Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
MainDiscussionNominationsReassessmentGA CupInstructionsCriteriaReportHelp 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 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.

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 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) Replacement filing cabinet.svg 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]

Atrocities in the Congo Free State[edit]

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

Has been tagged with neutrality concerns since December 2016. The talk page is a mess to follow, but looking at the article I noticed some Red Flags. I detailed them at the talk page a month ago, but have got no responses. Hence I am bringing it here for reassessment.

From the talk page

The above is a mess to read and follow, in part due to the strange formatting, in part due to the length and in part due to the off topic nature. RFC is mentioned multiple times, but I can't find any correctly formatted or closed one. I would like to resolve the tag or delist the article. I do think there are issues with using Belgian scholars to source information on the Congo. This may be resolved by attributing this. The Much of the violence perpetrated in the Congo was inflicted on Africans by other Africans being the obvious one, but there are other occasions where there seems to be a softening of the blame (i.e. where it says The practice was comparatively common in colonial Africa). Then you have sentences like Some have argued that the atrocities in the Free State qualify as a genocide although the term's use is disputed by most academics which are a red flag for original research. I don't think the article is particularly unsalvageable, but for a article on a topic like this it needs to be very careful on how information is presented, especially if we are calling it Good.


I feel it needs more than just myself to judge the neutrality hence the community review instead of an individual one AIRcorn (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I see it has an individual reassessment tag on the talk page but that links to the GA review of 2016. Should that tag be there? Additionally the RfC seem pertinent now that there has been a page move and a undoing of that page move today. With admittedly an incomplete read of everything I am seeing enough red flags, as noted above, to suggest delist. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I undid the page move because I did not think it reflected consensus and because the term "crimes against humanity" did not exist until after the initiation of atrocities (though actually coined because of them). I've also added some additional info from a macro history by Timothy J. Stapleton which I think helps to balance out the genocide section. I wouldn't go for a delist yet, as I think the slant in this article can be fixed. For the record, I was a participant in the original "RfC", mostly a mess of a discussion incited by an editor who refused to utilize normal Wikipedia conversation mechanics. The reason why it never truly resolved was due to the banning of the initiating editor, a cautiousness towards tweaking the controversial content, and an eventual decline in interest. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Is there any support to keeping this listed? If not I am happy to do the mechanics of closing this review. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I've done what I can to tweak the genocide to stuff to be more true to the sources and I've added some information. As such, I think we should keep the article listed as GA. Others may feel free to disagree with me, but do know that I'll be available to improve the article if they have specific suggestions. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This has gone well and truly stale. I feel there have been enough improvements to allow this to stay a Good Article, from my limited understanding of the topic anyway. Barkeep49 if you are happy I will close this as kept, otherwise it will probably end up a no-consensus to delist. AIRcorn (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I feel there are numerous issues with various parts (sample problem line: A reduction of the population of the Congo is noted by all who have compared the country at the beginning of Leopold's control with the beginning of Belgian state rule in 1908, but estimates of the death toll vary considerably. which is meant as a summary of the section to come but is a statement bold enough that it needs reworking) and think the LEAD is need of revision. This beyond the sort of detailed examination of sources that is beyond my capacity to do tat this time. I still do not feel that it meets criteria. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Ugetsu[edit]

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

The original review was insufficient and should probably be undone. Some examples of problems that were missed despite being present in the reviewed version include:

  • an entire paragraph (made particularly prominent by its being the last piece of running prose in the article) of textbook OR;[1][2]
  • a fairly clear copyvio image (tied to the above OR, also prominent because of its positioning);[3]
  • a prominent, and reoccurring, misuse of a diacritical mark;[4]
  • an unsourced claim, in the unsourced plot summary (i.e., implicitly attributed to the film itself, which is explicit that it takes place between 1467-ish and 1568-ish[5]), about the historical setting of the film "in the late 16th century";[6]
  • a plain English (as opposed to romanized Japanese) spelling error;[7]

