Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main Discussion Nominations Reassessment GA Cup Instructions Criteria Report Help Desk
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
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 user 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 previous delisting or 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.

Before attempting to have any article delisted through reassessment, take these steps:

  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. Make sure that the problems you see in the article are covered by the actual good article criteria. 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.
  4. 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, if recently GA reviewed, 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.

← (All archives) Crystal Clear app file-manager.png Good article reassessment (update archive number) (Current archive: 60) →

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]

Nissan Leaf[edit]

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

Article has grown far too large[edit]

  • The current version of this article has grown to 17,522 words (readable prose, excluding infoboxes, captions, etc). The version that was assessed as GA back in 2010 was only 5,062 words. There is no hard and fast rule, but Wikipedia:Article size says that when an article reaches 50kb readable prose, it's about time to consider splitting or pruning. This beast has grown to more than double that, 104kb.
Note that article size is not a GA criterion, but an excessively large artilce can have problems with criteria 1 Well written (prose is clear and concise, complies with MOS), 3b (staying focused) and 4 Neutrality, giving due weight. The obvious issues here are poor organization, such as the battery discussion in multiple places, and excessive detail. There is a great deal of consumer guide style analysis of costs that is not likely to belong in an encyclopedia. None of the FAs about cars are anywhere near this large, but are in the 6k to 7k word range. Many GAs about cars are only 2,000-3,000 words, and none of them exceed 7,000 words. Holden Commodore is the longest one, a car made for almost 40 years, and it's only 6,800 words.

I have to ask again: Why is this article so long? What is special about this topic? The Mitsubishi i-MiEV electric car is only 6,600 words. What's the reason? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Partial list of other issues[edit]

This article would fail GA based on its size alone. It doesn't make sense to asses the problems in all 17,522 words since the GA version of this article would have closer to 5,000 words. Once it's down to a reasonable size, then a detailed assessment would be worthwhile. Here is a partial list of some of the issues with the current version, just to get a sense of how much work needs to be done to get this back to GA quality:

  • Grammar and punctuation errors:
    • "With the 24 kWh electric vehicle battery (total capacity; usable battery capacity is about 21.3 kWh[34][35]) it consists of 48 modules and each module contains four battery cells, a total of 192 cells, and is assembled by Automotive Energy Supply Corporation (AESC) – a joint venture between Nissan, NEC and NEC Energy Devices, at Zama, Japan"
    • "Nissan stated in 2015 that until then only 0.01 percent of batteries, produced since 2010, had to be replaced because of failures or problems and then only because of externally inflicted damage."
    • "(In the United States models, only comes with SL trim.[49])"
  • Repetitive reference to 10 year life span "The battery pack is expected to retain 70–80% of its capacity after 10 years but its actual lifespan depends on how often DC fast charging (480 volts DC) is used and also on driving patterns and environmental factors.[33][41] Nissan said the battery will lose capacity gradually over time but it expects a lifespan of over 10 years under normal use". "Is expected to last 10 years" and "Nissan expects a lifespan of over 10 years". Which is it?
  • Overlinking United States, United States Environmental Protection Agency, battery pack, model year, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, United Kingdom
  • Promotional language:
    • "Some vehicles have already covered more than 200,000 km (120,000 miles) with no battery problems" The fact that some exceed the expected average is normal; that's where averages come from.
    • Most of the paragraph on battery life is sourced to Nissan's claims rather than independent sources.
    • A list of bullet points devoted to Nissan's advice for battery maintenance
    • Buried at the end of the section, only two sentences spent on evidence that the batteries are not quite as good as initially claimed. This should be rewritten giving more prominent placement to contrary views, and most of the content should come from the assessment of independent experts, not Nissan's claims.
    • Wikipedia's voice argues against the critics of the battery: "Nissan reported that in Europe only 3 of 35,000 Leaf batteries had failed."
    • Costs of battery pack are given. WP:NOPRICES requires reasons why we are including street prices, such as comparison with similar products and reasons why these prices are of special interest. Same goes for prices of battery replacement program.
    • Also contains a list of prices by country, again without justification per WP:NOPRICES.
    • Further down, a section on battery issues is forked off from the main battery section. It cites crowdsourced information. Why do we introduce the topic of battery failure in the first battery section, and don't mention that this is incomplete, and that we are going to revisit it in depth later? Wouldn't it make more sense to consolidate everything about the batteries under one heading, so that the positive claims can be set directly against the negative criticisms, and the defenses of the criticisms? Forking different points of view from one another is poor style, and not considered neutral.
  • WP:WEASEL, WP:EDITORIAL, WP:ALLEGED: "It is notable...", "actually", "claimed", "However" --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • comment I've split off the market/sales section into a different article. It's messed up the refs in both places, but the referencing bot should hopefully sort that out soon. The length is down to just over 50k readable prose now.GliderMaven (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • That's a good start, but it's hard to believe that you could take a 17,500 words article, and quickly chop off 8,000 words from a single section, and have the result still be a Good Article, if it was to begin with. The basic questions are: why are some sections of this article so incredibly long? The development section is a brief two paragraphs, then the Specifications section runs to over 5,000 words, although I think that's a mistake. There's sub sections on range for each iteration, and a sections on operating cost, Total cost of ownership, payback time etc, that don't belong under Specifications. It hasn't been thought out at all. Why don't any other car articles break the fuel economy section down into 3 sub-sections on operating cost, total cost of ownership, and payback time?

