, especially for a subject with quite a bit of political controversy surrounding it. Mgasparin stood by their review, but expressed willingness to consider a second opinion, at which point Trillfendi, who had nominated the article for GA earlier in May, added a GA nominee template asking for a second opinion, though the GA template was also left on the talk page. Unfortunately, the GA nominee template was badly malformed, so the nomination never appeared at WP:GAN.

What this article actually needs, since the review was not reopened at the time and the article has been listed as a GA for three and a half months, is a community reassessment. This allows everyone to comment on the article, including all three editors mentioned above, to assess whether it meets or fails to meet any of the GA criteria, and if it is lacking anywhere, for the article to be improved to the point that it meets the criteria, or to be delisted if sufficient improvement is not made.

I will notify the appropriate WikiProjects and finish cleaning up the article talk page. Best of luck to all concerned. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


Ridgedale Center[edit]

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

The article is overall very short for a GA, and is missing an awful lot of key points found in other GA-class shopping mall articles. For instance:

  1. How did the developers choose the site and stores?
  2. What were major stores on opening day or throughout the mall's history? Did it have anything noteworthy, like the first or largest in the area of a certain store? What were major architectural features or other noteworthy facets?
  3. There is almost nothing on the mall's first decade of existence. No key points between 1974-86 are covered at all.
  4. How and when did the current owners acquire it? Did it have any other owners at any point?

Compare other GA-class mall articles such as Meridian Mall and Lansing Mall, or even Merle Hay Mall which was promoted in 2008 and still holds up reasonably well, and it's clear that this article falls woefully short. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

AmericanAir88 comments[edit]

  • I'll admit that the review for the mall was a bit rushed and did not address all that possibly could of. However, GA's should not be compared to each other. It is about the criteria. I'll do an assessment of the article for myself. @TenPoundHammer:, make sure to notify previous reviewers of this GAR. AmericanAir88(talk) 02:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Review[edit]

@TenPoundHammer:

  • Comment First off, size isn't everything. Plenty of GA's are of quality that are on the short size.
  • Issue The beginning of "Grand Opening" should be expanded with the first reference
  • Comment Not all mall articles have to contain lists of their stores. Some didn't contain anything major. WP:DIRECTORY.
  • Issue TPH is right in that there needs to be more coverage on the first decade such as reception.
  • Issue The article feels like it is just a timeline of events. Most sentences just start with a year.
  • Issue Ref 10 needs replacement (Opinionated list) and the trivial mention inline needs to be expanded on.
  • Issue The article honestly feels lacking. Size isn't the issue, but there is definitely room for expansion through the references.

AmericanAir88(talk) 19:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


Hawthorne, Florida[edit]