The OR and copyvio image should have been autofail material, and the lack of anything beyond a superficial illusion of stability (the nominator was involved in an edit war over the page back in 2013,[8] the page saw only fairly minor tweaks in the four years thence,[9] and the nominator alluded to the edit warring when they returned to the page a few days before nominating their version of the page for GA[10][11]) is also concerning.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. There's been a lot of bad blood over this article (see here for example), and I hoped when I endeavoured to expand and reference beyond what the nominator had ever attempted, it was all in the past. It turned out that he was topic banned during the expansion and when that lapsed, he went right back to disrupting the article with verbose complaints on talk. [12] [13] The hints of the old grudge: an inexplicable mention of JoshuSasori, who Hijiri (under his old username Elvenscout) got banned years ago. He's made clear he associates me with Josh and how little he thinks of me [14] The above points are petty since many of them have already been edited. If he disagrees with a diatric, he can edit it. Like I said, I hoped this was all in the past, but I have little faith now that collaborative editing can maintain stability on this article anymore. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I hoped when I endeavoured to expand and reference beyond what the nominator had ever attempted, it was all in the past I've written literally hundreds of articles on Japanese culture topics, almost none of them less than 3kB in length, so even if your sticking a jab at my article creation/expansion in were not off-topic it would be simply wrong. On top of that, this has nothing to do with "bad blood": your expansion made the article worse, not better, and the GA review that followed immediately after should have noticed this. It turned out that he was topic banned during the expansion and when that lapsed, he went right back to disrupting the article with verbose complaints on talk. I appealed my TBAN almost a year ago, and I have just been gradually noticing the problems with this article since last December; I have no idea what that could have to do with any of this. The hints of the old grudge: an inexplicable mention of JoshuSasori, who Hijiri (under his old username Elvenscout) got banned years ago. Umm ... he got himself banned (without even any direct involvement on my part -- I had already left the project because of his harassment, which in turn was after my change of username), but continued to harass me for years after that. Nothing inexplicable about it: you criticized me for OR (same as he always did), when in fact you were the one engaging in OR (same as he always did); but what any of that has to do with the good article criteria I do not know. The above points are petty since many of them have already been edited. Yeah, I fixed some of them (with not-insignificant opposition from you), but they should not have been there in the first place. The original GA reviewer either passed the article because of the content that should not have been there but missed the problems (the current article includes en entire section called "Legacy" that is only four short sentences), or didn't care to check closely enough that the article had these problems; unless there is community consensus that the article, despite these problems with the initial review, still happens to meet the criteria by accident now that I have fixed the few that I noticed, it should be delisted. Like I said, I hoped this was all in the past, but I have little faith now that collaborative editing can maintain stability on this article anymore. Your battleground mentality is showing through; can we please focus on content? Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Off-topic response to off-topic "you're holding a grudge against me" accusation. Posting here only because it kinda needs to be addressed and I'm pretty sure I'm not welcome on Ribbet32's talk page.
BTW: I just went back and checked, and I actually told you last September that I had only the faintest recollection of who you were, while you indicated the previous December that you remembered me quite well. I also apologized to you 56 months after the fact for any offense my gruffness at that time may have caused. So it would make damn-near no sense for me to be the one still nursing a grudge here, if anyone is. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Leaving the past aside, as the page stands right now Hijiri88 which of the GA Criterion, listed below, do you feel that the page doesn't satisfy? I'm having some trouble seperating past issues that you've already corrected with those that you think remain. I'm hoping then there can be a discussion about the state of the article meeting those criteria and/or action taken to bring the article up to GA standard. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    C. It contains no original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
@Barkeep49: I can say with confidence that it currently fails 2, 3, 4 and 5. I am less certain about 1 (I fixed the prominent reoccurring misspelling of the protagonist's name -- I think! -- but I didn't notice "sceenwriter" until an IP fixed it, which was the last straw for me filing this GAR) and 6 (the article does contain a reasonable number of images, which if they don't have copyright problems means it's probably OK, but the initial review found the final image to be okay and it clearly wasn't; I'm not the best with image copyrights, which is one of the reasons I don't do GA reviews myself, but I don't think it's safe to assume that everything is okay now that the most blatant copyvio has been removed). As for 2, 3, 4 and 5:
The article still does contain a bit of OR that I missed; I don't want to remove it, though, because it's probably WP:TRUE and verifiable, but not currently verified, which is a problem.
2. I didn't notice until just now, but the paragraph of OR that I removed from the body was also summarized in the lead. Currently, It is credited with [...] influencing later Japanese film is not currently supported by anything in the article body or any external reliable source. Thing is, I don't actually doubt the "truth" of this statement and consequently don't want to blank it, but it needs a source that actually verifies it, without resorting to OR/SYNTH as the reviewed version did. Additionally, the fact that the article included the problematic OR/SYNTH in the first place makes me really suspicious about the other parts of the article I haven't examined in as much detail (I don't have access to a lot of the sources). The default assumption should always be that the article doesn't meet this criterion, with the burden being on those who wish to include the content and get past GAN (or in this case GAR) to get sources that verify it.
The article gave the impression of being broad during the initial review, but with the OR gone this is not the case.
3. The film almost certainly does have a legacy that deserves more than four lines of coverage in our article, and a GA-standard article would describe that without resorting to OR. The article says nothing whatsoever of the film's critical reception in its native Japan, either in the 1950s or later, and has very little to say about its initial critical reception in western countries. Another key aspect of the topic that is mentioned nowhere in the article is the film's title, which literally translates to "Tales of Rain and the Moon", but neither rain nor the moon appear to be mentioned anywhere in the article. I know that it's named after a book which itself had an abstract title, and so the film's title is, in effect, meaningless, but our readers do not know that.
Does ignoring the film's reputation in its native country count as "non-neutral"? If it doesn't then I guess this can be lumped into the above.
4. It's perhaps more a problem of systemic bias than neutrality, but the above lack of anything to say about its reception by Japanese critics and audiences (the studio's anticipation of a domestic commercial failure is not the same thing) is concerning. It's also not clear why the title of the article gives pride of place to the film's US home media title when it hasn't been seen in English-speaking countries outside North America under that title in decades, if ever. (Weirdly the article is written with British spellin -- "popularising", etc. -- despite this.)
Stability is an illusion.
5. All low-vis articles have an illusion of stability because no one ever makes significant edits to them anyway, but in this case any time the article has been the subject of significant attention it was either in the form of edit-warring (as with the variant titles in the lead back in 2013, or the period in which the film is set in 2017) or the nominator adding a large amount of material that on examination is quite problematic. That he hasn't reverted any of my fixes since December would be promising, except that he complained about it above, which indicates that he doesn't actually acknowledge that the content was problematic and would reinsert it if he thought he could get away with it: and technically, since that content passed GA review, he can claim consensus and WP:STATUSQUO against my "unilateral" changes. Undoing the original, inadequate GA review would prevent that. (And the frankly desperate seeming step of aligning himself with an editor who was site-banned five years ago, going so far as to repeat the same memes that were popular among said banned editor's allies back then -- that I "got JoshuSasori banned" and that I changed my username, as though that were some kind of policy violation -- makes it really look like the nominator is either nursing a years-old grudge against me or is deliberately trying to get under my skin so I will give up and walk away so he can have his article back; that kind of OWN behaviour would indicate the article is really unstable.)
Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: Thanks. I have deleted the criteria which don't seem to be under discussion. Let me know if that's correct. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: Yeah, that about matches. :-) Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Great. I'm going to thread them so that we can have parallel discussions without any confusion about which part we're talking about.

