Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Reviewing initiatives:

Backlog drive

Mentorship

Review circles

Pledges

↓ Skip to table of contents and archives ↓

Shortcuts

Good article reassessment

Semi-Automated Tools

User scripts for GAR:

Opening: GAR-helper
Closing: GANReviewTool

Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria (GACR). GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. The GAR Coordinators—Lee Vilenski, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings—work to organize these efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the {{@GAR}} notification template, or make a comment on the talk page.

Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment can be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles can be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delisting.

Good article reassessment

Good article reassessment instructions

Before opening a reassessment

Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
If there are many similar articles already nominated at GAR, consider delaying the reassessment request. If an editor notices that many similar GARs are open and requests a hold, such requests should generally be granted.

Opening a reassessment

To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment).
Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.

Manual opening steps

Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
Transclude the assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste {{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}} at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion.
Notify major contributing editors, including the nominator and the reviewer. Also consider notifying relevant active WikiProjects related to the article. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.

Reassessment process

Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them. Comments should focus on the article's contents and adherence to the good article criteria.
The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
Interested editors can indicate their intention to fix the article and give updates on their progress in the GAR. Commentators should periodically check the GAR and give additional comments when necessary. Wikipedia is not compulsory and editors should not insist that commentators, interested editors, or past GAN nominators make the suggested changes, nor should they state that edits should have been completed before the GAR was opened.
If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion.
If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.

Closing a reassessment

To close a discussion, use the GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).

GARs typically remain open for at least one month.
Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time.
- If there is no consensus, the reassessment may also be closed as keep.
After at least one month, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
- If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.
If the article has been kept, consider awarding the Good Article Rescue Barnstar to the editor(s) who contributed significantly to bringing it up to standard.

Manual closing steps

Locate {{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page.
The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
- If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
  - remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
  - remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
  - add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (example)
- If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this,
  - remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
  - remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
  - add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page, setting currentstatus to DGA (delisted good article). (example)
  - blank the class parameter of the WikiProject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment
  - remove the {{good article}} template from the article page (example)
  - remove the article from the relevant list at good articles (example)
Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)

Disputing a reassessment

A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect. A closure should only be disputed within the first seven days following the close.
Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
If discussing does not resolve concerns, editors should post at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the coordinators.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90

Articles needing possible reassessment

Good article reassessment Talk notices given view edit
Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States 2024-08-11 Pest control 2024-08-22 New England Patriots 2024-08-28 The Chariot (band) 2025-02-12 Dragon Quest 2025-03-13 18th Military Police Brigade (United States) 2025-05-01
Find more: 2023 GA Sweeps Project

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

2025-06-16 13:19:33: Muammar Gaddafi

2025-08-07 20:05:27: Pies Descalzos

2025-09-01 18:45:06: SpongeBob SquarePants season 4

2025-09-12 04:43:02: Shamrock Rovers F.C.

2025-09-21 19:02:28: Hepatitis C

2025-10-08 01:27:06: Kevin Hayes

2025-11-06 16:00:01: The Amazing Digital Circus

2025-11-13 20:41:52: Dude, We're Getting the Band Back Together

2025-11-19 21:57:18: Are You My Mummy?

2025-11-20 15:07:29: Marshmello
2025-12-04 05:03:35: Current date for reference

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

Articles listed for reassessment

Tropical cyclone intensity scales

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

Result pending

An orange "sources needed" banner on top of the "Background" section since 2017, and some other uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 03:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

III Armored Corps

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

Result pending

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

Infamous (video game)

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the only issue with the article? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukie Gherkin: Yes, although a re-review once these are resolved could also bring up new or previously undiscovered issues. Z1720 (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See, I think that's a bit messy; if there's one issue, and a pretty major one at that, that may suggest other issues. I think it's really important that a good article reassessment be a thorough assessment of what is wrong to ensure that a re-review doesn't need doing. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukie Gherkin: Sometimes editors use unreliable sources for uncited text, add information after the initial assessment that is too detailed, or remove a major aspect of the article topic. Other times the reviewer doesn't notice a concern until after other concerns are resolved. While in a perfect world, every review would be a thorough reexamination of all the criteria, that is unrealistic because of the large number of GAs, and it's not expected at GAR. I try my best to publish all of my concerns at once. Z1720 (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ullevaal Stadion

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

Result pending

The "Future" section talks about plans in the late 2000s: this should be updated with more recent information. There are also some uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tatsu

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Lethem

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

Result pending

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There is little post-2019 information, although a quick Google search indicated that Lethem has continued writing. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. IMDB is used as a source, which English Wikipedia considers unreliable. Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quantock Hills

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

Result pending

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haddam Island State Park

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

Result pending

The article is quite short and missing lots of sections I would expect to see in a good article like "Geography", "Geology", "Ecology" and "Climate". The lead is also quite short. Z1720 (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth

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

Result pending

There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There is an "Update needed" banner from 2017. Some sections, like the "Demography" section, need to be updated with the latest census figures in the prose. Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photos run down the left of the article, disrupting section headings. Needs pruning. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Heart

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, including the entire "TV adaption" section and the "Additional citations needed" orange banner in the "Deleted scenes" section (which could perhaps be removed). Unreliable sources are used in the article, including Blue-ray.com, medium.com, and reddit. These should be replaced with reliable sources. Z1720 (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - I feel like articles that arguably shouldn't have passed their GA review in the first place should somehow be treated differently than those that have since deteriorated. This article's extreme overreliance on primary, non-independent and/or unreliable sources, as well as the unsourced cast list were all issues present in 2012, and from what I can see the sourcing doesn't even appear to have been addressed in the review. Editors aren't being asked to polish up an old diamond or whatever, they're being asked to full on develop a GA, which isn't really the point. Maybe there should be a separate process to annul problematic reviews rather than for articles to spend a month here in the hopes that someone feels pressured into fixing them. JustARandomSquid (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this elsewhere, this is more about this article and not reassessment as a whole. This article has problems, yes, we shall see if those can be fixed. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abou Diaby

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

Result pending

The article has an "update needed" orange banner. I only found a few sources about his post-retirement career, but there is a lot of analysis of his injury and unmet potential. There are some uncited statements, and BLPs are held to a higher standard of sourcing. There are some short, one sentence paragraphs that should be merged together. Z1720 (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hammett

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

Result pending

There is not post-2017 information, even though the article states that he was still active as a coach. There are uncited statements and the lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Thompson (activist)

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

Result pending

There are lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Unreliable sources are used in the article, such as TheStreet.com and Sportskeeda. These should be replaced or the text it is verifying removed. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of this article. At almost 10,000 words, this article is quite large and will get bigger if the lead is expanded. Information should be summarised more effectively or spun out into other articles. Z1720 (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tackle this next week. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so my plan is to do the following:

Remove unreliable sources ( Done ~~I've removed unreliable sources that have been detected by scripts I use. I've noticed that NYP is used in the article so I'll have to check manually~~ Now entirely removed)
Removed dead URLs Done
Format references
Add more reliable sources to backup unsourced content/remove unsourced content for which there are no reliable sources
Restructure the article
Summarise the article
Expand the lede

Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

486958 Arrokoth

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

Result pending

An "update needed" orange banner added in March. "The Outer Sanctum" is also an unreliable source, as it is a personal blog, and should be replaced. Z1720 (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I've been following this page since the beginning, but I'm just a humble participant.--Io Herodotus (talk) 08:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Foucault's measurements of the speed of light

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

Result pending

The lead is quite short and does not summarise all major aspects of the article. There are several uncited statements, especially in the "Background" section. Z1720 (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References have been added, and the intro has been expanded somewhat. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lithium

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

Result pending

There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There is an "expand section" orange banner at the top of "pricing": is this still valid? Z1720 (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

201 (South Park)

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs, some tagged with "citation needed" since 2023. Z1720 (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Added missing cites, removed amazon ref. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 21:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Uncited text is solved. I wish the article used less block quotes, but this doesn't disqualify from GA status. Z1720 (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh-in' in the Wind