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

This recently-passed GAN fails to fulfill criteria 3(a) (addressing the main aspects of the topic), as there are large gaps in content that were not mentioned in the review. The history section is top-heavy, with paragraphs given to a certain period (1880–1910), but a similar 30-year span (1980–2010) given a single sentence. Much of the information in the section is not backed up with enough detail or information, such as the "suffering during the Great Depression" (no hardships were mentioned) or the appreciation of the area's "rural lifestyle" (which reads straight out of a realtor's listing). The Geography section only has a single sentence for a neighboring border and another with the original, bot-generated area statistic; no mention is made of the area's topography, the town's layout and neighborhoods, or any nearby natural features. The Demographics section includes unnecessary table entries for Florida and U.S. statistics; the government section lacks information on the day-to-day administration of city affairs; and there is no Economy section, which is fundamental to a city entry. Having experience with writing town articles myself (for similar settlements in the sub-2,500 range), it's entirely possible to wring out enough information to fill these sections with more thorough research. SounderBruce 00:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the reassessment. Would you be able to help me get access to the sources that you mention? I have not been able to find additional information. The information in the article is what I could find; I didn't leave gaps on purpose. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 01:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I would suggest looking into getting a TWL subscription to Newspapers.com or another source like NewsBank (usually available through a public library). They are extremely helpful in getting newspaper coverage that is the backbone of a lot of good research for casual city articles. SounderBruce 03:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
SounderBruce, hi! I was the reviewer who passed this article. I'm still relatively new to this, so I understand if you have concerns - I'm here to learn!
What are some examples of town articles for "similar settlements in the sub-2,500 range" that would be good to look at? I did note the sparsity of the Geography section in my review but I can understand why it would be difficult to fill out an article for such a small town. Any tips you have would be great.
As to recent (1980-2010) history, what kind of content would be appropriate for an article like this without falling prey to recentism? I'd like to be good at this - let me know how I can improve my future reviews. Thanks.
Ganesha811 (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I just had Darrington, Washington pass at GA (and I am prepping it for FAC), so it might be good to look at it. It is fine to describe a bit of the surrounding area, especially since this town doesn't directly border another jurisdiction, and features like the nearby lakes are an easy ask for this kind of section. Just a quick browse through a major regional newspaper's archives for hits on Hawthorne is good enough to pick out events that might be notable enough to escape recentism, as they would be significant enough to be noticed. SounderBruce 03:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Bengal famine of 1943[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending
  • Knock knock. Fowler&fowler reverted Legobot. I don't mind. I'm not angry. But I think it's out-of-process. I believe he also stated that he is currently uninterested in participating in the reviewing process. Which is also fine (and if he participated, that would be fine too). In short, this is a bit confused. Perhaps you folks should hash it out... OH PS If I may make a personal appeal to whoever reads this page: I hope you will not take up the issue of whether the reversion of Legobot was out-of-process. It was. But just pretend that never happened. Please treat this as a straightforward community GAR and review the article on its merits or lack thereof. Thank you. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
This article embraces an extraordinary range of topics. It is about one of the great tragedies of the 20th century, the bewilderingly complex and multifarious roots of the tragedy, the unfolding of the tragedy, the attempts at ameliorating the tragedy, and the lessons and legacy of the tragedy. Scholars of extraordinary range, such as Amartya Sen have built their careers by analyzing the tragedy.
This article is starkly different from the great majority of articles that routinely achieve FA status on Wikipedia. If you are a reviewer here considering contributing a review and your review will be limited to grammar and punctuation, please consider doing something else on Wikipedia. If you are are a reviewer that is not willing or able to discuss in some detail why the article satisfies GA criteria 3 and 4, then don't bother to review the article. You very likely have nothing to offer in this reassessment. It may be that qualified reviewers will not appear immediately, but it will be worth the wait. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
PS In fact, I would urge reviewers to skip grammar and punctuation entirely. This article has been worked on for so long by so many competent editors (for example at three FACs) that grammar and punctuation is very likely a marginal issue. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
PPS Lingzhi: Sorry I didn't realize it was out of process. I was, however, pointing out a greater inequity, the GA-fate of an article of such range and depth pivoting on the words of just one reviewer. This is not one of those hurricane or movie articles, littering the FAs, with hackneyed templates and rudimentary sourcing, that anyone can write or review. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
No, a reassessment needs to look at all of the GA criteria, and the recommendation that people ignore any of them should itself be ignored. Everything should be on the table, and I think it would be helpful if Fowler&fowler stopped giving directions to potential participants and sit back and allow the GAR process to run its course, the more because we want all of the criteria to be met, not just the two they happen to feel need work, though those naturally will need to be addressed. This is a GA reassessment, and FA criteria and reviews are irrelevant here. Finally, the GA criteria and process are the same for all articles, however structured; this may be a flaw in the process, but it does not change the fact that the GAN does of its design rely on a single reviewer, and if an editor feels the reviewer has gone astray or insufficiently deep, GAR is the (perhaps also flawed) backstop. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Dear @BlueMoonset: I apologize, of course, and defer to your considered judgment. (I'm assuming you have some position of authority in the GA process.)

I do understand your point about reassessment and agree with what you have stated, and also with your calling out my error. But, with respect, the previous reviewer said not a peep about criteria 2 c, d, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Not a peep, in return, was heard from anyone before its promotion, nor after. That is, other than me. I do understand that going around monitoring every GA is not any part of your charge, but you have to understand my concern. All too often reviews are only about grammar, or about perfunctorily affixing the green cross six times against the GA criteria. How often do reviewers explain their choices? Anyway, now that I'm reassured you are watching, I will step away. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Have to agree with Fowler on this. The article has already been heavily copy edited during its FACs, and anyway it was never a major concern in those reviews, with a general view that it is quite well written. Would prefer if review efforts focused on more substantial matters. Ceoil (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Vami's review[edit]