So I have finished creating threads for areas identified as concerns. Some of the concerns do seem valid but also seem fixable by interested editors (perhaps Hijiri88 or Ribbet32. It would seem like a shame to delist given what seem like resolvable issues. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

5. Stability[edit]

I have always viewed this criteria narrowly. There is either edit warring or there isn't. The claim here is actually one of WP:OWN By definition Good Articles have room for improvement and so a claim of WP:STEWARDSHIP is going to be weaker than with a FA. Regardless of whether Ribbet32 liked the changes that the three different multi-edit editors have made since January there has been no revision and Ribbet has been active the whole time on Wikipedia. Since this is a talk page discussion it strikes me as completely with-in WP:CONSENSUS to express disagreement about content. In the end I just can't see issues with this criteria. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

3a Broad in Coverage[edit]

This seems like the best claim of a shortfall for GA status but also fixable. Are there sources which can be found to remedy? While I am not ignorant of Japanese film (especially of this era) it feels like other editors would be better positioned to find high quality sources to add context. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

1a Well Written[edit]

I admit that spelling/grammar proofreading isn't my strongest area as an editor but I'm not seeing any issues with the article in this criteria. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

4 Neutrality[edit]

This is tied into 3a but does concern me given current composition of the article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


Boston Massacre[edit]

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

As highlighted in the talk page, this article is not neutral...

There is a blatant anti-British tone. Its ridiculous... "The BBC propagandists seem to be at work here, whitewashing history". The BBC has been rated most accurate and reliable TV news, says Ofcom poll, and is considered extremely neutral and accurate. And is there is nothing here to imply this article was written by the BBC. "The position that the British acted in self-defense is a minority view". This is definitely wrong and the view that the incident was a massacre has long been debunked. The fact that this article has been dominated by these anti-British viewpoints is terrible and needs to be reviewed.