    I'll note again that large swaths of this excessive detail only cite Nissan as the source. No article should devote so much space to paraphrasing product press releases. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Further notes[edit]

  • Development history
    • Run on sentence "Nissan also developed the Nissan Hypermini, ran a demonstration program and sold limited numbers for government and corporate fleets in Japan between 1999 and 2001"
    • Very long and confusing sentence. Which one included an 80 kW electric motor? Does the US EPA have a "driving cycle, navigation system, and remote control and monitoring via a cellphone"? Or does the car (is it the EV-11 or the Tilda?) have an 80 kw motor, 24kw battery, a navigation system, remote control, and monitoring? "Unveiled in 2009, the EV-11 prototype electric car was based on the Nissan Tiida (Versa in North America), but with the conventional gasoline engine replaced with an all-electric drivetrain, and included an 80 kW (110 hp)/280 N·m (210 lb·ft) electric motor, 24 kWh lithium-ion battery pack rated to have a range of 175 km (109 miles) on the United States Environmental Protection Agency's LA-4 or "city" driving cycle, navigation system, and remote control and monitoring via a cellphone connection through Nissan's secure data center to the car'"
    • The source here is described as "Abuelsamid, Sam (2009-07-27). "Nissan shows off new Versa-based electric vehicle prototype". In fact, it is simply a copy of a Nissan press release [1].
    • "Goodwin, Antuan (2009-04-02). "Test-driving the Nissan EV-02 electric car". cnet. Retrieved 2010-04-25." sounds like an objective review, but in fact none of the test drive is in this article. It's just another collection of statements from a Nissan marketing guy.
    • Two of the five different sources in this paragraph are press releases, though only one is marked correctly.
    • The Development section is too short, and lacking in substantive details, instead favoring a list of advertised features that Nissan chose to tout. What do independent experts say about the development history of this car? What about it's intended market niche? It's goals? Did Nissan want to profit off this car? Burnish it's green image? Develop new technology? Why did they develop it? Were there problems during development? Such a long article but it's lacking in important details.
  • Battery replacement program
  • this source (Blanco, Sebastian (2013-06-20). "Nissan Leaf battery replacement will cost $100/month, offers new pack at any time". AutoblogGreen) is a preliminary announcement of the program, which is short on the final details of how it would work. We devote a whole paragraph to the June 2013 version of this program, then add another paragraph that traces the development of it to the June 2014 version. How important is it to devote space to every detail of the program, including incremental versions of it?
  • The Blanco source above does point out that the existence of battery replacement is a "change of heart from Nissan", an admission that their original lofty claims about their batteries were overoptimistic. Why was Nissan wrong about their batteries? How did it affect the business model of the Leaf? How did car owners feel about this? Did they think it was a bait and switch? This is a topic we should cover more here.
  • We have a forked off "reported issues" section below that tackles all this in depth, but why do we leave the reader hanging with these questions? While a criticism type section is allowed, the essay WP:CSECTION makes a strong case that a better organization is to integrate the issues in context. So battery problems go with the battery section. Now we have broken chronology: 1) Nissan rolls out the car promising batteries that last 10+ years. 2)consumer complaints, controversy, lawsuits 3) battery replacement program 3.5) what was the reaction to that anyway? 4) class action settlement. Besides the reasons for integration in WP:CSECTION, simple chronology argues for telling the battery story once, in one place.
    • Since this article has a bloat problem, we also want to avoid redundancy when possible. When you have to tackle the battery in 3+ different sections, and you're telling the events out of order, you have to do some review to keep the reader up to speed. This article can't afford to waste space on review and repetition.
    • I expect this issue is going to come up again and again. Most components of this car are covered in the same way as the battery, out of order, and in multiple sections. So the need to consolidate applies everywhere, not just the battery. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it's great that you are taking a detailed look at an old Good Article, but I think you're looking for the Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. That is for reassessing articles that are currently listed as Good Articles but may not meet the criteria anymore. The nomination process is for evaluating articles which are not currently listed as Good Articles. Knope7 (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not the least bit surprised that I have failed to follow your 1,000 bureaucratic rules to perfection. Pretty sure that's about par. The point is, this article hasn't been anywhere close to GA status for years. (And the editor most responsible for driving it away from GA status has reverted everybody else's edits on the grounds that it's a GA!)