In reviews I conduct, I may make small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. For replying to Reviewer comment, please use  Done, Fixed, plus Added, Not done, Doing..., or minus Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. —♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Update: As per Fowler&fowler's comment(s) above, I'll (mostly) keep my review to GA criterion 3 & 4 (Broadness and Neutrality, respectively). The nominee, other reviewers, and readers should note that I know little about the topic at hand but am an experienced editor. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I: As a pre-reading note (to myself), this article is really big (164,134 bytes at time of writing), and "Broadness" will probably mean "what can safely be condensed, removed, or better yet moved to another article". –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
II: Many of my comments will be made with the intention of reducing the article's size, if this was not already made clear. Prepare to see more "axes" than you'd find in a lumberjack's lodge. I will also make comments on grammar and style, but they won't necessarily be my focus. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

  • Footnote A: I could probably park a car on Footnote A, it's so big. It should reduced to just the various figures and the sources espousing them. Apply this to all footenotes.
    • I trimmed about 110 words from footnote [A]. Alas, trimming it further would be counter-productive. There's a specific Wikipedia-related reason why that particular footnote (about mortality count) goes into detail: the mortality count is perhaps the biggest target of drive-by "improvement" by "helpful editors". It's also a target of talk page soap-boxing. Details help maintain article stability. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The Bengal famine of 1943 [...] was a major famine of the Bengal province in British India during World War II. I have a suggestion and an error to point out. The latter first. The use of "of" and "in" are erroneous here. The subject matter, an event concerning a locality, happens in that locality. Next, it is correct to say that the Bengal province was in British India, but it's a piece of that body, like how an arm is a limb of the human body. Thus, The Bengal famine happens in the Bengal province of British India during World War II. Now the suggestion: replace this non-current text (Bengal province of British India) with the current information in Footnote B (The area now constitutes [...]), thereby reducing it. Let the rest of the article explain that this used to be a British possession – the lead is for brevity.
    • I envision this: The Bengal famine of 1943 (Bengali: পঞ্চাশের মন্বন্তর pônchasher mônnôntôr) was a major famine in modern-day Bangladesh and the Indian states of West Bengal, Tripura, and Orissa. Footnote B should be deleted once this is affected; the cyclone mentioned on 10 April 1943 does not occur again in the article.
      • I removed mention of the Orissa cyclone, and swapped "in" and "of". I'm afraid that your further suggestions would create an anachronism, since the famine did not occur in Bangladesh, since Bangladesh did not yet exist. Trust me, that wording would be reverted in FAC. I know because an excellent image that very clearly illustrates the effects of smallpox File:Smallpox child.jpg was the subject of ongoing consternation in an earlier FAC, until I finally gave in and removed it. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Carry on. I hope I've been and will continue to be the most hassle-free of your reviewers. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
          • I am deeply grateful for your patience and courteous good will. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Footnotes C, D, & E: Keep recommendations for further reading to "Further reading"; axe these.
    • I deleted a sentence from [C] that suggests further reading, although it broke my heart to do so & did it under protest. I think giving useful information to readers is a primary goal... changed [D] to an sfn. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Footnote F: Convert this into a citation. The quotation could be kept by using the |ps= parameter in Template:sfn.
    • I think I did all these, or as much as I saw. If you see another that can be converted, please let me know. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Footnote G: The first sentence of this footnote is redundant and should be axed.
    • I think that footnote is used twice, and the first sentence is not redundant in the second use... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Background[edit]

  • Footnote L: The harvardref at the end should be moved to the beginning of the note to match all prior footnotes citing the Famine Inquiry Commission.
    • done
  • Footnote O would be best located at three diverse economic and social groups: or at the end of the sentence to which it is attached.
    • ((ping|Vami_IV}} I moved it behind "particularly in Bengal,"... I think I'm caught up with your comments. Thank you for your attention ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Footnote R should either receive a reliable citation or be axed outright.
  • I think the terms for the social classes should be more often utilized; it would reduce prose size and make it easier for the reader to know who's who.
    • @Vami IV: I just now re-read the Background section and it's all quite clear to me. But perhaps that's because I am familiar with the content. What part were you referring to specifically? Tks ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Nevermind; it is quite clear, and having read ahead now there's not really a lot of opportunity to use the Persian/Urdu terms. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 13:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Make the current thumbnail text for the image of the Sundarbans its alt-text; it's a bit long for something that is already obvious to whoever can see the image.
    • Shortened thumbnail text; just made previous thumbnail text the alt text ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The flooding of fallow fields Is this flooding during the crisis or from regular monsoons?