My neutral edits which provided alternatives viewpoints were removed by a user who 'lives near Boston, Massachusetts', where the alleged the massacre occurred. I doubt this is just a coincidence. This is a sign that this Wikipedia article is being dictated by patriots and that it is extremely biased. The alternative viewpoints need to be made clear in this article. In fact when this article was originally approved as a good article it included that the Boston Massacre was described by some as a riot, however since then this has been removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by H.A.W.C 101 (talkcontribs)

I can see why your edits were reverted and it wasn't anything sinister.[15] We rarely cite youtube so you will need a better reference. Your edits look like original research, or at least opinion, were not presented neutrally and contained misleading edit summaries. It is too soon to jump to a good article reassessment without a proper discussion at the talk page. I made a few edits and looked for sources citing Boston Riot [16] and nothing jumps out that makes me think it is justified as a bolded title. I think failing some more obvious issues this should still be kept. AIRcorn (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comments, although the source was hosted on Youtube, it was actually a documentary from History.com which was presented by several academic historians. However, I shouldn't have cited Youtube as my source, and should have explicitly cited them directly. There are a vast range of sources describing the incident as a riot, and later on I will provide them and other sources to backup my edits. Due to your feedback I will henceforth ensure my edit summaries and clearer. H.A.W.C 101 (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC) I had cited Youtube since it provided the video, and people could therefore watch it and check it.

This GAR feels like forum shopping on a content dispute which feels icky to me. However a claim about lack of NPOV is a credible reason for a GAR. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
User H.A.W.C 101's account is brand new. The user page displays a large flag of England and a userbox announces they speak British English. Their talk page is made up largely of corrections for their mistakes. All this indicates lack of experience and possible national bias. Perhaps this review request is misguided and should be shelved. YoPienso (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Hmm... And I was told, "do not cast aspersions as to other editors" by Iryna Harpy. Yes, my account is relatively new, however I have made 142 edits as of now, with 98% of them being live (which is dwarfed by your number of 8080 edits, but this isn't a competition). My talk page is indeed largely made up of rejections of my articles, and when I mistook the license for an image that was actually copyrighted. But people have claimed you have made mistakes on your talk page too, although I don't find this too relevant, and have only brought it up since you have tried to unfairly discredit me. The claim that I'm biased is quite silly actually after looking at your page. A user box announces that you're American, and the killer is that you have a user box claiming that one of your ancestors fought Cornwallis in the American Revolution, so you're obviously far more biased than I am. So according to your approach, your comments are irrelevant and you should be ignored (which I wouldn't argue but it's what you implied with my comments).H.A.W.C 101 (talk) 09:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Moderator, please note H.A.W.C. 101's comment just above: "My neutral edits which provided alternatives viewpoints were removed by a user who 'lives near Boston, Massachusetts', where the alleged the massacre occurred. I doubt this is just a coincidence. This is a sign that this Wikipedia article is being dictated by patriots and that it is extremely biased." Is his conclusion of bias justified? That's the reason I pointed out his own potential bias.
The Encyclopedia Britannica article (written by an American) calls the incident a skirmish, not a riot, and notes the crowd was aware the British did not read them the Riot Act. The alternate name, the "Incident on King Street," is referenced in our current WP article (to a journal review I can't fully access) and is also given here. I can't find an RS for calling it the "Boston Riot." Does user H.A.W.C. 101 have one? YoPienso (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
There are no moderators here. Just regular volunteers who take an interest in what is a good article. All that really matters at this page is whether the article meets these simple criteria. An editor being bias either way does not essentially matter, what matters is whether the article itself is biased (Criteria 4). While describing five deaths as a massacre does not appear particularly neutral, it is its common name. To provide alternate viewpoints we need reliable sources and I would have no issue with them being described or attributed as "riots" with a suitable source. All in all I am not seeing too much that causes this to fail the neutrality criteria. Keeping in mind that being neutral for this purpose is within a spectrum and does not have to be an exact point. The description of the event appears factual and it does not to my mind lean too far either way regarding blame or otherwise. My only issue is with the categories, as it does not fit in with the other "massacres" represented there. AIRcorn (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
As highlighted via several sources, the protesters were indeed aware that they had not been read the Riot Act. The protesters' courage was largely based on the assumption that a British soldier could not fire on rioters before a magistrate had read the Riot Act, which authorised the army to restore the King’s peace. At this point, the magistrates in Boston weren’t going to risk their safety by reading the Riot Act.[1]
You can find several sources referring to the massacre being likeable to riot:
http://www.bostonmassacre.net/alternative.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-SwXEifHHo&feature=youtu.be&t=13m49s (I am aware Youtube is not a reliable source, however it is just being used to host a previously presented series by the History network, so it is available to viewed readily. During the series, John Hall, a military historian, highlights how the incident was more similar to a riot.
Also, I never called the incident the "Boston Riot", but only highlighted the incident was "arguably more like a riot"; and this the only edit I made in regards to the incident being likeable to a riot.H.A.W.C 101 (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Raoul Wallenberg[edit]