But I can't just say, "Hey, GA people, fix this" because they will always say, "No, too busy." So I'm doing it myself. Obviously that doesn't meet whatever byzantine hoops are required, but I'm pretty sure the outcome is the same.

This thing needs to be delisted. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Moving from GAN to GAR and listing as a community reassessment per discussion at User talk:Dennis Bratland. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments etc from others[edit]

Comment: The references are not in very good shape:

  • The following references are dead or seem to be dead: #93, #83, #70, #66, #60, #69
  • These can't be found: #30, #5, #65, #16
  • These require registration/subscription: #116, #88
  • This one can't be found: #6

So, not sure that GA Criteria 2A is being fulfilled in this case. Also...the SIZE of this article - it's insane! If you printed it out this article would come to 40 pages! I think it needs to heavily-edited and then what's left could possibly be split into sub-articles. Shearonink (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


SpaceX reusable launch system development program[edit]

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

Greetings! I came across this page recently, and it looks like the article could use some work to get back to meeting the GA criteria. Specifically, there are sections that are completely uncited, a section that using bulleted entries when it could be prose (not following MoS), and it does not seem very neutral (calling a section routine procedure after one reflown booster?).

I would correct all these myself, but it looks like a very large project and I am honestly not interested in putting that level of effort in. I can contribute in reviewing and doing some of the changes required however. Kees08 (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. We can work to add citations, there are plenty of good sources available. Regarding "routine procedure", we are talking about the first-stage landings, which have indeed become standard and routine. You are correct to note that relaunching boosters is not routine yet, but the article does not say that. — JFG talk 19:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good, let's at least get some citations in that section and maybe clarify it a little. Both SpaceX and other citations would be good, in an effort to level out the POV. I can go through the whole article and pick out specific things, but I think you generally know what needs improved, so if you want you can just ping me when the major issues are addressed and I can go through it in detail after that. Whatever works for me. Kees08 (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Luis Muñoz Marín[edit]

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

I am asking for a community reassessment of this page as I believe it no longer meets the criteria for a GA. Large chunks of this article lack sources, and much of the rest of it is based on a single source, which is a little problematic. There are also issues with neutrality, which are connected to the sourcing issue (since much of the puffery is unsourced) but some of the language would be a problem even with sources. I'd delist it myself, except this is my first time participating in the GAR process, so I thought I'd take it slow. Vanamonde (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


YouTube[edit]

