Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsFAQDiscussionReassessmentReport
Reviewing initiatives:Backlog driveMentorshipReview circlesPledges
Shortcuts
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment

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
Good article reassessment instructions

Before opening a reassessment

  1. Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
  2. Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
  3. Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
  4. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.
Manual opening steps
  1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
  2. Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
  3. 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.
  4. The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

  1. 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.
  2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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).

  1. GARs typically remain open for at least two weeks (14 days).
  2. Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
  3. 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.
  4. After at least two weeks (14 days), 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.
  5. 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
  1. 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.
  2. 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)
  3. Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)

Disputing a reassessment

  1. 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.
  2. Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
  3. 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.

Articles needing possible reassessment

Good article reassessment

Talk notices given
  1. Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States 2024-08-11
  2. Pest control 2024-08-22
  3. New England Patriots 2024-08-28
  4. The Chariot (band) 2025-02-12
  5. Dragon Quest 2025-03-13
  6. 18th Military Police Brigade (United States) 2025-05-01
Find more: 2023 GA Sweeps Project
See also: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sweeps 2023 and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sweeps 2025

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.

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

Alkali metal

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

it is at over 15,000 words, significantly longer than the under 4,000 words it was when it passed GAN. I think there are some sections that could be summarised more effectively or have excess detail removed, while other sections could be spun out into their own articles. Some of these sections include "Properties", "Compounds", "Representative reactions of alkali metals" (maybe removed as too much detail), "Extensions", "Pseudo-alkali metals", "Production and isolation", and "Ions". Z1720 (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Escape from New York

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

Lots of uncited statements in the "Comics" section. There is also no prose about the film's soundtrack. Z1720 (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Park

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. There are lots of short, one-paragraph statements and sections which should be merged together. Z1720 (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Palace F.C.

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) 16:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wetting

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. While some are covered by WP:CALC, others are statements that could be challenged and therefore should be cited. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article and should be expanded. Z1720 (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Seacole

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

This is one of the last articles listed at WP:SWEEPS2023. It's not in terrible shape, but also not in good shape. Hopefully this GAR can resolve some of the remaining issues to get this to a keep. Those issues are uncited statements and long sections/paragraphs that can be summarised more effectively or use more headings to break up the text. These sections include the "In Central America, 1851–54", "Crimean War, 1853–56", "Back in London, 1856–60", and "Recognition" sections. There is also lots of details that are too specifics, like her exact address for places where she lived, which isn't necessary. The lead can probably be trimmed down a paragraph. Z1720 (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic F.C. in European football

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

There is an "encyclopedic tone" yellow banner at the top of the page which needs to be resolved. The "2021–" section is uncited and has an orange "update needed" banner. The article's lead should be expanded as it does not cover all major aspects of the topic. The article body is too long and some information can be spun out or summarised more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Franck Ribéry

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending
  • There are uncited statements, including an entire paragraph with a "citation needed" tag since 2015. Bild, considered an unreliable per this RfC (among others), is used in the article several times. This should be replaced or have the text it is citing removed. Z1720 (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "regarded as one of the best in the world" puffery in the lead is the type of material I see being removed across football articles. Seasider53 (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Washington

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs (especially in the second half of the article). Z1720 (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only see one uncited statement (singular). Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 17:14, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lurgan

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 sections. Z1720 (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The article is over 10,700 words long. After skimming the article, I noticed lots of places where information can be removed or moved to a spun out article. This included outdated information that has been updated (2008 demographic information), information about the city's history, and the "Culture" section. There are several references with "cite errors". These should be resovled. "Catherine of Bragança (1638–1705)". claims it is from the BBC, but the link does not go to a BBC website. Sportskeeda is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia and should be removed. Z1720 (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Sign Language

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

Lots of uncited statements in the "Morphology" section. Z1720 (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems most of the uncited material was added in this one edit in April 2023. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about ASL or more familiar with the sourcing could try rescuing some of that, but if not it could just be deleted. Erinius (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Winesburg, Ohio