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

I noticed that this article had accumulated a few unsourced statements since 2008, when it was promoted. Also, the section on awards and honors was growing so bloated (and poorly sourced) that it has now been spun off into a separate article (List of honours dedicated to Raoul Wallenberg). A well-sourced summary is therefore needed here, since Wallenberg did receive a lot of awards. It has also been alleged that the article gives undue weight to dissenting views that he didn't die in 1947.[17] I hope these relatively minor concerns can be addressed so this stays a GA. Catrìona (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


Operation Hailstone[edit]

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

I've recently read a translated version of this article, which is much better than the article here, and I've also heard some individuals said that this article is too problematic for GA. To prove it, I've just read the article once. As what I can see, the article meets most of the GA criteria, but not "the prose is clear and concise": the article is too brief that the content is unclear, or in other words, it is too consice. I am sorry to have a doubt on whether it meets all criteria of GA, but I also hope that there will be Wikipedians who will improve this article, so that the content will be both clear and consice, to meet all criteria. Thank you for your consideration. SænI will find a way or make one. 08:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Which language version did you find superior? Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Seconding this question. The article as it existed prior to GA was a copy/paste from a book series. I wouldn't be surprised if other Wikis have the same content copy/pasted in another language format. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
@Nick-D: That's Chinese Wikipedia, and it is not just copying and translating English and Japanese; if zhwiki's one could not fulfill all GA criteia, I can sure that the article here also can't fulfill that. SænI will find a way or make one. 08:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Or I should add some sentences to explain: the first 3 paragraphs should write more (esp. the very first one, as it is not so fruitful, compare with zhwiki's first 2 paragraphs). SænI will find a way or make one. 08:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The structure of the "Attack" section appears incomplete. The strike lasted one and a half days, yet activities on second day Feb 18th is totally ignored. Also unmentioned is the experimental night raid conducted by USS Enterprise, the first of its kind. Compared to paragraphs about the surface action by Adm. Spruance, words depicting aerial attacks against Japanese shipping, which contributed to the vast majority of ships sunk in Truk, is disproportionately few and fragmentary, focusing on only two of the thirty merchant ships (The editor might have developed tunnel vision from relying too much on primary sources like action reports). Certainly there were more dramatic actions deserving a few words, such as those of light cruiser Naka or destroyer Oite. I would say the descriptive style of Attack on Pearl Harbor, a similar topic, is much richer in context.--Medalofdead (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


Loyal Order of Moose[edit]

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

This article does not give sufficient weight to the Moose Lodge's history of racial and gender discrimination. A search of Google scholar and Newspapers.com shows that reliable sources give great weight to the discrimination issue, but this is barely reflected in the article. Until the discrimation section is substantially expanded, the article fails the WP:NPOV requirements in WP:GACR#4 — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


I was the GA reviewer. The relevant GA criteria is "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each." This criteria is about bias, not that the article is 100% complete in covering all appropriate areas. Similar to my comment in the review...another area for expansion would be coverage of what happens at their facilities and activities. But again, did not see areas that could use expansion as a reason to deny GA. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The article heavily relies on connected sources. Until we can remove the {{thirdparty}} cleanup tag, we should remove good article status. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 21:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Kerala Blasters FC[edit]

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

Its been almost 6 months now since the article listed as GA and end of their fourth season.And they already started their fifth season few days ago But still have no section about their fourth season and their fifth season.I informed them at the PR page two month ago, but have got no responses. Hence I am bringing it here for reassessment and recommending community review instead of an individual one. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: This can easily be added by another user via the proper WikiProject if you notify them. No need for demotion by WP:OUTDATED. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 02:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Chris Field (composer)[edit]