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

This was sitting in the backlog following a GAR request template placement. It was awaiting reassessment when an IP vandalized the template. After the reversion, AnomieBot placed it fresh in the list. As a result, I am starting an immediate reassessment of the article, but since this is such an important article, I have opened it as a community reassessment because I would not like to do this alone. I will not let an IP delay an article's reassessment like that, that's not fair. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 12:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I get that this is a hugely important article, but is it truly necessary that the article need be 188,000 bytes long? Holy crap. There must be some irrelevant content in here. I smell a serious criterion 3B violation here. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 12:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The readable text in the article actually isn't that long. It looks larger than it is because the "Comparison of YouTube media encoding options" and "Countries with YouTube Localization" have been hidden and make the HTML look larger. If these are taken out, it removes around 60,000 bytes. The article is not of excessive length when read through without the tables. The readable text in the article is around 115,000 bytes, which isn't hugely excessive per WP:SIZERULE. There are Featured Articles at 150k or more.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh? Is there any other issue you see here? dannymusiceditor Speak up! 19:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not overly concerned about the length of the actual text as explained above, but will have a detailed read through of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with this Good article reassessment, as YouTube has good quality and readable text in the article. I think that YouTube should stay as GA. Jamesjpk (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree. I began this reassessment because it was listed under the ones possibly needing reassessment, and was unfairly delayed. The number of bytes was at first concerning, so I wanted to check with the community. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 15:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Plasma (physics)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending
  • Plasma (physics) should be demoted of WP:GA status as the article has several {{citation needed}} tags. Some of the sections of the article such as "Degree of ionization", "Plasma potential", "Mathematical descriptions" are completely unreferenced. This means the article should be delisted as a good article as it does not meet criteria #2b as the article does not seem to meet "all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;" with some unreferenced sections.-KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 23:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I initially added the GA reassessment tag mainly due to lack of sources. In addition to the above, the section common plasmas is very hard to source even a posteriori. The research section was taken from a questionable website [plasmas.com] (the link has since been removed). The quality of this (early-days GA) article has fallen below the GA standards we uphold nowadays. Yinweichen (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Matt Striker[edit]

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

This article is written like an autobiography. It is an extensive document with heaps of redundant, irrelevant, repeated information. Many of the sources are unreliable and biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorrybutnope (talkcontribs)

I don't mind working a bit and improving this article. Its quality has definitely decreased throughout the years. I've already done a little cleanup. I'll work a bit more on it in the next few days. In the meantime, please list any specific concerns for me to address. Nikki311 01:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


Star Wars[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending
To my dismay I am nominating this article for reassessment. Sourcing is the main concern. As can be seen huge amount of sourcing is needed. Other sourcing problems includes lots of primary and fan sources. There is also chart spam over proposed text and other maintenance tags such as "too long" . Also looks as if leads from sub-articles are just pasted here......lots to fix. --Moxy (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree- This article has obviously grown a lot since 2008 when it was named a good article. Movies have come out since then and a lot of attention was drawn to the series. It's grown too fast to the point where it was not all quality work. Plus there are too many sub-sections. Why are all the movies described in detail when each has its own substantial article? And since there are multiple maintenance tags, I do not believe it should remain a good article. El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Counter Logic Gaming[edit]

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

I came across several maintenance templates on this article just now, and would like for someone to further assess the matter. A good article cannot have these templates. Cognissonance (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Primary or unreliable sources up the wazoo. This is an easy delist. --Izno (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delist: At no point should this article have been promoted. Pardon my soapbox, but we need higher standards than this, especially for the subject of esports. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 01:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delist - Echoing others this shouldn't have been promoted. There are too many issues with this article and I believe this should be immediately demoted. GamerPro64 01:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree it should be delisted. Requesting that an uninvolved editor close the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. –Cognissonance (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The Fine Young Capitalists[edit]

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

The majority of the sources used when it was made a good article were of very poor quality (please see discussion on article talk page.) The notability of the subject is questionable - WP:BLP1E may apply. Mostly, it hard fails the verifiability requirement of being a good article, and without the information included that was previously sourced poorly, the article'd be tiny and could hardly be considered to meet the 'broad coverage' requirement of being a good article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I haven't followed this article for a while, but I see a talk page discussion on sources and content (and there is clear disagreement between editors), and a number of recent edits that haven't gained clear consensus on the talk page. I didn't have time to go through every edit, but I doubt that the current revision is any better than the version that passed GA. What is obvious is the number of sources removed from the article: this was without consensus as evident on the talk page. Something needs to be done to the article, and leaving it in its current state (with GA status stripped) is certainly not the best solution for readers. feminist 13:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