Pre-famine shocks and distress[edit]

  • one million Indians My understanding of India, though minimal, is that it is a country of many ethnicities, not to mention two or three major religions. I am therefore confused by the use of "Indians" here.
    • Yes, and the two biggest are Hindu and Muslim. But since AFAIK everybody from India ran for India, the collective term "Indians" is applicable ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • [...], even as the beginning of a food crisis began to become apparent. This could be reduced; even as a food crisis began.
  • As a second prong, a "boat denial" policy How about The second prong?
    • Done
  • Footnote AN: This is generally not the place to bash a scholar's work.
    • rm "incorrectly" ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
      • If it's incorrect information, why should it stay? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
        • To guard against the (admittedly unlikely, in this case, because it isn't attention-grabbing like the mortality figures) event that anyone tries to "correct" it by citing the erroneous figure. Actually, there are even bigger errors about other dates in other sources. Some errors left unmentioned in this article are "yuge" (as in, off by a year, screwing up the whole timeline, potentially confusing everyone who is paying any attention at all). So I guess if you really wanna delete this we can. I'll do it now. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Footnotes & references[edit]

Why are footnotes containing the content of a cited passage present in the article? Are the existing citations and the prose they support not reliable enough without them?♠Vami_IV†♠ 09:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe the total number of footnotes has been reduced from 63 to 47, but I am starting to run out of opportunities to reduce them by converting to {{{sfn}}}. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Ó Gráda's 2010 article Revisiting the Bengal Famine of 1943–44 is not cited.
    • Moved to "Further reading" ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The Government of India 1945 citation is broken.

Famine, disease, and the death toll[edit]

  • The figures for the death toll are not discussed here?
    • Well yeah, this section discusses what groups of people died, what regions had higher mortality rates, and what causes of death were most frequent... the totals are discussed in the very first footnote very early on.. I suppose we could get rid of that footnote and move that text to this section. .. Actually I dunno why I never thought of that; it seems reasonable... That would make the article a little longer.... and what would I do in the infobox to verify the figures? ... but it could be done. BTW, a LOT LOT LOT of this article has been trimmed away. If you want to see the whole poopdy scoopdy (including a couple errors that were caught by myself and others later), you can look at this ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
      • MMmmm, no, on second thought, the detailed details in the detailed footnote are too detailed. They don't fit with body text. I can try to add one summary sentence copied from the lede... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
        • For once I'm not saying to outright obliterate a section of the article. Hell, you could economically use that first Footnote again with some sums of fatalities in summary via a named footnote, like Footnote G. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 14:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

() That footnote is already a named footnote. It is used in the lede and used in the infobox. So you wanna use it three times? Fine with me... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I slept on it and realized my suggestion was dumb since the article prose is supposed to expand on the lead content. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@Lingzhi2: Go with the idea you responded to this inquiry, but maintain the first Footnote. Move the majority of its content out of it and into a paragraph under this section, and have that Footnote refer to this paragraph, or better yet link to it with the anchors/bookmarks you use elsewhere in the article.
To be honest, I still think "Dyson had this number, Greenough had that number" is too detailed for body text...I tried to add the total mortality, the footnote, and beef up the text.. actually, I've sorta kinda reordered that entire section. Please give it a look and let me know what you think. Tks! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Works for me. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Economic and political effects[edit]

  • Replace the period at the end of the the last sentence of the first paragraph with a colon or add a citation to it.
    • I tweaked it to make it clear that it referred to the table. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Causation[edit]

A better name for this section would be "Historiography", as "Background" and "Pre-famine shocks and distress" already give the causes while this section discusses what historians thought the cause was.♠Vami_IV†♠ 12:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Done ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

GA(R) Progress[edit]

This review, though it will be slow in coming, is in progress.