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

Fails point 2 of the GA criteria – I don't believe the majority of the sources in this article are reliable ones, and much of the article remains unsourced, e.g. the entire "Albums" section which can only be sourced from non-RS, or no sources can be found at all for some of the statements. Of the sources cited, ZoneMusicReporter is a website which invites artists to pay subscriptions to promote their music, so it is not impartial, and the interview is almost entirely about the equipment used to compose music for his studio album. Trailer Music News appears to be a blog run by five enthusiasts of trailer music – in any case, the majority of the interview is primary material asking Mr. Field about his inspiration and method of composing music, not about the actual music itself. The AllMusic link gives no details or review of the album whatsoever, so it's useless. The only two sources that could be considered reliable are the interview in the trade magazine of ASCAP, and a paragraph in Sound on Sound talking about Mr. Field's most well-known composition [18]. Most of the music for films in the table can only be referenced to a primary source, Mr. Field's own website. The "Further reading" section is simply a repetition of the first four sources in the references section. Mr. Field certainly seems to be a big name in composing movie trailer music, but in my opinion the sourcing falls a long way short of that required for GA. In addition the article appears to fail point 1 of the GA criteria: the lead is too long and full of unnecessary information, and the section headings and content do not follow MOS:LAYOUT (the "Discography" section, for example, seems entirely unnecessary – it presumably refers to the album, but it's unnamed and it shouldn't include a complete track listing). Richard3120 (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Demote. This article is ineffably feeble for a GA. The criticism above says most of what needs to be said, but I note that the review which initially promoted it was perfunctory to say the least. I am astonished that it received a GA rating: I should say it deserves a C rating at best.--Smerus (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Demote vastly underreferenced. The "Albums" section has no sources at all! While the version that got promoted to GA looked much better with regards to citation placement, there still is a concern over source quality. This probably shouldn't have been promoted in the first place. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Corey Taylor[edit]

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

I noticed that for a supposed GA, this article has a myriad of problems. It was promoted back in 2010 and has had a myriad of changes since, mostly for the worse.

  • Lead too short.
  • "Other work" was getting information creep with random one-sentence additions.
  • "Acting career" subheader entirely unsourced.
  • "Personal life" is also subject to one-sentence creep.
  • "Discography", "Filmography", and "bibliogrpahy" are all unsourced.

Thanks to @Jax 0677: for bringing this to my attention. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 07:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Concur - Concur. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I've had this article on my watchlist since reverting some vandalism to it a few months ago. I'll add to the above that there is no mention of Slipknot or Stone Sour's most recent studio albums (released in 2014 and 2017, respectively) in the "Music career" section. Without serious improvements, I support delisting. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Emily Ratajkowski[edit]

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

I’m proposing delisting this article, Emily Ratajkowski, from Good Article status until further notice because I see a lot of issues here: original research, promotional tone, and citation overkill are chief among them.Trillfendi (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

From a glance, I can't find any text missing citations. Can you list some specific examples of original research? It would especially help for anybody else reading this GAR looking for ways to improve the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
One example, which I removed before listing this article (maybe I should put it back), was someone doing original research to find an acting role she did as a child. They made a note of it between citations. I also believe a lot of info about her mother possibly contains original research.Trillfendi (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
If you mean this "Elsa" role, then good removal. Whoever inserted that didn't even really try to properly cite it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
If anything, I'd say this is ludicrously over-cited—this biography of a very minor figure has more citations than Spain, Elizabeth II or United States Army. I agree it's bloated, promotional, and overly long, but I can't actually see which of the GA criteria it's actually failing. ‑ Iridescent 02:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
In my view, it’s failing in neutrality, verifiability without original research, and being well written.Trillfendi (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Prose is definitely subpar. Here are some examples of tone I found that come off as promotional:

  • "Esquire magazine named Ratajkowski 'Woman of the Year', over online fan vote finalist Jennifer Lawrence"..... why does the other finalist need to be mentioned?
  • "Ratajkowski leveraged her sudden prominence into supporting roles in major films"..... not only is "sudden prominence" questionable at best, but this just reads awkwardly to begin with
  • "this tour marked her ascension as a style icon as she earned multiple best dressed citations from various sources"..... "icon" is puffery, and why do such rankings really matter anyway?
  • "prominent global media outlets took notice"..... I think it's obvious what's wrong here
  • "She noted that by July 2017, her sex appeal, especially her cleavage, has caused her to lose jobs"..... "sex appeal" is a matter of personal opinion

Feel free to list any other problematic instances you spot. That's not even delving far into sheer quality of writing. I also feel including File:March 2012 Issue 3 cover of Treats!.jpg is borderline promoting Treats! and the caption for File:Emily Ratajkowski.jpg doesn't really need to talk about what the photo shoot was for, simply a year is sufficient. Do we REALLY need to advertise her bags with File:20180220 Emily Bags at Bloomies at 900 North Michigan Avenue.jpg? Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