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) 02:55, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daicon III and IV Opening Animations

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

Uncited statements. While some are covered under MOS:PLOT, other uncited statements like in the "Production" section need inline citations. Z1720 (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harry and the Potters

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

There's a "Fan POV" orange banner at the top of the article, which I agree with. There's also uncited text. Z1720 (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union

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

There's a "too long" yellow banner placed in the article in Dec. 2024. I agree with this banner, as I see lots of sections with a significant amount of information that could be spun out or summarised more effectively. These sections include "Sluggish schizophrenia", "Incomplete figures" (where the block quotes can also be summarised, instead of having all the text in the article), "Theoretical analysis" (where many paragraphs should be split up or reduced, subheadings should be placed, and information spun out), "Residual problems" (same concerns as theoretical), and "Documents and memoirs" (where I think most of this list can be spun out, with a summary in this article of the most notable, especially the memoirs). Lenta.ru is used as a source and should probably be removed. Z1720 (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. I also agree that the article is too long. Per WP:SIZERULE, articles over 15,000 words "almost certainly should be divided or trimmed", and per DYK check, this is 16,089 words. Trimming the article doesn't seem like an easy task, and large sections of the article would likely have to be paraphrased/rewritten. Those other articles would also have to be spun off. As such, I think it makes sense to delist it until someone is able to do that. I'm also noting (based on a cursory scan) some MOS:EDITORIAL language and some language that strays from WP:NPOV ("the Joint Session ravaged productive research in neurosciences and psychiatry for years to come", "pseudo-science took control", "as Bloch and Reddaway note, there are no objective reliable criteria..." and probably some that I've missed, as well as some more borderline cases). Spookyaki (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Credit Suisse

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) 02:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to help with this, but I have reduced capacity for content work over the next month. Could I please ask for this to be left open slightly longer if needed? Toadspike [Talk] 11:42, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Light-gun shooter

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

Lots of uncited text, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Party 5

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

Several uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The Reception section also needs a copy-edit and likely wouldn't pass a GAN today without significant changes. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was actually on my to-do list but never had the time to really take a look at it. I don't have a lot of time, but I'll try to get this completed by the end of the year. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have started working on this article back in June - see User:Vacant0/sandbox3. I've now finished the Gameplay section (the current one, that is, in the article, is much larger for a few reasons: 1) it is unsourced and I did not find such information online and 2) it is mostly cited to guides, which we tend to not do nowadays). I've read all reviews and what is only left to do here is to format it like how it is supposed to, per MOS:VG. Therefore, I might even finish it this week. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there are statements/information you can't find a source for, I have the print strategy guide and instruction manual for this game. I can check to see if those cover what you're looking for. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:10, 17 December 2025 (UTC))[reply]
That'd be great. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft of the gameplay you made in your sandbox looks pretty good. The only things I think the strategy guide can add are details about the different types of mini-games and the miscellaneous modes. Nothing too detailed, just enough to be comprehensive. It could also be added as a supporting citation to what you already have. I can add all those after you update the article with your draft. Just ping me here. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:07, 17 December 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Rock Band (video game)

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this one. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liliaceae

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) 16:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Knight (educator)

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

This article has had a "third party" orange banner since January 2024. On the talk page, Catfurball stated that the banner was added because the majority of the sources are connected to the Seventh-day Adventist Church (of which she is affiliated with and strongly connected to). This banner will need to be resolved for this article to remain a GA. Z1720 (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rico Rodriguez (actor)

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

The "awards and nominations" and "filmography" sections are almost completely uncited, failing WP:GACR6 #2. Some sources also have questionable reliability, like Looper and "Behind the Voice Actors", which appears user generated. my bad jolielover♥talk 06:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was pinged for this even though all I did was ref cleanup so I'm not of much use, but BtVA is a reliable source for role credits: WP:BTVA CorrectionsJackal (correct me) 09:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged the top 3 editors, you were third. jolielover♥talk 11:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicol David