An article being "tiny" has never stopped an article from being high quality. If being tiny was grounds to remove an article from its current status then MissingNo. should be removed from Featured Article. The vagueness of the nominator's when it comes to the sourcing in general here is rather unprofessional as its lack of specifics prevents people from actually fixing the article to maintain its GA status. GamerPro64 14:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Presumably other "tiny" articles have better sourcing than this one did. I don't know if some things have changed in the last three years, but a distressing number of the sources here are/were not reliable.--Cúchullain t/c 16:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
how did this article pass GA in the first place? several nonRS: campusreform, gameranx, cinemablend, gamesnosh ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't explain why Daily Dot and GamePoltics were also removed. The ones you mentioned besides campusreform, which I know nothing about, are unreliable on here. GamerPro64 17:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Wow, again I have to ask how that passed GA originally, it's riddled with WP:CRYSTALBALL. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Suspect the article was incompletely or just not screened. Artw (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The GA assessement is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Fine_Young_Capitalists#GA_Review ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I would have to agree with PeterTheFourth there. Artw (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to get involved with this GAR, but as the (second) GAN reviewer, I take issue with the idea that the version on December 3, 2015 was "riddled with WP:CRYSTALBALL" and therefore I didn't review it properly. The bit in the article I promoted said that TFC responded to criticism by "by offering to sell" t-shirts. That's not the same thing as "sold". The wording means that it was just an offer, not that it actually got sold. --PresN 17:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
per wp:crystalball "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."
  1. The t-shirts didn't happen. Should not have been included.
  2. "Later, TFYC reported a resolution to its disagreement with Quinn, though founder Matthew Rappard later stated their agreement never went through" That's reporting on something that didn't happen.
  3. There was the part about SNless that I had to take out, because it didn't happen either.
Those are the crystalball problems.
-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
An interview (from a questionable RS, probably nonRS) was used to support these claims:
  1. "most would go to charity," a crystalball and unverifiable via the interview
  2. "TFYC reported a resolution" ignoring the crystalball part of it not having happened, this should not have been included because an interview from only one party can't be used to verify a resolution to an issue between two parties.
-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
All of those "events" were to take place in the past. The article correctly stated that they had been planned, but did not happen- i.e. that the plans were real, but did not move beyond plans. Crystalball is about future events, not past events that did not make it out of the planning stages. Had the article said "TFYC plans to release t-shirts", or "TFYC is going to release t-shirts", then you'd be correct in calling it crystalball, but it didn't. You are fundamentally misreading the guideline. Additionally, I'm not going to argue whether or not those sources are reliable, but to hold that for any agreement regarding multiple parties that you need sources from all the parties to include it is absolutely ridiculous. So, if a game developer gets a publishing deal with another company, we need statements from both companies? If there's a trade agreement between 15 countries, we'd better end the sentence with 15 citations? If a source is reliable, and a party claims that an agreement has been made, then at most you could insist on a wording that "X said they reached an agreement with Y" instead of "X made an agreement with Y", but even that is usually going to be pedantic; removing it altogether is just dumb. --PresN 14:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, I'd recommend just deleting/redirecting this article if this is the way it's going to be reviewed. This was a flash-in-the-pan piece of gamergate fluff that got some press for being controversial but never went anywhere. If we're going to hold it to the standard that a) anything they said about themselves or their plans in interviews doesn't count, and b) any reporting done by pro-am sources that didn't exist long enough to make it on VG/RS doesn't count, then frankly there's like 2 paragraphs left. Maybe less; does an indiegogo campaign made by TFYC count as a reliable source for even itself? I mean, TFYC isn't a reliable source, apparently, about their own plans and intentions, so all we can source is that a campaign supposedly by them existed, which probably isn't enough to support an article. --PresN 14:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "All of those "events" were to take place in the past." Per wp:crystalball: "Wikipedia does not predict the future", they should not have been included. Predictions that could be wrong should not be included. Looking back from 2017, it's clear that many of those predictions were wrong (or unverifiable); they should not have been included
  • "anything they said about themselves or their plans in interviews doesn't count" Actually, certain self claims are ok, but Wikipedia is all about what is verifiable, and controversial claims that aren't verified should not have been included. Self-report of controversial claims need secondary sources. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
  • uncontroversial: "We call ourselves TFYC. We claim to be radical feminist" - can put that in from an interview.
  • controversial: "We have settled a dispute with someone we were in conflict with." - cannot put that in without a secondary source
  • needs verification: "We donated $x dollars to charity." - in this case, given that TFYC got mixed in with GG, this is could be controversial, and as a fact, it is not verified though a self-claim.
  • "just deleting/redirecting this article" I deleted all the stuff that needed better sourcing (and reverted); there might still be an article left after that. But perhaps the decision on the RS to stew for at least a week. And then after that see what's left.
  • "flash-in-the-pan" seeing as TFYC have gone in active, maybe that is reason to merge it in the GGC article.
-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @ForbiddenRocky: There's a book that mentions TFYC that might be worth using in the article. Defining Identity and the Changing Scope of Culture in the Digital Age. GamerPro64 02:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@GamerPro64: Thanks. I'll look into it. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
OMG that's a lot to digest. I think a fair bit of that could be used, but I notice some problems but those can be dealt with, I think. But given how long I think it would take to integrate that source, and how weak some of the other sources are, I think removing the GA is the right thing to do for now. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Mountain Railways of India[edit]