These are other instances that I had noticed that I believe may be original research about her early life (and it isn’t even about her): this book and this obituary which I’m quite certain we’re not allowed to use but then again it might be considered public record. If someone can find more independent, reliable sources then I strongly recommend that her mother and father have their own respective articles. I had also removed a statement about her childhood that was sourced with what looks like absolute gibberish.Trillfendi (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, certainly; just skimming the lead there's a glaring piece of original research in "British American" in the infobox. Britain doesn't have Jus soli unless at least one parent already had either British citizenship or Indefinite Leave to Remain, and there's no indication that either was the case. (Given the dual taxation issues it would be unlikely someone at her presumed level of earnings would maintain dual citizenship even if she did qualify to apply for British citizenship.) ‑ Iridescent 09:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I know this article clearly has a feminist agenda (on the neutrality front) but I struggle to understand how over 20 mentions about nudity and over 20 mentions about sexuality are encyclopedic. Many fashion models pose nude just as often as her without an eyelash batted. As an editor, my niche is fashion model articles and I can’t recall seeing nudity even mentioned once in any other model’s Wikipedia article. Ratajkowski is not a human sexuality scholar, expert, or doctor, so why are her views on the subject taken as such in this article? She has more citations about her sexuality views than actual professionals who have written medical journals on it! (Look at pages in the Sex educators category to see what I mean) Trillfendi (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I am probably still the main editor of this article, I don't understand the point of counting uses. Depending on the subject matter of an article some subjects arise more than others. Suppose I write an article about a basketball player and use the word dunk a lot more than is often seen in an article about a basketball player. That does not mean there is anything amiss. Nudity is a subject that will be mentioned in an article about Ratajkowski. I am just disappointed that her arrest had nothing to do with nudity. I think she should have done a Lady Godiva-type protest instead of this run of the mill getting arrested a bunch of other people. Sorry, I digress. I am not going to humor you with a look at this article based on word usage counts. Nothing short of using profane words would warrant such an analysis.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Did I not mention her 2019 arrest in this article?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the promotional word that is being thrown around. As far as overly cited goes, many biographies I have worked on have been criticized in this regard. They have been mostly about basketball players. I have my own philosophy on citations, and I don't really agree that finding articles with fewer citations is a sensible argument. IMO, that is just pointing to other deficient articles.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
This is a prime example of the absurd level of link rot:
      • “John David "J.D."[19][20] Ratajkowski,[21]” was all in the middle of one sentence and including the 5 other citations in thay sentence. Ridiculous! It’s all but common sense that if one or two sources can verify something, you don’t need 8. Or the 7 citations about her ethnicity in a row, when that’s already previously addressed in 2 earlier citations.
        • Please don't sound a link rot alarm and then demonstrate three perfectly fine references. It tries my patience and causes me to pay less attention to the rest of what you are saying. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the three references. Link rot is when you add a link that becomes a dead url. As live urls become dead the term is rot. You are not talking about link rot. I am not going to keep reading the rest of this point because you just don't know what you are talking about and it is a waste of time to talk to someone who doesn't know how to discuss Wikipedia editorial issues on such a basic level.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
          • TonyTheTiger When I said link rot I thought I'd put citation overkill, oh omniscient one, but at that point I was too tired to give a damn. Shit happens. If one source says his nickname is J.D. (Emily calls him John when referring to him as an artist,[2] but anyway...) I still stand by my view that one was sufficient. This is Wikipedia's example of citation overkill:"Elephants are large[1] land[2] mammals[3] ... Elephants' teeth[4] are very different[4] from those of most other mammals.[3][4] Unlike most mammals,[3] which grow baby teeth and then replace them with a permanent set of adult teeth,[4] elephants have cycles of tooth rotation throughout their entire lives.[4]"; it's not much different than "Emily O'Hara Ratajkowski was born on June 7, 1991, in Westminster, London, the only child[6] of Kathleen Anne Balgley[7] with Irish and Polish Jewish roots[8][9] and John David "J.D."[10][11] Ratajkowski,[12] with Polish roots.[13]" 8 citations for one sentence. The same sentence could still be cited with 1/4th of that.Trillfendi (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Now, about this feminist lilt. Quite frankly I don’t care that she does nudity or is a feminist, it’s the way it’s written. I started counting because it seemed like every 10th word was nudity, nude, or sexuality. Can we just chainsaw this down to 5 quotes on the matter? I mean even in her early life section I had to remove what looked to be original research on the matter. One could take suggestions from Emma Watson’s article on how to write about her feminist beliefs, neutrally, or Jennifer Lawrence’s.
      • And anyone with keen eyesight can tell she’s attractive, heck Adriana Lima is also always at the top of “sexiest” lists but even her page doesn’t have all these “curvaceous”, “stunningly beautiful”, and what not adjectives. Isn’t that a POV issue?Trillfendi (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • You also have a lack of understanding of what WP:OR means. When you remove well-sourced content and describe it as removal of OR, that further undermines your credibility. I am going to have to restore that again and hope you can at some point learn basic WP WP:MOS terminology.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