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

Result pending

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. I also think the "Reception" section could be better organised to reduce the number of short paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d be willing to fix the issues, given how relatively minor they are Crystal Drawers (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have removed the uncited sentences (I tried looking for citations for some, but came up empty) and have rewritten the reception section, as well as adding more viewership information to complete the article. All issues should be fixed Crystal Drawers (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Concerns have been addressed and resolved. Z1720 (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Blues Brothers (film)

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

Result pending

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The intro and plot and list of songs aren't supposed to be referenced. Most of the rest is referenced Atlantic306 (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: Information in the "Cult-film status", "Home media", and "Other works in the franchise" (among other places) does need to be cited, but is currently not. Z1720 (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She: A History of Adventure

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

Result pending

There are uncited statements in the article. Some statements are covered under MOS:PLOT, but there are others that should have citations. The "Adaptations" section has lots of small, one sentence paragraphs. These should be merged. The article relies upon too many quotes: these should be summarised in the article as articles are based on summaries of sources. Z1720 (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cri-Zelda Brits

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

Result pending

No post-2010 information, even though a Google search indicates that she continued playing during that time, and the infobox mentions that she played into 2013. Z1720 (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Eugh, I hate my old work. Let me see what I can put together. What sort of timeframe do these normally work under? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 17:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: GARs remain open if editors are working on the article, and there's no established or firm timeline. Feel free to ping me when ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Turner

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

Result pending

Not much post-2019 information about his time with the Atlanta Hawks or post-retirement career, and no information about his play style. A Google search found source about his assistant coaching and other analysis of his career. The lead also mentions a podcast which is not cited in the article body. Z1720 (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there's much regarding his Atlanta Hawks tenure - according to the article he was only with the team for part of one season and came off the bench in only 19 games. This makes it sound like Turner was only an assistant coach for one season. The lead does need to be expanded to cover his NBA playing career. Again, like with Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/E'Twaun Moore/1 I'm worried that an FAC comprehensiveness expectation is being applied to these rather than the GA criteria of broadness. I would expect to see the analysis of playing style at FAC, but not necessarily at the GA level. This article has been pretty well updated with the highlights of his career. I agree that there is some cleanup needed here though. Hog Farm _Talk 23:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harisu

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

Result pending

"Update needed" banner from 2023. A Google search revealed that she released a single in 2012, got divorced in 2017 and spoke about sexual harrassment she received in the industry in 2025, so I think it is valid and needs to be addressed for this article to retain its status. Z1720 (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Blunt

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

Result pending

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

Scream (Michael Jackson and Janet Jackson song)

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

Result pending

There are some uncited statements in the article. While the "Synopsis" section is covered under MOS:PLOT, others should be cited. Discogs is used as a source, but is considered unreliable by Wikipedia so it should be replaced. Z1720 (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M-218 (Michigan highway)

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

Result pending

Article was not reviewed thoroughly and is basically one huge piece of original research, references are entirely primary sources and even Google Maps (!). I personally don't think this is salvageable, considering I can imagine this getting sent to AfD in this state. JustARandomSquid (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh. The editor that reviewed this appears to have reviewed it (not much reviewing seems to have gone on though) as one of 52 articles during this backlog drive. A sample check of a few of the highway related ones shows that they are just as problematic as this one — same deal, referencing almost entirely from primary sources (yes, Google maps too), original research, notability tags...

Is there any way to batch demote these? They're all fairly short, if that helps. JustARandomSquid (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maps are perfectly acceptable sources, especially for highway articles. Taken as a complete collection, the official state highway maps document the various changes made to the state highway system from its inception to the modern day, when each individual highway was extended, truncated, rerouted, commissioned or decommissioned. They are not primary sources; they're no more primary than a newspaper article that reports facts from multiple sources, and yet those same newspaper articles aren't viewed with any bias when they appear in the reference list of an article.

Translating the content of maps to words is not original research any more than translating the content of a French-language source is original research, and yet we don't hold any disdain for non-English sources.

That all said, I've added some additional newspaper articles not conveniently available when this article was original written and reviewed 13 years ago. On that basis, no AfD should be necessary nor desirable, and the article should be in better shape to retain its current status. I'd be happy to work on other articles as time allows if someone is gracious enough to drop a line on my talk page before initiating another GAR. Imzadi 1979 → 08:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hard disagree. Looking at a historical map from an archive of the organisation that built what it depicts and then writing a history of the road based on that is precisely what a historian should be doing and precisely NOT what a Wikipedia editor should be doing. Most of the old newspaper cuttings are kind of the same problem, though not as bad. Don't get me wrong, the article isn't bad, especially with the new sources, it's just not Good with a capital G. JustARandomSquid (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and retain as GA. @Imzadi1979:, didn't we go through this whole "maps are not a primary source" thing back when another editor was running roughshod over Michigan highway articles, and then making up self-contradictory and utterly impossible rules for what they considered a reliable third-party source or what they considered "original research"? The OP has failed to indicate how a map constitutes original research, failed to identify what "good with a capital G" means by the standards of WP:WIAGA, and failed to explain how the subsequent newspaper articles aren't sufficient. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for not explaining why newspaper articles aren't sufficient, I retract that. They can be enough, and thank you for your work on adding them @Imzadi1979. (Though I haven't spot-checked them, so it's not impossible that they aren't, but let's assume that they are. If someone has the time to do that that would be great.)

That being said, I don't see how interpreting a map is not primary research. "We publish only the analysis [...] of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians, who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves" (WP:RS). I'm sorry, I really am, but I don't see how looking at a map and interpreting what you see is compatible with this. If you could link to this previous discussion that you had so I can see what the arguments were, that would be great. JustARandomSquid (talk) 13:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JustARandomSquid: That same argument was presented in a few other recent highway articles, and no one could come to a proper conclusion as to how maps are original research. Check the GAR on F-41 (Michigan county highway) as but one example, and I'm sure Imzadi could dig up more. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:ORMEDIA argument makes me slightly less certain in my opinion, but I feel like that guideline doesn't really apply here. For example, I'm working on an article about an airport, and I've found a book on the history of air travel in the region, and it includes a route map. This guideline allows me to list the destinations at the time, even though they're not specifically stated in prose. However, if I was to try and cite a route map from contemporaneous promotional material published by an airline, that would be original research.

Same here. It's not so much about interpreting maps (though that might be questionable too), but rather the fact we're citing undoubtedly primary sources and then interpreting those ("Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." — WP:PRIMARY). Get what I mean? JustARandomSquid (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORMEDIA: "Source information does not need to be in prose form: Any form of information, such as maps, charts, graphs, and tables may be used to provide source information. Any straightforward reading of such media is not original research provided that there is consensus among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources."

Map reading is a basic skill taught at the elementary school level in the United States. It's not unlike someone reading a source in French and translating its text for use, or someone transcribing spoken words and using that information in an article, which is also allowed per WP:TRANSLATION.

Maps are not the primary source material for their contents. That would be the ground surveys, aerial surveys, satellite imagery, GPS and GIS data, land ownership records, and the like. Even previous maps can be used as source material for newer maps. Then the cartographer has to decide what level of detail to include, which cities get insets, if water features are included, if topography is indicated, etc. This is similar to the work a reporter has to do to distill source material for a newspaper article, for example, and yet, there are no qualms with using newspaper articles. According to historians, newspaper articles contemporaneous to an event are primary sources, and yet a review of most of the ITN section of the Main Page will find article solely based on news articles, but write some content for a highway article based on maps, which ORMEDIA explicitly allows, and the reactions to that start to feel like a double standard. Imzadi 1979 → 18:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Maps are not the primary source material for their contents."

I'm arguing that they are if they depict something newly built by the organisation publishing them.

"According to historians, newspaper articles contemporaneous to an event are primary sources"

Hey, I just sided with you on the newspaper thing, don't get me to change my mind :)

"reactions to that start to feel like a double standard"

I can assure you I have nothing against you or your chosen subject matter, if that's what you feel like. I don't like excessive use of old newspapers in any article, even DYKs — I don't like this article, for example. I haven't encountered the map issue before this, though. JustARandomSquid (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing primary/secondary/tertiary with first-party/third party classifications and conflating first-party as primary. Even so, primary ≠ bad, which is the point about newspaper articles.