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

While the recent cleanup edits have removed several of the article's deficiencies, it is still not quite at GA.

Some of the issues:

It is mis-named, and badly misnamed. This is an article about the UN heritage sites, not about mountain railways in India. Simply looking briefly at existing railways with wiki articles, the Kangra Valley Railway and the Lumding-Badarpur section are or contain mountain railway, and are active or intact. Looking at defunct system, or systems since converted such as Cherra Companyganj State Railways and some of the Satpura narrow-gauge lines will obviously expand the list much farther. The article is not broad in coverage,but restricted to a small portion of its nominal subject.

Much of the sourcing is from a touristic/passenger POV, emphasizing picturesqueness, and, because of that, it was (and related articles were), until recently afflicted with touristical glurge in their sourcing, with both the accuracy and NPOV problems such sources bring.

Finally, an article just undergoing a major re-write is, by definition, not stable. Give a month or three first. An article can't be both a "good article" and in need of major editing. Anmccaff (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Just two responses: 1) The UNESCO site is called "Mountain Railways of India," so I think the name is proper. And if not, it can easily be changed; and 2) The Guild of Copy Editors has a board where people can request a CE when they are thinking of nominating their article to become a good or featured article. So it isn't fair to say that getting a copy-edit means the article is bad. I recently did a CE on Steller's sea cow, which is currently being nominated as a FA. Just my opinion. I didn't write the article, I just edited it, but I don't think it's fair to strip it just now. El cid, el campeador (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
The UNESCO cite originally covered only one of the railways, then two, then three...what do you think the second two were before UNESCO designation? I'd suggest since they were, in fact, "mountain railways" located in "India" that they were examples of "mountain railways of India" from their building, and UNESCO's designation is superfluous. There are other mountain railways in India still, and there were once even more of them, to say nothing about the mountain railways in what used to be India.Anmccaff (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
It isn't a question of whether the article was "bad", but if it met and meets Wiki's rubric for good articles. If you had to change it, it may not have been good before, and it certainly isn't "stable" if it's recently been changed. Anmccaff (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep-If the article is badly named, request a move. All claims seem sourced. Some of the sources-though I can't say all-might be biased. The article itself seems neutral enough. I also don't understand how an article that recently underwent major changes cannot be considered a good article. If that "major editing" helps the article, why would you nominate it for delisting? Display name 99 (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
If the major editing improved the article, then the article is not stable. Stability imples that it has settled on a version that needs no substantive improvement, which obviously isn't the case if it was just substantively improved. Give it a week, or a month, or whatever, but don't claim, as editfests seem to far too often, "instant stability." Anmccaff (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
If the article grossly fails to meet one or more of the GA criteria, we can talk about demoting it. But to suggest that an article ought to be demoted after it was "substantially improved" falls nothing short of pure insanity.
Did you read the definition of "stability" at WP:Good article criteria? I'm guessing you haven't in a while, so I'll quote it for you. It declares that the article must "not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." So there's no edit war or content dispute, just somebody improving the article's quality. And somehow that's a reason to downgrade it? Perhaps before the article was not GA worthy. Now it seems as though it is. My suggestion for you is to read the GA criteria, determine what it means, contemplate your actions carefully, and to stop punishing people for making Wikipedia better. Display name 99 (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I have read it recently, have you considered that the only reason I (and possibly others) are not actively editing is to give the question here a chance to be settled? If you'd prefer, I'll mark up all the sections that are dubious, &cet. There certainly is a content dispute; we have an article supposedly about "mountain railways of India" which ignores most examples of them, and almost all historical examples. Huge amounts of potential content are missing.
Next, you are assuming that the article now meets standards; as mentioned explicitly above; I feel it does not, since The article is not broad in coverage,but restricted to a small portion of its nominal subject.
Finally, stop assuming that something you don't agree with is aimed at "punishing people for making Wikipedia better; perhaps I don't see this as making Wikipedia better. In fact, I see labeling this in its current form a "feature article" as making Wikipedia a laughingstock. Anmccaff (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Your previous posts focused most heavily on the article not being stable. I was responding to that. The discussion that we are having here does not count as a content dispute. A content dispute would be marked by frequent reverts or drama on the talk page. The idea that an article should be delisted because of a major improvement still sounds just as ridiculous, but your expanded emphasis on the broadness issue seems to have more credibility. Perhaps El cid, el campeador could expand the scope of the article's coverage so that it will better quality as a GA. Display name 99 (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion that we are having here does not count as a content dispute....but it would, you know, were it elsewhere. Should I move it there now? The idea that an article should be delisted because of a major improvement still sounds just as ridiculous. To you, perhaps. As I see it, if it needed major improvement, it probably wasn't given a very good GA review, or it may have suffered from accumulated bad edits. Either way, it has never had a GA review in in its current form, and allowing it to keep the status either because it had once met it, or because someone had mistakenly thought it did, is just silly. Anmccaff (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The only reason for this dispute is because you nominated the article to be delisted. You're basically saying that because you nominated an article for reassessment and thus caused a content dispute, the article should be delisted because of that very same dispute that you initiated. By that logic, every GA reassessment that resulted in any kind of discussion whatsoever-as I imagine nearly all do-would result in the article being delisted simply because of the discussion. Can you see the absurdity in that way of thinking? Display name 99 (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The reason I nominated it is because it isn't a very good article, even if it is slightly improved from when it was a very bad article. The content disputes mentioned above haven't been settled, or even addressed. Until they are, the article is not stable. Nothing in the least absurd about that; but there is a tiny bit of absurdity in the idea that "goodness" is a permanent irrevocable condition. Anmccaff (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