When someone went out of their way to find information about her family without giving independent, reliable sources—it’s original research. So I’m not going to sit here and watch you try to justify it or change the meaning of original research. Common sense! And don’t try to deflect your logical fallacies toward me; who cares about my “credibility” when I’m not a professional biographer, I’m just a person who sees issues with this article and brought them up. Since you’re so personally in it then address it!Trillfendi (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The content that seems to be at issue has WP:ICs from WP:RS, which is the point.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Then why reinsert original research? Unnecessary.Trillfendi (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't know how to talk to you. You have been on WP for nearly 5 years but only have about 3000 edits and seem not to understand anything. When I say it is content that has WP:ICs from WP:RS, that means it is not WP:OR. Please learn what OR is.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Your lack of communcation skills are for you to address within yourself. I’ve been on Wikipedia “5 years” (4 years since you’re counting) because I began making random edits in 2014 and 2015. If you care so much, evidently you do to have looked at the contributions, I didn’t give a crap whatsoever about editing until mid-2016 that’s why there are only ~3,000 edits. I don’t consecrate my life to Wikipedia to have made over 369,000 edits 🙄. Now, I had clearly pointed out, and someone else concurred, that searching obituaries to find family information related to her grandma, an obituary Emily is not even mentioned in, and looking for books (one that is impossible to otherwise find unless they took her class) that were NOT referenced in previously stated citations could constitute original research; let alone the fact that the article is not about them. I also recommended creating separate pages for Dr. Kathleen Balgley and John Ratajkowski with some of the information given and to find reliable sources for other info. And I already said I had removed some citations because of the very reason you mentioned, inline citations and reliable sources, so we really don’t need 3:1 for somebody’s name and ethnicity. Stop trying to make this about me. If that early life section looked more like how it did in 2014-mid 2018 there wouldn’t be an issue to speak of. It was IP,IP, and IP users who made those edits so I don’t get why you’re the one getting so defensive about a page you don’t own. (That LA Confidential source was sufficient).Trillfendi (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
FYI, the presentation of diff links in this comment are the proper way to show diffs. this is edit is not so bad. Obituaries are considered reliable sources for some facts, but not others because of the reduced editorial procedures. I am not so high on the blockquote, but could take or leave the additional citation content. this content is not something I would pursue, but if we have it, it is a positive rather than a negative. this content is borderline excessive. However, it is encyclopedic content in the article for the mother if someone wants to create that. I am not sure if it would pass WP:GNG however. Finding WP:RS is never considered WP:OR no matter how WP:CRUFTy the content.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Could you clarify what content you think fails WP:V.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I've seen other articles reject obituaries of grandparents. Anywho, I'm going to keep pointing it out. You cannot find this kind of information about her ancestry without unmitigated original research. Point blank. Someone even went looking back to the 1800s A substantial amount of information about her mother is already in that New York Times piece, and that's really all we need to know isn't it. Being a Fulbright scholar is admirable, I get it, but why are people searching deep through the bowels of Al Gore's Internet for her schoolbooks (unless they took her class; a book not mentioned in any of those citations at all), what dates she taught classes, and her ancestors etc. Her CV shouldn't take up a section about her daughter, that doesn't happen in any other article. Emily simply said "she's an English professor" and it should just be left at that. Example: If you look at Gisele Bündchen's early life, her father is also a professor but there aren't any excruciating details. She's the most famous Brazilian export next to cane sugar but even Brazilian media don't go this far even when they interview him. When you google "Margaret Balgley" you get 21 results of private information.Trillfendi (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I could go either way on the obit content. If you really care you can chop that, but I would rather a third party other than you or I give an opinion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The article definitely does not meet GA standards; to be frank, it resembles an obsessive fan page rather than an encyclopedia article. For one, it's way too long and detailed. It seems to list every single thing that this person has ever done, without any consideration for what is relevant. Furthermore, one gets the impression that Ratajkowski is a major figure in Western culture, instead of a model/social media influencer/starlet that has garnered some media attention in the previous five years and is mostly remembered as the girl in the "Blurred Lines" video. The language of the article is weasel-y and nowhere near neutral. Looking at TonyTheTiger's previous interactions regarding this article and his replies here, it does not seem that he handles criticism well. My suggestion would be to not only downgrade the article, but for TonyTheTiger to take a break from editing it and allow neutral editors to heavily edit it to meet encyclopedic standards. Quality, not quantity is the key word here. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3


Audi S and RS models[edit]

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

The article for the “good article” nomination lacks sources, needs minor corrections, correction of design in links and other corrections. I propose to remove the nomination "good article"--Anton V. (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

5 days passed, no one expressed objections, and there were no improvements in the article. The nomination is removed.--Anton V. (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)