There is a full collection of the MSHD/MDSH/MDOT maps available through the Library of Michigan, with the quarterly, semi-annual and annual editions sitting together in a series of drawers. In 2008, I had the collection scanned for my research use and have been collecting my own paper copies through eBay and other channels since. Many of them have also been made available through the Archives of Michigan's online channels. The department is known for making timely updates to their maps in line with the needs of the traveling public and the expectations of the taxpayers supporting them.

There isn't an analogous collection of maps with a similar reputation of updates and accuracy. There are issues with the timeliness and accuracy of third-party cartographers. They've been known to lag in their updates compared to the state highway departments, or they include roads as open prematurely. The 2026 edition of the Rand McNally atlas has been out for months already, keeping with their practice of releasing next year's atlas up to a year or a year and a half early. Based on these issues, the collection of maps has been consulted where appropriate newspaper coverage is or unavailable, and based on this method in dozens of Featured Articles, it's troubling to have to explain it all again for a Good Article. Imzadi 1979 → 21:53, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The concerns raised about OR and sourcing appear to be valid, the use of maps does not meet the current community consenus even if it may have at the time of the first assessment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back: You beat that drum on a lot of other highway articles, and not a single person agreed with you. Please drop the stick now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A majority of editors agreed with me in community discussions. The way you want to use maps is in fact OR. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources which established the standing consenus on the issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andriivskyi Descent

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bury F.C.

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

Result pending

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and most of the "Honours" section. Z1720 (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asthma

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

Result pending

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

In contrast to WP:MEDDATE, the article's median source year is 2011
The economics section is US-focussed, and ends in 2010
The 2007 NICE guidelines are cited, even though the 2024 guidelines are out
The genetic evidence stops in 2005(!). Surely, more is known now about which genes contribute to asthma risk. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m willing to take this on if I can have some time to wrap up my studies and the Coeliac disease article (studies wrap up in 2 weeks and i’m hoping the CD article will wrap up around them as well) IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 05:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Amasa Walker

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

Result pending

The article has had a "neutrality disputed" orange banner on it since January 2023. A discussion on the talk page indicated that this was because there isn't enough prose on his racial views. There is also uncited text in the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find the coverage of his views on race and immigration to be sufficiently clear. There is also a picture of his bust having been taken off the pedestal in a MIT museum. The article seems neutral enough to me. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While the Legacy section now has a paragraph on his racist views, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs section does not appear to have been updated to reflect Hyde's work (the source of the "neutrality disputed" banner, discussed on the article's talk page) on his work in that position. The argument put forward in the discussion on the article's talk page that "The above reference by Hyde is revisionist and inconsistent with Walker's words and actions", leading to the conclusion that there should not be a neutrality tag over failing to include it, relies on WP:OR to justify not including this material. WP:NPOV is clear that "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources", so excluding work on the subject by a notable historian specifically because some editors disagree with it would certainly seem to be a breach of neutrality. Until this is addressed, the article fails WP:GACR6. Robminchin (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took a brief skim of the article and couldn't find any paragraph that went uncited save for one of the lead paragraphs (although I haven't check if that paragraph's content is confirmed in the body). Given the length of this article, could you mention what text is uncited, or at the very least mark it with {{citation needed}} to be visible on the article itself? Gramix13 (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gramix13: I have added citation needed tags to the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding the citation needed tags to the article. I went in and added sourcing to four of them, with the other one (about the location of the subject's grave) being removed as I couldn't find a reliable source for this and I don't consider it to be notable enough for the article. (I did find it listed on Find A Grave, but since that source is generally unreliable as per WP:RSP, I elected to remove the information on the chance that it cannot be verified reliably). Unless there are more uncited texts in the article, I believe that should make the article properly cited, although the neutrality issue remains at large.

I agree with Robminchin view that Hyde's work should be mentioned in the Commissioner of Indian Affairs section. Would it be appropriate to run an RFC on this issue to resolve the neutrality of the article, or would that be overkill? Maybe such a hypothetical RFC can be posed as Should the book Born of Lakes and Plains: Mixed-Descent Peoples and the Making of the American West by Anne F. Hyde be cited and included in Francis Amasa Walker § Commissioner of Indian Affairs? Open to rewordings/retooling of such an RFC, or other options to resolve this. Gramix13 (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have opened a DRN discussion to find consensus between those who discussed the issue on the talk page, and participants of this GAR. Gramix13 (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Che Guevara

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

Result pending

There is an "article too long" yellow banner at the top of the page. After skimming through the article, I agree with this banner as there are several sections that can be spun out, summarised more effectively, or trimmed for excess detail. There are also some uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First-person shooter

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

Result pending

There is uncited text, including entire paragraphs. At over 10,000 words, the article is WP:TOOBIG. I suggest that information be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed as being too detailed. Some sections are quite large, making it hard to read (especially on mobile). I suggest that more headings are used to break up the text. Z1720 (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retain The upper limit of WP:TOOBIG is 15k words, so "over 10k words" does not seem to invalidate this page as a Good Article, and uncited information can simply be deleted by anyone, including the nominator. An intractable issue has not been demonstrated. A split can be proposed on the page itself, without undergoing GA reassessment. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:12, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: GA criteria #3b says the article "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)". I do not think an article with a yellow "overly detailed" banner fulfills this criteria. The uncited text will also need to be addressed before I can recommend that the article retain its GA status. Z1720 (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After giving it a closer look, I will have to change to delist, but due to an issue that was not mentioned here, the proliferation of unreliable sources. Many are WP:USERG, like MobyGames or PCGamingWiki, or unsuitable for use as a source. This is a pretty big issue throughout the article, with a good chunk of the sources being unusable. So, even if we got rid of anything uncited, it would need a huge pruning of the cited stuff as well. This is massive enough that it should be delisted so that it can be re-reviewed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:59, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy III

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

Result pending

Lots of yellow and orange banners, including "plot too long", "needs expansion" for the reception section, and "no sources cited" in versions released section. Z1720 (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist The reasoning cited here is relatively minor, but there is a much bigger emergency fire in this article and that's the need of an update for the reception of the Pixel Remaster version of FFIII. At least, that's where I assume it should be given the article has a bunch of Pixel Remaster reviews it cites in its review box. If nobody can fix this in time, I don't think it could be considered a complete article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist The issues are fixable. But it's not a trivial amount of work. And until they are fixed, it's not right to feature this as an article. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I could save the article, but I've made a start at leaving it in a better state if I can't. I've reworked the development and release sections, but the rest still needs work. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shooterwalker and Zxcvbnm I've done what rescue work I can in the broad strokes. There aren't any glaring issues now: gameplay's more structured and better sourced, plot section's tidied up, development's actually there, and the reception's also been expanded and incorporates the Pixel Remaster version. If your verdict remains the same, I fully understand. I've done my best. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After a quick look through the article, it looks like ProtoDrake brought it up to standard. I think it can safely be kept now. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per ProtoDrake edits. BigLordFlash^talk 17:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QAnon

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

Result pending

The article is quite large and goes into unnecessary detail. For example, "Republican individuals and organizations" is much too detailed and the article doesn't need to describe how several Republicans have responded: this information can be removed or spun out. The "Demographics" section should be updated with the latest figures, and older statistics removed or summarised more effectively. There are some uncited statements in the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there are quite a lot of citations to less-than-ideal sources like post-2013 newsweek and Business Insider, the Daily Beast, and some to the decidely non-RS Raw Story and International Business Times. Also Rolling Stone on politics, which it is unreliable for. The Daily Beast/Newsweek/BI can be justified sometimes but in such a politically fraught topic with so much writing about it I don't see why they can't be replaced. Raw Story and IBT should just be removed. We are citing Frontiers as well, which is... eh.... Also some of the sources in the bibliography aren't actually cited. Generally this article overrelies on news sources for the depth of scholarship on the topic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development

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

Result pending

There are uncited statements in the article. There is no "development", "history" or similar section: how was the theory developed, when was it published and gained prominence, and what were its influences? These feel like key pieces of missing information. Z1720 (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasian Land Bridge