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

An "Update needed" orange banner under the "2009–present: Achieving records" section. The article lists titles that she won post-2010, so I think this banner is valid and thus the article prose is missing major aspects of her career. Z1720 (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mam Sonando

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

There was little post-2014 information, so I looked online and found sources to the creation of a political party [1] and a profile of activities [2]. This makes me think that this article does not cover all major aspects of this person's biography (WIAGA 3a). Z1720 (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kanō Jigorō

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, including entire paragarphs. Some have been marked with "citation needed" since September 2022. There is an overreliance on block quotes: these can be summarised instead to help with compliance with WP:NOFULLTEXT. Some sections are too large, making the text difficult to read (especially on mobile). Reducing the block quotes will help with this, but also adding more headings will help with readability. Z1720 (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Henry le Despenser

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) 13:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the issues

This is one of the first articles I got to GA, I will be looking to address any issues, perhaps early in the new year. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kuching

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) 13:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest challenges are Governance, Geography, Demography, and Transport, where unsourced text intersects with broadness. Some of these were not fully sourced in the original GAN, so no easy solution. CMD (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Germán Busch

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

I am making the decision to nominate my own GA for reassessment. This was my first GA and has multiple issues. The article, I believe, does not meet the "Broad in its coverage" criteria.

The article often strays from the topic and goes into unnecessary detail, while other important subjects are skipped over entirely. The citations and citation style, while passable, are also not very good. This has a lot to do with the sources available to me at the time I wrote it. Portions of Busch's early life, military service, and key aspects of his presidency are glossed over entirely, while intricate detail is dedicated to areas that really should be spinned off into their own articles.

My purpose in bringing this article to reassessment is to have it de-listed. I now have access to a much more complete bibliography on the topic and am in the process of a total bottom-up rewrite. Once complete, I will re-nominate the article. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rakie Ayola

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

tagged since 2023. fails the neutral criteria of the gacr. ltbdl (love) 13:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Russian monitor Novgorod

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

I added a single-source tag in 2022. Three years later, it seems that little (or nothing) has been done to add additional credible sources. I am writing this at the encouragement of @User:Z1720. Have a nice day! JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 05:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Balloon

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

The article has no information on the premise or plot of the program. This should be included. The "Characters" section is too detailed and should be reduced. There are uncited statements in the "Broadcast history" section. Z1720 (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The character section should follow the MoS and other newer GAs. A series overview is missing. The Reception and Series information are in incorrect order and need revamping inside each section. Gonnym (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prison Break

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

The article has some uncited statements, including some short paragraphs. While some of this is covered in MOS:PLOT, others are not. Season 4 and 5 of the "Series overview" needs to be cleaned up. I suggest merging the short paragraphs into larger ones and trimming prose for the most important information. The first paragraphs of the "Cast and characters" section talks about seasons 1-3, but not of seasons 4-5. Information about those seasons should be added. The "Cast and characters" section is too detailed. This causes in-universe information to be over-emphasised. I do not think every character who has been billed as a main cast member should have information about them, especially when there is an article for the list of characters. "Other media" suffers a little from MOS:OVERSECTION. I suggest that this is either expanded upon or reorganised to delete some headings. Z1720 (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the plot unreferenced statements are in episodes, then that's fine as the plot is the source. If the statements are in other places, then an episode citation should be added. Gonnym (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie Fatso

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

Lots of uncited statements in the "Cultural references" section. The Some of the paragraphs in the "Reception" section could be merged to make it more organised, but this is a minor issue. Z1720 (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say in general the release information could use a major update. Was the episode released on home video? DVD? Blu-ray? Added and removed from major streaming services?. The Reception section should also follow the MoS and have Audience viewership, Critical response, Accolades as sub sections. Gonnym (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alot of the Cultural references section is fairly trivial so I incorparted what could be sourced into production. I also redid some of the reception section Olliefant (she/her) 21:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional Convention (United States)