PS:[Here]'s the original "good" article. Do you think this is now essentially the same article? Do you think this article, in its 2010 from, should have passed GA review? Anmccaff (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I can take a look at that. But did you notice this edit, which seems to have removed a whole lot of content? Maybe it includes some of the missing material that you're referring to. If so you can challenge it. Display name 99 (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Clover (creature)[edit]

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

I happen to bump in to this article fairly recently and was quite shocked to find out that this was promoted to GA status even though a number of claims in the article require citations. This shouldn't be listed for now until those citation templates (and that one that requests a clarification) are resolved. Bluesphere 06:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delist: The article is not substantive, the lead does not touch base on main points, the content is largely in-universe and the one external link is for the film and not Clover. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 07:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Me & the Rhythm[edit]

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

Article was nominated by a now confirmed and indeffed sock account of MaranoFan. While not vandalism, suggest and request re-review per WP:DENY as the nominator should neither have edited nor nominated the article. -- ψλ 19:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delist even if the nominator wasn't a sock, this article was passed prematurely when it has questionable-at-best citations (namely "Vancitybuzz" and "Inquistr", goes into too much detail on parent album, says nothing about commercial performance (however minor it might have been), and neglects to mention any of its live performances except for a concert on Today. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delist as well. Vancitybuzz seemed legit to me. Inquistr is always questinoble but I have taken some of those references to it now. Yes I completly overlooked the commericla performance. It does mention live perfoamcnes, read the lead. It wasn't worth having a section with one sentence. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Nero[edit]

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

This article has degraded significantly since its Good Article selection and now is poorly written. It needs an extensive re-write by someone with experience of the topic and who can commit time to do this. Personally I don't think it is even close to meeting GA status at this time and minor changes will probably not fix this. Stingray Trainer (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Stingray Trainer: I am doing a copy-edit but can you be more specific?Seraphim System (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchBank for Reconstruction and Development/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

This article relies too much on references to primary sources.(20/21) Clear Sky Talk 13:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)