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

Result pending

There is an "update needed" orange banner at the top of the article, as more recent events and proposals have not been added to the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Chicago Bears season

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

Result pending

It has a "too long" yellow banner since Feb 2024. I agree with this, as the article goes into unnecessary detail about every game in the season. Meanwhile, there is no information about the legacy of this season, including how it impacted future seasons (did the team try to rebuild after losing? Did they continue a trajectory to build a competitive team? Was this part of a stagnation period?) Z1720 (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it's too long (the GA reviewed version was already 17K words). I'm wary of getting into "legacy" turning into a WP:COATRACK, when History of the Chicago Bears or subsequent season pages (e.g. 2015 Chicago Bears season) would be better options.—Bagumba (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: Regarding legacy: I think the article should link to History of the Chicago Bears, but should also put this season in the context of the team's history. This article can go into more detail on that aspect than the history article. I would not consider it a coatrack to add that information to this article, as long as it stays focused on this season's legacy. Z1720 (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As long as such "legacy" is based on secondary reliable sources making the connection. I've seen too many championship season (not applicable here) articles that go on and on about subsequent seasons. A lot of seasons are just "plain" seasons and not a catalyst.—Bagumba (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Churchill Machine Tool Company

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shaygan Kheradpir

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

Result pending

There has been a "promotional" orange banner in the article since Aug 2024. When I skimmed through the article, I also found lots of promotional text. Z1720 (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spotted eagle ray

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

Result pending

There has been an "out of date" orange banner at the top of the article since 2013. A couple uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Loman

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

Result pending

The "Critical history" section is uncited. The article's lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego

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

Result pending

There are lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. At just over 10,000 words, I think there is prose that can be trimmed or spun out into other articles. The "Demographics" section has the 2020 census in the graphs, but the prose still has the 2010 information. I suggest this be replaced with the 2020 statistics. Z1720 (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive rock

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

Result pending

The 2010-2020s section is quite short. I think this needs to be expanded and updated. There is an orange "sources may not verify text" banner at the top of the "Proto-prog and psychedelia" section, placed in 2016. Z1720 (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

County Borough of Leeds

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amino acid

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh come on. Stage coach. Sea horse. ... its a compound noun.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smokefoot: I am not sure what this is referring to. Are you proposing changing the name of the article? That would be outside the scope of this GAR and should be discussed on the article talk page. Z1720 (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]
That defining amino and acid separately is not illuminating. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sabah

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

Result pending

There are some uncited statements within the article. There is a yellow "too large" banner at the top of the page from June 2023: I agree with this banner. I think there are some sections that could be summarised more effectively or spun out including "History", "Territorial disputes", "Economy", "Transportation", and "Portrayal in media", although all sections would benefit from a copyedit with a focus on reducing prose size. Z1720 (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fleiss's kappa

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

Result pending

There is no information about the topic's history, original publication, or critical reaction when it was published. While the lead states that it was named after Joseph L. Fleiss, this information isn't cited and it doesn't say why it is named for him. This information is a major topic of this article and should be included. The "Tests of significance" section is uncited. Having read through the section, I think there should be citations there. Z1720 (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it. For the citations problem, I think the definition and the test significance are the sections that would need some sources. For the subsection of "worked examples", consider it as a WP:CALC. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"... this information isn't cited and it doesn't say why it is named for him". I can't comprehend this point. But you can see Alexandrov's theorem on polyhedra, which simply mentions that the theorem is named after the mathematician. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

R v Thomas

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

Result pending

There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Much of the article is cited to primary sources. Wikipedia articles rely upon secondary sources, and I think some of the trial sources will need to be switched out. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decompression (diving)

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

Result pending

There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There are two "update needed" banners: one from 2021 and one from November 2025. Z1720 (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On it. I will ensure that all currently uncited paragraphs are cited, and that the is no trailing uncited text. If there are claims within paragraphs or parts thereof which are currently cited but you wish to challenge, please tag them individually.

Sections tagged for expansion will be expanded if I can find appropriate sources. Both of the tags are reasonable requests as I am aware of information that would be appropriate for both. The update based on USNDM R7 should not be a problem, but the other about pressure distribution in the immersed body will depend on whether a source can be found. So far I have not been able to find one, which is a legitimate reason to leave it out, even in a GA.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:03, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update on USNDM R7 done.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded subsection with detailed explanation of pressuredistribution and transfer in an immersed body, but decided it was a bit too much detail for this article and put it in Diving physics instead · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed all the obvious problems, and done a bit of copyediting and clarification. If there are any more issues, please tag or describe in sufficient detail to be actionable. If you think any links are needed, just make them. I can fix redlinks and ambiguous links. Cheers,· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I may continue to add occasional links and make copy edits and minor improvements, but unless you specify further work as necessary, I consider the job done. Cheers,· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is done. Probably mispinged by replying to myself. Not sure how the details work. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbsouthwood: I added a couple citation needed tags. The short, one-sentence paragraphs in "Bubble models started to become prevalent" should be merged together. The lead is much too long considering the length of the article body: this should be summarised more effectively and information that is not in the article body should be be moved and cited there. Z1720 (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The short, one-sentence paragraphs in "Bubble models started to become prevalent" should be merged together - Why? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citations added. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:43, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which information is in the lead but not the article body? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done what I could find of moving information out of the lead and citing. If there is more let me know.

Lead has been condensed slightly. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:48, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Raniere

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

Result pending

Multiple WP:BLPPRIMARY violations existed in the article. These violations were included in the reviewed version and thus I do not believe the review was proper or adequate and a new one should be taken to ensure no violations of the BLP policy exist in the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLPPRIMARY concerns resolved at BLPN Feoffer (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion did not agree that content only sourced to court documents such as 'A July 16, 2020, intelligence analysis memorandum from the Bureau of Prisons Counter Terrorism Unit stated that Raniere instructed Chakravorty to get more women to dance "erotically" outside the MDC. In response, authorities moved Raniere to another unit to keep the dancers out of his line of sight. A frustrated Raniere instructed his followers to help get him moved back by ingratiating themselves to prison staff, including offering coffee and donuts as they left their shifts.' should be restored, only that they could be provided as supplemental links for readers of interest. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added a RS discussing the memo and its claims. Feoffer (talk) 08:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson

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

Result pending

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

@Z1720, would you be OK with this article being split into 2-3 articles like Early life, Military career of Nelson like that done for John McCain? But I reckon this would need consensus on either the talk page or a special RFC, so this reassessment would have to be on hold till such a process concludes. Matarisvan (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: I have no concerns with splitting articles if the new article would pass WP:GNG on its own. Z1720 (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dolph Ziggler

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

Result pending

Uncited statements and unreliable sources used in the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As one man said "dum dum dum another one bites the dust". However, can you point which uncited statements and unreliable sources are? The article is long, so maybe, it's easy to fix the problems if you point them. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HHH Pedrigree: CN tags have been added to the article. The unreliable sources are "RingsideNews.com.", "Sportskeeda.com.", "WhatCulture.com", "Wrestlezone" ("WWE SummerSlam Result: Dolph Ziggler vs Dean Ambrose For The WWE Title".), "Online World of Wrestling", and "Cageside Seats". There are also some YouTube links used as sources, that might need to be investigated to ensure they are reliable. Z1720 (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will try to fix them. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Belvedere, Surrey

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

Result pending

There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Hello Magazine is used as a source, which is considered reliable. Z1720 (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the speculative paragraph from Hello. The majority of uncited paragraphs are to Robert's Royal Landscape. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan and Cole Sprouse

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

Result pending

There is not much information post-2011, even though it seems like they were active in their careers. There seems to be no post-2018 information. There was discussion on the article's talk page about whether this information should be added, or whether it belongs on their respective pages (or perhaps this page should be merged into their pages, and a AfD should be opened?) Later parts of the article have short paragraphs, which should be formatted more effectively. Unreliable sources like IMDB and reddit are used in the article: these should be replaced with better sources or the text verified by the information removed. Z1720 (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As Kids they had a significant career working together but this ended with their focus on school and then their separate projects. I do not think anything should be merged here as that would create too much duplicate content. There should be better, more easily findable links to their separate pages though.--Denniss (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We Don't Need to Whisper