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The article is also quite large and I think some information can be summarised more effectively to help with reader understanding, such as the "First draft", "Further modifications and concluding debate" and "Drafting and signing" sections. Z1720 (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to work on this once finished with final exams on Thursday. If anyone else wants to jump in earlier, I will add that Madison and Randolph's images should preferably be changed to ones in color as multiple such images exist for each of them. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 00:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liao dynasty

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 has a "too long" yellow banner at the top from September 2025. When I skimmed through the article, I found lots of places that had too much detail, not fulfilling the GA criteria 3b which says the article "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail." I think much of the prose could be summarised more effectively and/or have information moved to spun out articles, especially in the "History" section. Z1720 (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason not replace all the instances of "Yila" by "Yelü""? (or vice versa - tho Yelü has a supermajority) Lavateraguy (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Henri L'Estrange

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) 16:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dál Riata

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

Uncited statements, especially in the "In fiction" section and entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with a cut in the fiction section, removing all unsourced claims. A bit more clarity in the claim "Uncited statements ... entire paragraphs" would be appreciated. The original GAN-review is also desired. The Banner talk 17:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Banner: I added citation needed tags to the article, although skipped the "In fiction" section since so much of it is uncited. Editors can also use this script to highlight potential uncited statements. I do not know where the original GAN nomination or 2008 reassessment are located: it seems like this article went through a series of moves in 2006 and I don't know what the article's name was when it was assessed. However, the GA criteria has changed a lot since 2008 so I am not sure that the assessments would be useful here. Z1720 (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of Gibraltar during World War II

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and the "Mediterranean U-boat Campaign: 1941–1944" section. Z1720 (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kashrut

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) 15:46, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look and see what I can find to add to the article. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Budapest Gambit

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

There are uncited statements. While some of the statements are examples and might not need citations, others are explaining concepts or the history of the technique and need a citation. The article has some unnecessary detail, such as the "Illustrative games" section which might be able to be removed. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can list issues with the article and address them on a case by case basis. However this article hasn't had much work done on it lately, the current crop of chess editors don't seem very interested in it and I don't really care if it loses GA status. Being a minor opening not played by top level players, the article probably doesn't need to be as substantial as it is, but if we can justify it with sources we can keep the detail. One issue I can see is that the lead is too big. The lead should be a summary of the article. Many, perhaps even most wikipedia readers read only the lead of an article to get an overview of the topic. Long paragraphs are inappropriate in the lead. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article is more substantial than the topic really deserves. But the paragraphs about its history are interesting and, as I superficially glance over them, seem to have sufficient citations. (There are places where citations are placed at the end of a paragraph rather than at the ends of individual sentences, which I assume used to be a more common practice than it is now.) I don't much like the section on "Performance"; it relies heavily on retrospective evaluations of who was Nth-best player and when, which we nowadays warn against in WP:CHESSRATING. I am happy with the "Illustrative game"; when I was a kid reading print encyclopedias, I always looked for articles about chess players, hoping to find games to play over. Overall, I did not find any claims with insufficient citations, but I may well have missed some -- please suggest where to look. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bruce leverett: I have added citation needed tags to the article. As for the illustrative games: Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK articles should describe. While one examples might be appropriate while describing a concept a separate section in an article is probably not appropriate, as is the case for this article. I would remove these examples or integrate them into the text. Z1720 (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the citation needed templates. Some of them might be easily "curable", but for most of them, I would have to consult the sources. These are books (Lalic, Taylor, etc.). I think they are only available in print; googling "Internet Archive budapest defense" I only found Borik and Gutman. This is looking like an expensive project. Probably I should defer to someone who already has Budapest sources handy.
    My argument by reminiscence in favor of "Illustrative games" may not be entirely convincing. We have "notable games" sections for chess player biographies, and this practice was what I was remembering from print encyclopedias, but this is not a chess player biography. The game is attractive and perhaps instructive, but I do not know if we have found the best way of integrating it into the article. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bruce leverett: If a particular game is notable (perhaps because it would pass WP:GNG) then the information can be spun out into a new article. If it is an illustrative game, it can be incorporated into prose text (albeit summarised more effectively). For a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia, I do not think it should be incorporated like it currently is. Z1720 (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's a clear difference between being notable enough to warrant a separate article (few individual chess games pass that bar), and notable enough for mention on a more general topic. The lesser-known Beatles song "You Won't See Me" is probably not notable enough for an article, but the band and the album Rubber Soul certainly are. (Does that analogy work?) MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone ahead and deleted the game. For what it's worth, it still appears in the article on Ashot Nadanian. You could illustrate an opening like this with any number of well-played games; there should be some reason to choose a specific game like this over all other candidates. Why choose a game of Nadanian's, when he's otherwise unmentioned in the article? Why pick only a Black win? Why not a grinding positional win by White? Why not a well-played draw? Why does only 4.Nf3 get an illustrative game, when 4.Bf4 is more critical? Without thought being given to questions like these, I'd argue the selection of this one game is a violation of NPOV. Cobblet (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at the tagged statements, and it seems to me that these are not overly concerning. I'm away from my chess library until January, but when I'm back home I can tackle these issues. I agree the lead should be condensed. One issue I'd like to examine when I have access to literature is whether the terms "Rubinstein Variation", "Adler Variation", "Alekhine Variation" have actually seen much use beyond one or two sources. As far as I recall, writers usually just refer to 4.Bf4, 4.Nf3 and 4.e4. Cobblet (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aztecs