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose (Symbol support vote.svg) 1b. MoS (Symbol support vote.svg) 2a. ref layout (Symbol support vote.svg) 2b. cites WP:RS (Symbol support vote.svg) 2c. no WP:OR (Symbol support vote.svg) 3a. broadness (Symbol support vote.svg)
3b. focus (Symbol support vote.svg) 4. neutral (Symbol support vote.svg) 5. stable (Symbol support vote.svg) 6a. free or tagged images (Symbol support vote.svg) 6b. pics relevant (Symbol support vote.svg)
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked Symbol comment 2.png are unassessed


Comments by Lingzhi2[edit]

"The Bengal Famine of 1943 stands out as a great calamity even in an age all too familiar with human suffering and death on a tragic scale."

 — The opening sentence of Famine Inquiry Commission (1945), Report on Bengal, Government of India Press, quoted in W. R. Aykroyd (1974), The Conquest of Famine, London: Chatto&Windus.

  • @Vami IV: and all others.. I'm gonna try to stand back and avoid bothering/interrupting folks. I don't wanna be a nuisance... But I do wanna make one general statement about the prose size of the article. This topic is huge in more ways than one. It genuinely merits the prose size it is given... The size, at 72 kb, would put it somewhere around 165th from the top on a descending list of GA articles by prose size and somewhere around 80th (give or take a few) among FAs. (See this thread for a table of the top 20 or so..Oh and don't get confused by looking at the table for alt text size.. the prose size table is lower on the page I think). Moreover, there have been several comments made by FAC people that the "Size guideline" section of WP:TOOBIG might need to be revised or simply kinda mostly ignored, in many cases, when the topic merits the size... This one does. Amartya Sen's analysis of it marked a turning point in the research area of famines (as Fowler&fowler suggested), and of course it is an epochal catastrophe. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I generally agree that this topic is a major topic, and that the usual rules of WP about article size not be applied stringently to it. The Famine Commission of 1945 said it all. See the quote box. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
indeed. Ceoil (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I would like to add that I'll be taking a vacation from Wikipedia very soon. After this rigorous GAR, I expect the article will go to its well-deserved FAC. I won't be here, but please consider this post an expression of my Support for promotion to FA. The article has seen major improvements since I opposed it at an earlier FAC. May I take this opportunity also to express my thanks, admiration, and congratulations to @Lingzhi2: for persevering with this article through thick and thin. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

() This is Triple Crown material if I ever saw it. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you muchly, Vami_IV, for such a diligent review. Ceoil (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

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


Hayley Westenra[edit]

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

Fails WP:GAFAIL 3. Pinging @Drmies: who added the tags and pruned content, and also @Nerd271: who also pruned some content. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  • It is going to take a lot of work to get this to GA level: the article is just littered with promotional and semi-promotional stuff, including trivia and fluff, and the sourcing is really below par for much of the content. Go through the history and you will find the COI--maybe restoring the version before that is a good start, but that's very drastic. Maybe. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
    • See this edit, for instance, by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, and I see they reverted such edits back in 2011 already. No, Eastenra did this article no favor with edits like this--and I see that I tagged it in 2011 as well; Eastenra reverted right after; they should never return to the article. Now, this is the version that got promoted; this was reviewed later in 2007, and this is the version that was reviewed and kept in 2009. But none of these really impress me; I do not think they'd stand as GA today. And this review, Talk:Hayley Westenra/GA1, no. I'm hoping some more people will look at these three versions, and maybe I'm too harsh on them--but today's version is certainly not a GA. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
      • It is understandable that what was acceptable as for the Good Article status is no longer so today. Standards can and do change over time. Any case, more work is needed before we can reinstate its former status. We should take our time. By the way, I did a bit of digging and found she has suffered because of her fame. That's another reason for being careful what we include. Nerd271 (talk) 02:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Going back to the version some time in 2007 before a user who clearly was overly enthusiastic about this singer is not an entirely bad idea. There is no need to restore that version, however, as we can use it to get a feel of what this article was like before someone dropped a ton of unsuitable content. I agree with Drmies that more reliable sources are needed. Nerd271 (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • FoxyGrampa75, I think you should go ahead and yank this GA symbol. The article is atrocious, and I don't see anyone bringing this up to GA standards. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • FoxyGrampa75, if you'd opened this as an individual reassessment, Drmies would be right. However, since this is a community reassessment and you opened it, you cannot close it; that needs an independent closer. And there needs to be a few people giving their opinion that the article needs to be delisted. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Labrador Retriever[edit]

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

Unfortunately, I believe this article should be stripped of being listed as a Good article due to the fact that there are multiple additional citations tags in a lot of the article's sections, which IMMEDIATELY disqualifies it according to the third GA criteria. It was listed over a decade ago, in 2007, so I don't know if the rules were extremely lenient back then? Because though I haven't checked a lot of the sources, I know that it needs a lot of fixing up with updating prose with reliable citations.