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

Result pending

"Unreferenced section" orange banner at the top of "Release history". I added a "citation needed" for a quote. Z1720 (talk) 01:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is...that it...? This is easily fixed, its just a couple release dates. Either source it or delete it. There's no need for a full re-assessment. Sergecross73 msg me 20:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: I invite any interested editors to resolve the listed concerns if they wish. Z1720 (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, but this sort of minor issue is not worthy of a GAR. There's no reason to believe this is - release dates for a very mainstream modern rock album - is going to be some sort of insurmountable problem to resolve. This didn't need this sort of escalation. Sergecross73 msg me 21:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I tagged the release section, I did not mean to imply that this otherwise well-sourced article was in need of a total reassessment. Rather, it was more of a suggestion that reliable sources should be added to verify the information in the section, just like any other information that's included in an article. I felt this was especially warranted since this article is listed as a GA, but contains a section stating the release dates in certain territories, yet there isn't a single source for any of them. Magatta (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried looking for the Australia date, and there's evidence that it probably was the case. Unfortunately, absolutely nothing reliable has survived. Sadly, this section wasn't sourced when the article was passed 11 years ago (when such resources probably existed), and it should have been. I didn't go further than that. mftp dan ^oops 14:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Y'all better not delist the article bc yall couldnt fine ONE release date source ok // Chchcheckit (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chchcheckit: The orange banner is for five release dates, so that might require up to five sources. I invite anyone interested in fixing up the article to do so, as subject-matter specialists can usually find sources more quickly than the average editor or reader. If the orange banner remains, that could be justification for delisting as orange banners are a quick-fail criteria in GANs. Z1720 (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ykwim Chchcheckit (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like at worst just get one source for dates and then remove the release history section. It is insignificant to the prose/content in gen // Chchcheckit (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There's extensive sourcing present for the chart debut/peaks, which confirm the release regions and windows. Sergecross73 msg me 02:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig also detects a 63.2% copyvio, someone might want to fix that. RedShellMomentum ☎ ✎ 02:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Redoubt

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

Result pending

Lots of uncited statements, especially about the 2009 eruption. Z1720 (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I added details and cleaned up a bunch of uncited statements about the 2009 eruption. If there are other portions that need citations, could you mark them with {{cn}}? Otherwise, does it look good to you? — hike395 (talk) 04:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hike395. Happy to address any other concerns if there are any remaining. ceranthor 01:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hike395 and Ceranthor: Sorry for the late reply. There is some information that is missing in the article that I would expect there, such as "Climate", Indigenous history near the mountain before colonisation (it's Native name is currently uncited) and information on its history post-2009. Are there any sources that could fill in the gaps? Some sources that might help are [1] and [2]. Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Added information per your suggestions:

Added "very high threat" to lede, per your first source.
Added source for native name (GNIS)
Added brief history of indigenous people
Added geological history of volcano
Added infrared warmth detection, per your second source.
Added post-2009 eruptive history (only 2 events appeared to be documented/notable)
Added a climate section

I think this is definitely now in GA territory. What do you think? — hike395 (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Stoddart

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

Result pending

The article doesn't have much post-2019 information. A quick Google search produced souces such as the 2025 backlash on him being commissioned for a Elsie Inglis statue ([3], [4]), a statue for Dallas ([5]) and Indiana ([6]), and a statue unveiled in 2021 ([7]). I think a thorough search might find more sources of recent works. There's also a "too many quotes" yellow banner from October 2022. Z1720 (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking afresh at this article since I created it as a stub 18 years ago, it has come on a long way, to become a very informative article about the subject, his thought and works. The issues for attention at this point seem to fall under two topics: whether it needs extended for recent works, and the extent of appropriate quotations. AllyD (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the works-over-time topic first... The Civic monuments section in the present article does a good job in summarising the subject's Edinburgh and Glasgow statues. (I'd be inclined to lose the brief descriptions of the occupations of their subjects - the hyperlinks are sufficient here).

The 2021 Edinburgh Reporter article is an appreciation of the 2004 Corstorphine sculpture already mentioned there; it can serve as a reference for that work.
As to recent works, I'm wary of this becoming an extending list of a working artist's works. The Alberti and Hermes statues don't appear to have attracted coverage outwith the 2019 and 2025 Herald articles, so appending them could be at best too soon.
The proposed Elsa Inglis statue is covered elsewhere. The controversy seems more around the commissioning trustees than Stoddart himself, and the piece is unrealised, so I would be minded towards omitting it at this point, or perhaps a sentence linking to the discussion in the other article. AllyD (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of appropriate levels of quotation, I agree it is currently excessive. The "A painting by Titian ... skinhead in an underpass " block quite is already summarised above, with the same reference, so could be deleted. I also suggest removing the modernism block quote and just linking the Manner of Man interview after "... a more broadly-construed "Modernist" tradition". AllyD (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That said, the first of these extended quotations was already in the article at the time of the original GA assessment. I am deferring making any changes to the article until further discussion input. AllyD (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AllyD: FWIW, I agree with the "too many quotes" banner, but I have a bias against lots of quotes in Wikipedia articles. Z1720 (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Guatemala City sinkhole

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

Result pending

There is an "update needed" orange banner in the article since 2019. Is this still valid? The lead also doesn't summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The section marked for required update has information about government's intentions about the sinkhole but doesn't have update on the taken actions. I checked Gnews and GScholar, and didn't spot any updates on its status. There are listicles posted after 2010 that briefly mention the sinkhole but gove only 2010 information. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 14:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I slightly expanded the lead, adding similarity with other Guatemala City sinkhole. When/if we have an update about the hole filling it can be added too. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 14:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article should probably be merged with Tropical Storm Agatha (2010). Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink mobile: Would you like to initiate a merge proposal? Z1720 (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evander Kane

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

Result pending

There an "update needed" orange banner under the 2015-2018 section. Is this still valid? The lead needs to be updated to add more recent events from his career. Z1720 (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 fixed. Nothing really notable to add for recent events. No awards or championships. Plus the Buffalo years were not notable in terms of hockey Conyo14 (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Conyo14: I added some cn tags to the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 I have fixed the CN tags. Sabres section most likely needs more breadth. Kline • talk • contribs 21:39, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kline@Z1720 Unfortunately, his time in Buffalo was not very notable. He didn't lead in scoring, didn't have career highs, and didn't win any awards. As far as I can tell, his time in Buffalo was mainly the non-hockey stuff. Conyo14 (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kline and Conyo14: What is the status of this? I think the lead still needs more recent information on his career. Does any more text need to be added to the article? Z1720 (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Granderson

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

Result pending

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I started working on it. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I updated many of the citations. I don't see any uncited paragraphs. Sloopyploop (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu and Sloopyploop: I added some citation needed templates. I also suggest taking a look at the article's formatting as there is a lot of MOS:OVERSECTION. I think some sections can be merged together or formatted more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I've had some thoughts about that, and a few updates to add. Thanks for the reminder, I'll aim to do it this week. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Air Greenland

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

Result pending

There are some uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There are lots of short, one-sentence paragraphs. These should be merged and formatted more effectively. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article, especially the airline's history. Z1720 (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some sources, though I don’t know if they are useful. Protoeus (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 For you lead concerns, there was in the article a brief summary of their history, so I have moved it into the lead section. Protoeus (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Travel People" a reliable source? The magazine appeared to be a one-man job per this article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical criticism

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

Result pending

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

Reassessment

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

#1, that it be well-written. The lead does seem to need rewriting. That's easy enough to fix, and I can get on with that in about a week if you can grant me that leeway. Real life is kicking my butt right now.

And #3. That it is Broad in its coverage without unnecessary detail.

I don't agree that it is too-detailed. This is a complex subject that spans an extended period of time. It cannot be adequately explained without addressing its many forms, aspects, controversies and changes over time.

I can try to do some copy-editing to shorten it some, but I do not agree the sections should be spun out into separate articles. There are already separate articles on each of these topics, and as a parent article, the sections -- with adequate descriptions -- are absolutely necessary.

What uncited statements?