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, in the article. Several sections, such as the "Definitions", "History", and "Religion" have too much detailed information which can be spun out into articles that already exist or removed, while other sections like "Art and cultural production" and "Legacy" can have information spun out into new articles or summarised more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fix it?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, since that is exactly what you do when you show up at my talkpage to send me a message that you don't like the current state of this article and that I need to fix it if I want it to retain the Ga status I worked hard to achieve 10 years ago. The article has clearly deteriorated since then, as articles do. But if we want to actually have a good encyclopedia then somebody needs to maintain articles. This is what actually builds an encyclopedia. Cruising around and starting GA reviews does nothing at all to improve the encyclopedia. It amounts to pointing out problems and trying to coerce others into fixing them instead of doing it oneself. But apparently that is the only thing you have time and interest in doing... ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:24, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Maunus: If you would like to discuss the GAR process or my conduct, please post on WT:GAN or the appropriate noticeboard. This page is a review of the article's quality; no editor, including you, has to make improvements to the article as we are all volunteers and can choose where we want to make edits. If anyone is interested in making improvements, I am willing to add templates to the article or make more detailed comments if pinged. Z1720 (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George P. Burdell

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 for the "Legacy" section, at the top of the page since 2024. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Pro

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) 03:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flight 19

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 the entire "In fiction" section. Z1720 (talk) 03:44, 6 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]

Quite a few of these adds come from after the 2010 GAN from @The howling cow, Buckshot06, and Maliepa:; pinging to see if they can cite their additions. If not, it might be best I just cut uncited content out. —Ed!(talk) 03:44, 16 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]

I'll take a look at this soon and try to make some improvements - Plighting Engineerd (talk) 06:11, 4 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]

@Z1720, Renerpho, and ArkHyena: I'm finally getting around to updating this article. Or at least, trying to. This is a massive article that I have not touched since 2022, so the task is a bit daunting—especially when trying to not cringe at my old writing (I wrote this article to GA status 5 years ago...). I'll work on this intermittently for the sake of my sanity, so expect this to take a while—at least 2 months. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 19:29, 5 December 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]

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]