There is also an issue with people simply adding free-use pictures of their labradors for the heck of it rather than with an image matching commentary reflecting the section's information. Doubt that's a GA issue though, just something I should mention. -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 02:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Agree. Unfortunately the article is now in terrible shape. Cavalryman (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Sad to see. ..but this needs lots of manpower to fix up. Will research sources soon.--Moxy 🍁 04:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Glad to hear it Moxy! -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 18:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree. This is the English-speaking Wikipedia, and for us the Labrador Retriever is arguably "the flagship dog". It should be at FA standard. The same old problem - overweight labbies again! Quick solution? Axe everything that is unsourced or dubious. That text will either return again fully cited, or simply be removed and leading to a weight reduction. I am in favor of a reclass to quality=B. Even after the axing! I would do both right now, but will be guided by your consensus. William HarrisCanis lupis track.svgtalkCanis lupis track.svg 11:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree. I call WP:CONSENSUS. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy delist I say WP:IAR and delist it now. There are way too many maintenance tags and image-spam issues for it to even need to sit in a queue any longer. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 22:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@NowIsntItTime, TenPoundHammer, Moxy, William Harris, and Cavalryman: I am speedy delisting . I guess if you want to start a reclamation drive, the article's talk page would be a good place to do it. Cheers. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you... we can now clean it up without people say ..."no no dont remove its a GA article". I am up for helping this weekend.--Moxy 🍁 01:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC
Well done Lingzhi2. Also, whether an article is at GA or even FA, that should not deter editors from ensuring that it complies with WP:POL. I will place my watch on the LR page for a week in support of the efforts here - there may be some biting necessary. "Let the games begin!" William HarrisCanis lupis track.svgtalkCanis lupis track.svg 04:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Saint Dominic in Soriano[edit]

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

It is evident to me that this article does not meet the good article criteria because very considerable amounts of it are unsourced. There are two "citation needed" tags, but there are many other things in the article which do not have citations. Here is one peculiar sentence: "The friary was rebuilt for a second time, but seems never to have regained its earlier reputation; it seems to disappear from the records." If the friary seemed to disappear from the records, how do we know that it was rebuilt? The whole sentence is, by the way, unsourced. There is a section entitled "Notes," which lists five separate items. None of these are sourced. The notes are also so clearly tainted with WP:Editorializing that they would need revision even if there were citations.

I am choosing community reassessment because I previously failed a good article nomination made by the same editor who nominated this article and do not want to be accused of not having enough objectivity to make the final decision myself. But I do think that it quite clearly fails part 2 of the GA criteria, which mandates that the articles be verifiable. Looking at the version that was reviewed, the article seems to have been in even worse shape then, so I'm not sure how it managed to get passed. Display name 99 (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


Catch 21[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending
  • Out of 11 sources, six are from GSN itself and one is a press release. This is extremely poor sourcing for a supposed GA class article.
  • About.com link is dead. The death of sources was addressed on the talk page in 2014 but nobody did anything.
  • I'm not sure that About.com or Hollywood Junket are reliable sources. This leaves very little in terms of actual verifiable secondary content.

Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 03:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: Admittedly this is probably a bit weak for a GA as it stands, but I thought it was the best I could do given the limited resources of GSN shows at the time (and, as evidenced by the promotion, at least one other person seemed to agree). Regardless, that was three years ago and my researching skills have improved since then, so maybe there's some more stuff out there (especially now that it's back).
I have fixed the former About.com link; regarding reliability, I have used the two in numerous GAs before and haven't had many issues with it, nor have the sights ever to my knowledge deliberately given out false information. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
The issue is more that very few sources are not from GSN in some fashion. Compared to the level of detail some GSN originals get this is practically the Lord of the Rings books. The reboot of this show has just started too, meaning there might be a chance to gather more information on both the original and rebooted runs. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 07:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)