I'm willing to come back and work on these things. Please don't do anything drastic until I can. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added cn tags to the article. If a section of the article is already spun out, then information should be moved to that spun out article and summarised more effectively here. I recommend that spun out text have a maximum of four paragraphs in the parent article (about the maximum size of the lead) and, of the reader is interested in learning more, they can go to the spun out article. Z1720 (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have copy edited the lead some. It's shorter anyway. Four paragraphs is arbitrary and not doable. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dude! You said too much detail was part of the problem here! Why revert an edit that addresses that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That revert was by @Joshua Jonathan: in this edit. Z1720 (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, should have checked, just saw the revert and went batshit! I'd be happy for either of you to make the effort to improve the lead any way you see fit. It's a lot easier to be a critic than it is to be a creator. Go for it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Time on Earth

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

Result pending

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs in the "Release" section and the entire "Pour Le Monde" section. Z1720 (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to fix this if you give me a few days (I'm a bit flat out IRL until the weekend though). If it's just lack of citations then I will try to find some media coverage and/or remove uncited material, and review it for coverage and focus. Is there anything else? — Jon (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at the diff since Nov 2007 when it was listed reveals a fair bit of edit churn that resulted in citations being moved around or possibly dropped. — Jon (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathanischoice: Right now, my only concern is uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathanischoice: I see that there have been improvements to the article, but there are still some uncited statements. Are you or anyone reading this interested in fixing up the remaining issues? Of course, there's no obligation to do so. Z1720 (talk) 03:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had trouble finding sources, especially in NZ and Australian media, partly due to link rot. I'd like to notify a couple of more knowledgeable folks, and bring it up at the next NZ meetup, which is on Sunday. — Jonathanischoice (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Félix Houphouët-Boigny

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

Result pending

There's an orange "no sources" banner at the top of the "Positions in government" section, as well some uncited sentences in the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the problem section and one unsourced sentence. Will need to have another look to see about sourcing the other unsourced sentences and paragraphs. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Borodino

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

Result pending

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

@Z1720, I can work on this, and get it back to GA standards within a month. Matarisvan (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Long Island

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, I will get to work on this soon. Matarisvan (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Thanks to Matarisvan for noting he can work on this. If he ultimately needs help, I have some books about the battle or that would include information about it. But I almost certainly can't get to work on this GAR before Matarisvan does or before early December. I will be offline for about a week and then will need to pay attention to the military history project backlog reduction drive (and possibly to the overall drive, also this month) and requests for article assessments. So if I need to help with this it will be early December before I can get to it. Donner60 (talk) 07:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 I had a little time to look at the prelude section. I was able to cite the Schecter book, which I have. You noted on the talk that the book was listed as a reference but not cited. I can likely find more on this subject in this book for later citations to the extent I am able to work on this and Matarisvan does not get to it earlier. You also noted that Sawicki was not cited. There were a few citations to Sawicki in the two-sentence last paragraph but they are not in proper format. Sawicki's book, or article, is not useful for citations for any facts in the article other than the current U.S. Army units that derive their lineage from units that fought in the American Revolutionary War, which is the subject of the last short paragraph in the Legacy section. If Sawicki is not accessible, this information may be on the official U.S. Army history web site. I don't see it as a key point, just an interesting legacy fact, in any event. I may look at the article for a short additional time tonight but probably can't do much more until after the backlog drives are finished some time next week. Donner60 (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer pain

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, including under "Treatment-related" and "Cutting or destruction of nervous tissue" sections. Z1720 (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Pain section seems like a tautology in the article. In common sense, it should be called "Introduction", "Background", or something like that, but I didn't find anything about such sections in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles manuals. D6194c-1cc (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@D6194c-1cc recently more people have been discussing using terminology sections such as the one in Lewy body dementia which i think would be helpful here. I’m currently working on sourcing myself but feel free to make any changes you see fit. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 07:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heartbreaker (Mariah Carey song)

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, including several large paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Do I understand that this is all regarding the Music video section? mftp dan ^oops 13:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MFTP Dan: In addition to the "Music video" section, the last paragraph of both "Remixes" and "Live performances" are uncited. I also see that there are some very large paragraphs that would benefit from being split into multiple paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for expounding on that, I will take a further look. Regarding the music video, I wonder if the rules have changed since 2011. I believe it used to be accepted that the synopsis of a music video could be relayed without citations with a few exceptions, like one would a plot section for a film. I was unsure if you were aware of that, or if it's still the case. As for the other places, I agree those will definitely need to be cited, but I would like further clarification on the rules for music videos. mftp dan ^oops 13:31, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MFTP Dan: Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, I think all of that text is covered under MOS:PLOT. However, I didn't realise that it was all the plot of the video because of how long it is. I think this can be summarised more effectively, and other text that concerns the production of the music video (like the actors involved) should be cited. Z1720 (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the music video plot. I will address the others at another time. mftp dan ^oops 01:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Albany City Hall

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

Result pending

Uncited text, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to try to cite these paragraphs, but it turns out the NRHP report does not even include the info in question. Pinging @Daniel Case who seems to have added a lot of the text. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They can be cited to the photos like the other grafs describing the building's architecture are. Daniel Case (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that, but the issue is that these might be considered primary sources, which wouldn't be enough to alleviate Zed's concerns about uncited/poorly cited text. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I would consider primary documents as acceptable for a GA. Z1720 (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, I can probably look at these later and see if any of the photos support the text. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: I still see uncited paragraphs. Are you or anyone else reading this still interested in fixing this up? Of course, there's no obligation to do so. Z1720 (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720, oops, I forgot about this. I can look at it later this month, and see if I can find anything. If not, then I have no issues with the delisting of this GA. Epicgenius (talk) 03:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling Green State University

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

Result pending

Cleanup tag has been up for 2 years KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 05:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that tag as I read the full article and do not see any promotional material. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are some uncited statements in the article that is preventing me from recommending a "keep" declaration. I also think the "1960–1990" section is too long and it should either be split up using another level 3 heading or trimmed of excess detail. Z1720 (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on this: I have removed some uncited statements that were WP:TMI. Other statements have been labelled with citation needed. If I saw this article now, I probably wouldn't bring it to GAR but also if it was at GAN I wouldn't pass it until the uncited statements were resolved. @Bgsu98: Do you want to resolve the last few concerns in the article? Z1720 (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll take a look later today. (Care to guess where the Bgsu in my username comes from? 😉) Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant

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

Result pending

Uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. At over 14,000 words, the article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. Some prose should be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed as too detailed. Many sources listed in "Bibliography" are not used as inline citations and should be moved to "Further reading". Z1720 (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, this article has already been reduced in size, to allign with the Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower article. Grant's presidency was detailed, as it included 8 years of turbulent Reconstruction, Native American, Domestic, and Foreign Policy. Second, Grant's presidency article, should not be a reduced format historical article format, when the Eisenhower article receives ample article size. This is Wikipedia. Articles should be detailed, supplied by reliable sources. Important issues such a civil rights, prosecution of the Klu Klux Klan, should have detail. Both Grant and Eisenhower, deserve equal importance and equal size. As far as sources, not used in the article, I have no issue with them being removed. Third, I think this article has already been improved, and deserves GA standing. I am not sure why Grant is getting this attention all of a sudden. The article appears to be written in a neutral format. Why now? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmguy777: Wikipedia is a general knowledge encyclopedia, and not all details will be included in an article. If the level of detail is important, the information can be spun out into a child-article. WP:DETAIL outlines examples of how much detail an article should have, and states that "Some readers need a lot of details on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate subarticles)." The last part, linking to separate articles, might be what is best for some aspects of this article. WP:TOOBIG outlines that articles should probably be less than 9,000 words: at 14,000, this article far exceeds that. In a GAR, the current article version is evaluated on its adherence to the GA criteria and does not consider how much work has been done to an article, or how much it has been improved. The Eisenhower article is not a GA, so it is hard to compare the qualities (and size) of those two articles for this GAR. Z1720 (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, articles can be spun out. You have not mentioned anything specifically you want changed. What is it exactly you want changed? Again, I have substantially reduced this article before. Is there an exact rule of how long articles should be such as 9,000 words or less. What does "should probably be less" mean ? Anymore reduction in this article would reduce the reliability and needed context of the article, imo. Grant has a lot of biographers and biographies. Renewed interest has been taken in Grant's life, generalship, and presidency. Charles W. Calhouns (2017) book on Grant's presidency has 593 pages. What specific areas of the article do you find too long? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many notable people and topics have books that are hundreds or thousands of pages long. WP:TOOBIG has useful rules of thumb for article size. I usually do not recommend specifics at the beginning because I want to give a chance for subject-matter experts to make recommendations first. Since I have been asked, here are some suggestions:

In general, I recommend that a subject-matter expert do a copy edit of the entire article and remove redundant text, off-topic information about others, and sumarise text more effectively when possible.
First Presidency:
- "Financial policy" Suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION. I suggest these paragraphs be merged and extra/too detailed information be placed in the appropriate article.
- "Failed annexation of Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic)" could be too detailed and possibly trimmed.
- "Native American policy" also suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION and, if the paragraphs are merged together, information can be spun out to the appropriate articles.
- "Domestic policy" also suffers from OVERSECTION and not as much detail is needed for all of these individual aspects (especially the "Holidays law")
Second Presidency:
- "Vicksburg riots" and "South Carolina 1876" spend at least a paragraph explaining the conflict before mentioning Grant. While a brief introduction is appropriate, too much space is given to this off-topic information and this article should focus on Grant's actions and policies.
- "Foreign policy" suffers from OVERSECTION with the last three paragraphs: these should be merged and summarised.
- "Reforms and scandals" Lots of oversection, it is better to merge the information and give a wikilink than have a whole paragraph explaining each topic.
- "States admitted to the Union", "Vetoes" and "Government agencies instituted" can be moved to the part of the article most appropriate to his presidency. "Memorials and monuments" can be moved to Grant's main article.

This is not an exhaustive list, and there can of course be disagreement. None of this negates the uncited paragraphs in the article, which also need to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those spin off articles have not been created. The Presidency of Barack Obama article 13,915 words. I found that on XTools. Is this correct? You can verify that. The Holidays Laws is important. They are national holidays created by Grant and congress. This article can be improved. You are free to make edits to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmguy777: Yes, Presidency of Barack Obama is 13,000 long. No, it is also not a GA. This process is to evaluate an article against the GA criteria. If the article topic is notable, any editor can make a new article and place information there. I will not be making edits to this article as I am busy with many on-and-off wiki tasks. I am happy to support those who do want to make those edits and will re-review if pinged. Z1720 (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article passed GA in the past. Yes. There is room for improvement, and thanks for the specifics. I just don't think it necessary to take away the GA status, when in the past it was given GA status, by whatever standard(s) was(were used) at the time. Improvements can be made to the article without removing the GA, imo. I have made past reductions to the article, found in the talk page, to improve the article. Grant's Native American policy, reforms and scandals, have been made into spinoff articles. Probably, the next spin off article should be Grant's Foreign policy. Grant's presidency was different. He was elected and served two consecutive terms in office, that would not be repeated until the election of Woodrow Wilson. Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmguy777: An article will not be delisted if improvements are ongoing and concerns addressed. My concerns are listed above. The GAR will assess the article against the current criteria, not the criteria that was in place when it was passed. Z1720 (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been significantly been reduced in size, before. Your concerns are noted. What about editor concensus? These objections seem to be only your objections focused specifically on Grant, not other Presidents. You also seem to be requiring other spin off articles to be made on Grant's domestic and financial policies. The Santo Domingo annexation was very important to Grant. It was also a drama between Grant and Charles Sumner, who would control the Republican Party. Some leeway should be allowed in that section on article length, since this article focuses on Grant's Presidency. When you say "delisted", are you saying removal of the article from Wikipedia? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmguy777: When I say "delisted", I am saying that the article will no longer be designated as a "good article". It will still be a Wikipedia article regardless of whether it is delisted or not. Z1720 (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I can work on the annexation of Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic) section. That was a primary initiative to the Grant Administration. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reworked first term foreign policy introduction and the the Santo Domingo section. Does that look alright? Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not had any reply yet. Please reply. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cmguy777, you may find it better in the future to WP:PING Z1720, as I have now done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmguy777: I am sorry that I did not respond sooner. AJ29 is correct: pinging me is a better way to ensure that I respond. I have done a deep read of the first paragraph of "Foreign policy" and the "Attempted annexation of Santo Domingo" sections. They have improved from where they were before, and the comments below are what I think need to happen next to bring them to GA quality.

"Grant was a man of peace" I don't know what this means because I don't know much about him. I think this should be removed, and instead the paragraph can describe what this means later on.
"Besides Grant himself, the main players in foreign affairs..." This is an instance where the article starts going off-topic. Later in the paragraph, it starts describing Fish's work. I think this parargaph should focus on what Grant did and what he did with foreign policy. If Grant was hands-off and let Fish run everything, then that should be explained. If Grant focused on specific issues, that should be explained in this paragraph. Describing the major players of Grant's administration is important, but their contributions should to be connected to Grant's presidency more explicitly.
"He tried to annex the Caribbean country of the Dominican Republic as a safety valve for them." Safety valve feels like an idiom to me, and I don't know what that means in this context. Is Grant buying DR to bring Black people to the location? Was he trying to have DR become part of the USA? This should be explained.
"Republican Senator Charles Sumner opposed Grant, believing he sided with men of financial interest." Why is this important to state in this article? I think it can be deleted.
In the second paragraph, there is information about the annexation of DR. This makes the first paragraph redundant, and I think it can be removed.
I made lots of cuts as I was reading. Feel free to take a look and reverse any changes. However, with the length of the article I think some of these changes were helpful to reduce the word count, and I would continue having cuts like this in other parts of the article.

I hope the above helps editors with ideas on how to improve other sections of the article. There are still uncited statements in other spots and I highly recommend a thorough copy-edit and trimming of off-topic information before a re-review is requested, and I think this article needs some more work before I could recommend that it keeps its GA status. Feel free to ping me with questions or comments. Z1720 (talk) 05:45, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I am for reducing article narration, but not at the expense of loosing valued content. Also, I am for going by what the sources say. As far as Santo Domingo goes, Grant was the main leader behind annexation. I readded information that Grant appointed Frederick Douglas. Apparently, Grant wanted both to make Santo Domingo a state and to serve as a refuge for blacks. Douglas supported the annexation. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmguy777: The content doesn't need to be lost: it can be moved to other articles whose scope is narrower. Too much prose stops readers from finding the most important information and discourages them from reading any part of the article. Prose cannot include everything that the sources say as articles are written in summary style. The information described above cannot be explained here: it needs to be explained in the article.