Please be more specific about your concerns re sourcing; you identified only one source that doesn't meet requirements. I am working on this, but it will be slow progress due to real life and other wiki-commitments. I have been collecting additional information on a page in my userspace that will allow updating in a more organized fashion. This shouldn't be a rush, especially at this time of year. Risker (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please also be specific about what issues you have with Hello! Magazine being used as a source. It is comparable to People magazine, which is used as a reliable source in multiple BLPs, including several FAs. Risker (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Risker: Per WP:GAR, "Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article." This GAR will not be closed while you or any other editor are making improvements (even if they might take a while). As for Hello Magazine, the source was posted on WP:RS/N in 2019 with the conclusion that it was not a reliable source (discussion linked here. If you think the consensus has changed for this source, I think it would be appropriate to open a new discussion. Other unreliable sources I see in the article are Daily Express, International Business Times and Discogs. Please let me know if you would like me to add "citation needed" templates to the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:50, 15 December 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]
    Okay so this seems to be quite a big project. This is not something I will reasonably be able to do in under a month but I'm going to chip away at it. I'm going to start by removing some information that is not mentioned in recent sources and go from there. Seeing as this is a huge article I don't think it needs tons of info added moreso just some reshuffling of existing info and updating. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 18:52, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline updates

  • GINA guidelines: The scope of the 2011 and 2025 GINA guidelines closely match. In most cases, citations to the 2011 guideline can be replaced with citations to the 2025 guideline, provided that the accompanying text is updated to reflect current recommendations.
    • GINA_2011: "Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention" (PDF). Global Initiative for Asthma. 2011. Archived Reports.
    • GINA_2025: "Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention" (PDF). Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA). 2025.
  • NHLBI guidelines: The scope of the 2020 NHLBI focused update is substantially narrower than that of the 2007 NHLBI/NAEPP guidelines (EPR-3). The 2007 guideline therefore remains generally valid except where its recommendations have been superseded by the 2020 focused update. Consequently, most citations to the 2007 guideline cannot be replaced by the 2020 update.

Boghog (talk) 10:44, 16 December 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]

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]

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]
I think this article is already adequately sourced. I have added a few more citations. Anything else? Boghog (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Z1720: Thanks for highlighting the text that needed citations. I believe all of them have now been addressed. In a few cases, the text was revised to more closely reflect the cited sources, but overall the previously unsourced material was in pretty good shape. Boghog (talk) 15:08, 9 December 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]

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]

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]

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]
@RedShellMomentum what specifically // Chchcheckit (talk) 21:36, 4 December 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]

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]

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]

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]
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]
@Jonathanischoice Following discussion at the meetup today, I have found that there are lots of sources about the release of the album available in ProQuest for the year 2007 (all I searched for initially). Filtering for just newspaper sources gave me a more focused set of query results, but magazines are probably worth a try as well. Note that I logged into ProQuest via a Wellington City Libraries access, using my library card credentials. I haven't looked into the sources in detail but I am sure you will find things of value to this article._Marshelec (talk) 01:05, 7 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]
  • The citations in the lead should be removed per MOS:CITELEAD to better comply with criteria 1 for GA.
  • Perhaps the quote summarising the battle should not be in the lead and moved to the next in a nice quotation template.
  • Replace that quote with a small paragraph or sentence, on the historiography/legacy perhaps.
LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 19:18, 5 December 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]
@Z1720 I expect to start work on this again sometime within the next five or six days. I am reasonably confident that I have sources that can supply missing citations. Donner60 (talk) 07:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 I still intend to get to this soon, although obviously not as soon as I had hoped. We have a family member who cannot be here for Christmas visiting for the next week. I also have been working on a few coordinator questions that have been taking longer to sort out and answer and a few other real life chores. As I noted, I have several sources that can be used for citations and any other needed edits for this article so it is something I should be able to accomplish. Thanks for your patience. Donner60 (talk) 02:29, 13 December 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]

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]

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]

@Kingoflettuce and Z1720: have your concerns been addressed satisfactorily? @Bgsu98: do you plan on editing this article further? TompaDompa (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What other concerns remain? Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:50, 17 December 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: 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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment&oldid=1325173530"