Regarding Frederick Douglass: the article does not describe who he is or why he is important until "Election of 1872". If Douglass is to be included in the "Attempted annexation of Santo Domingo" section, the importance of his appointment needs to be explained there. Otherwise, it is just WP:TRIVIA: a miscellaneous fact that the reader does not need to know to understand the importance of this event in Grant's presidency. My preference is to remove this sentence, and trivia prose similar to this in other places in the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The importance? Frederick Douglas was a leading spokes person for black rights. Historian Jean Edward Smith, Grant, on page 505, mentioned Grant appointing Douglas secretary of the Santo Domingo commission. Do you have that book?. I do. I don't feel appreciated in this article. I should not have to defend every edit made on this article. I am only going by what Smith said. Removing important content will affect the neautrality of the article. I also feel there may be underlying hostility toward Grant, or people don't believe his presidency was that important. I just go by what the sources say. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmguy777: If Douglass is to be included in this section of the Wikipedia article, the Wikipedia article needs to explain who this person is and why he is important to mention here. In other words, if the information is important, the Wikipedia article needs to explain its importance. A reader should not have to go to the source to get that information. Z1720 (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link that explains Douglas and Santo Domingo. His appointment by Grant represented black progress, that was part of the "new" for blacks. [8] Cmguy777 (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmguy777: The source looks good to add. The information needs to be explained and added to the Wikipedia article, not this page. Z1720 (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would best to add in a add in a note that Douglas was a prominent African Amercian, who was primarily known for work as an abolitionist. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. The current format of giving every little detail its own level-4 section is definitely excessive. For one example, there are 224 words dedicated to the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Half of that paragraph has nothing to do with Grant. The parts that do pertain to Grant include a quotation that could be replaced with a concise statement, as well as a line straight up telling the reader the paragraph is not that relevant: "Grant had no role in writing the Civil Rights Act of 1875 but he did sign it a few days before the Republicans lost control of Congress." Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:46, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Civil Rights Act of 1875 was ground breaking. The first in U.S. History. And yes, Grant signed it into law. Grant was the president and deserves credit for signing the legislation into law. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist This article has been open for over a month and a half, and there are still significant paragraphs without citations. The length concerns also still remain. Work seems to have stalled, and it might be better if the article is worked on without the pressure of GAR, and nominated at GAN when it is ready. Z1720 (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I felt I have been the only one who has working on this article. Wikipedia is suppose to be a group editor editing. It's not one editor giving orders. I don’t agree GA should be removed. I felt I have been doing allot of the editing, trying to comply with "suggested" changes. Also, no one ever told me whether my changes were good enough. I hope there is no personal bias against Grant in any delisting process. I stopped editing because there was no positive feed back on my previous edits. That is not my fault. I believe the article is a good article too. It should not be delisted. This article well referenced. There needs to be more editors working on the article. Reducing article size should not reduce content. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did the Santo Domingo section clean up meet your approval? I need that type of feed back. I have the Grant biographies by Chernow, Smith, and White. I have the two Grant presidential biographies by Calhoun and Kahan. I believe my sources are reliable and trustworthy. Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmguy777: Thanks for following up. Wikipedia is supposed to be the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Some articles are written by a single editor and some are written by a group. We are all volunteers and can choose where to edit: I have neither the interest nor the time to fully commit to improving this article. However, I am willing to give feedback to ongoing work. The best way to ensure that I reply is to ping me. However, I do not have the time to give constant feedback, and it is easier for me to evaluate whole sections or the whole article at once. More information on the GA criteria can be found at WP:GA?.

Regarding the Santo Domingo section: I did a copyedit of the section and it seems fine. I would suggest a similar exercise happen throughout the entire article. Afterwards, editors can reevaluate the article's length and determine if more needs to be spun out to other articles. Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Hello. I am all for copy editing, as long a content is retained in the article. Are there any sections you find too long or specifically need improving ? Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmguy777: As stated above, the whole article needs a copyedit to remove redundancies and summarise the prose more effectively. For example, "Foreign policy" has its own section that gives more detail on this subject: much of this section's inforamtion can be moved to that article, with this article focusing on the most important aspects. There are also lots of subsections that are quite short, like "Pratt & Boyd", "Hawaiian free trade treaty" or "Liberian-Grebo war" (this is not an exhaustive list). In general, per MOS:OVERSECTION if a section is a paragraph long, it should be merged with other sections. This merging might also help with summarising information as information can be moved to other articles or redundancies can be trimmed. Z1720 (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. How do my copy edits look in the article? Has the article narration improved? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmguy777: Yes, the article has improved. No, I am not ready to re-review because there are uncited statements and the article is still too big. Z1720 (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thank you. I believe the article can be trimmed more. I think the beginning of the Article looks good and reads well. Can you please be more specific on the "uncited" parts of the article? There are references throughout. Are you saying every sentence needs to be referenced? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmguy777: I have added "citation needed" templates to the article, and there were already some in the article before I started tagging. At a minimum, there needs to be a citation at the end of every paragraph (except in the lead, and some other exceptions). Resolving these tags is also a good opportunity to see if the text is needed in the article and if it can be summarised more effectively. The article also has MOS:OVERSECTION concerns, with numerous short, one-paragraph sections that make the article look like a list in some sections (such as in the "Financial policy" section). Consider merging sections like this and removing the level 3 headings. Z1720 (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thank you. I can look into adding citations. There are a lot more books, and Grant, I can find the right citation. I will look into the Financial Policy section for possible merging of sections. Does the Santo Domingo section look alright? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the Santo Domingo section looks fine. Z1720 (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thank you. Can you please be more specific which sections, by name, need to shorter? Cmguy777 (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmguy777: Below are suggestions, based on a quick skim of the article. I am going to let interested editors make the final decisions on what can be moved, spun out and summarised to get the article under 9,000 words per WP:TOOBIG. I also suggest removing headings per MOS:OVERSECTION. Section names are in quotation marks:

"Force Acts of 1870 and 1871": Reduce the size
"Financial policy": Remove level 3 headings, remove extra detail
"Foreign policy": Reduce prose size
"Native American policy": Remove level 3 headings, reduce prose size
"Domestic policy": Remove all level 3 headings

""Holidays law": Cut this. I do not think this is one of the most important things to include about his presidency.
"Yellowstone created": Cut most or all of this. Only the creation of the park needs to be mentioned: the rest is too much detail for this article.
"Reconstruction continued" Reduce prose
"Foreign policy" Remove level 3 headings, reduce text (especially in the former "Virginus incident" section
"Midterm election 1874": Cut most of this: it is too much detail.
"Reforms and scandals" Anything that was not caused by Grant directly should be removed. Not every federal scandal needs to be explained in this article.
"Centennial Exposition" Cut this: too much detail.

"Election of 1876": cut this. Does not directly concern his presidency.

"Third term attempt 1880" Cut this. It does not concern his presidency.

I will not be participating in improving the article, but am willing to review when the article is ready, everything is cited, and the article is under 9,000 words. Feel free to ping me when ready. Z1720 (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thank you for the specific areas where the article should be reduced in size. The WP:TOOBIG section does say, "> 9,000 words || Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." I will leave that as it is for now, but subjects such as Indian Policy and Reconstruction, may need higher levels of explanations. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the article several times, and giving suggestions on how the prose can be reduced, I do not think that the articles extended length is justified for this article to remain a good article. I still recommend that this article be delisted. Z1720 (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Yes, the article can be trimmed. I am not disagreeing with that. I think the article should not be delisted from the good articles. I don't understand the rush and push to get this article delisted. Reducing the article takes time. I have adequate book sources to do so. You suggested the changes. I have added the references. I put a block quote into the note section. Another previous editor wanted to reduce the article. I did. I removed a lot of material. I seem to get no credit for the edits I have made. This article has gone through substantial reduction and revisions. 2600:6C52:69F0:B6E0:7CA5:E1AB:8055:41F2 (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the work that you have done with the article. Unfortunately, GAs do not keep their status because the article has gone through changes. Instead, an article gets their status by adhering to the GA criteria. This has been open for three months and it still has uncited statements and information that needs to be moved to other articles and removed here. Sometimes it is better to let the article be delisted so that editors can work without the added pressure that GAR brings. When it meets the GA criteria again, the article can be renominated to GAN. Z1720 (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the necessity to remove the article from GA status. Improvements can be made at any time in the article. I believe all the citations have been removed with added references. Yes. I agree that there should be a reduction in and improvement in wording. Grant's presidency took place during Reconstruction, adding importance to the article. We seem to be repeating ourselves. I seem to be the only one making edits to the article. Wikipedia should be done with multiple editor edits. Not just one person. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)the article. r[reply]

The current word count in the article is 13,916. I am not sure whether that includes or excludes notes. Info from XTools. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:01, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The historical evalations section is too long, imo, and should be reduced. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current word count: 13,864 words. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The historical evaluations section can be reduced maybe to one or two paragraphs. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current article word count: 13,550 Cmguy777 (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current article word count: 13,462 Cmguy777 (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current page size: 167,409 bytes Cmguy777 (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an article size update is needed until a significant change is noted. Z1720 (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I believe I have been making significant changes to the article since May, 2025. The Presidency of George Washington article is of simular size (13,947) with GA status. I don't see anyone demanding that article be reduced. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid edit waring, I suggest reducing information from this article on a larger scale be postponed for now. Recently, information was ubruptly readded, and then removed from the article. Also, this article seems to be on par with the number of words in the Presidency of George Washington, another good article. Emphasis for now should focus on improving narration and readability in the article. Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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