Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:GAR)
MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsFAQBacklog DrivesMentorshipReview circlesDiscussionReassessmentReport
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, Iazyges, 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 not meeting the general notability guideline, 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 delist.

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 one month.
  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 one month, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
    • If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.
  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. Battle of Wilson's Creek 2025-02-27
  6. Cloud9 League of Legends 2025-03-13
  7. Dragon Quest 2025-03-13
Find more: 2023 GA Sweeps Project
See also: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sweeps 2023

The Good articles listed below would benefit from the attention of reviewers as to whether they need to be reassessed. In cases where they do, please open a community reassessment and remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, 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

J'en ai marre!

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

Same issues as Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mes courants électriques/1. Cattos💭 23:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gourmandises

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

Same issues as Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mes courants électriques/1. Cattos💭 23:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mes courants électriques

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

Poorly evaluated article where there are multiple CS1 citation errors present, and several sources used—including Discogs—do not meet the reliability standards outlined at WP:RS. Additionally, there are formatting and MOS issues that suggest the article was not thoroughly reviewed during its GA nomination. The original review mostly describes the article as "good" or "well-written" without providing in-depth feedback or demonstrating engagement with the full GA criteria. I suspect that both accounts involved in the GA review are socking. Other GAs related to this include Gourmandises and "J'en ai marre!" for reassessment. Cattos💭 23:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew West

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

I am brand-new in this matter of good article reassesments. Nonetheless, I notice that the recent years of West career are being hugely neglected. Lack of completeness, citation needed templates, short unsourced paragraphs, some citations with cuestionable verifiability (including primary ones), damaged prose and outdated MoS addressing. It is kind of similar to Anuel AA. If you want to improve or comment, you are welcome, I am not in a hurry for this. Santi (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud9 League of Legends

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

Old GA is having an issue per [1] with an active template at the top. Multiple dead links also 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Temple

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

Poorly reviewed by a blocked user and should return to GAN's queue. During the DYK process, a copyright violation and failed verification was already found immediately by Dclemens1971. The prose doesn't look good either. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

can try to help address some of these issues. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Class 455

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

This article no longer meets the GA criteria. Its lead section of 2 sentences is laughably short, while several paragraphs in the body are uncited. Several sources appear to be unreliable, such as a self-published photography site [2] and whatever "Southern E-Group" was (the link is dead). The article seems more concerned with paint schemes than substantial encyclopedic information on the trains. The infobox is also excessive in length. I posted a warning on the article's talk page last month, and no improvements have occurred between then and now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Castlevania: Portrait of Ruin

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

Review Section

(Taken from my points on the main talk page of the article)

This article hasn't been assessed for GA article status since 2008. Having expanded and the standards for GA having risen since then, I feel that the time is right for this article to be assessed to see if this article still meets the criteria. In the meantime, here are some things that I have noted so far.

  • The lead has no information on the game's development despite there being ample enough info to include.
  • The lead doesn't do a good job at illustrating the gameplay and plot.
  • Gameplay section is seemingly very messy -
    • It goes into seemingly too much detail about the game's enemies.
    • On top of that, it mentions the games endings in too much detail for something that should probably be reserved for the plot section.
    • The "Alternate Modes" and "Nintendo Wi-Fi" subsections aren't necessary as their contents can seemingly be shortened and added to the main section with no real issue.
    • Alternate Modes subsection has a majority of it in bullet points. Need I say more.
  • The plot section is too long and somewhat messy in writing in places.
  • The development section is decently well written, but there is a citation needed symbol and the Audio subsection feels sort of iffy to me.
  • Reception section might need to be rewritten. Definitely work in or remove the final line of the section though as it doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the text in the section.
  • Some References, such as the Brady Games strategy guide, seem unfit for this article. Also, one of the sources isn't formatted properly.

Any additional points to be addressed are very much appreciated COOPER COOL 23 user page 19:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More points can be added here once a week of no commentary occurs on the main talk page.
@CooperCool23: I agree with most of your review. Here are some points that I have a different opinion about or questions for clarification:
  • The existence of the subsections seem appropriate based on what I remember of the coverage. Though I do conceded that if they are condensed, a smaller amount of prose wouldn't warrant a subsection. I guess wait and see until after changes are made.
  • Why is the Brady Game strategy guide unfit? It's an official guide made in collaboration with Konami, the developer, and is being used to source gameplay. Also, any other sources you feel are unfit?
  • I fixed the Nintendo Power source with the missing information.
I'll see how much I can help out with and start making edits as time allows. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]
@Guyinblack25 in regards to your comment about sources, I didn't know that official strategy guides could be used when citing gameplay so that is my fault. That, and I think I was just skimming through the list of references in the article and thought that I saw ones that were out of place (I think I also mistook that the "official" in the Brady Games source wasn't there...some how (don't ask)). I have now also done and double checked all the sources together with Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources and the article and can now say for certain that none of the sources seem to be unfit or unreliable for the article. Hope that clears some things up. COOPER COOL 23 user page 20:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
👍 (Guyinblack25 talk 22:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Starting a discussion about the cover art caption to avoid back and forth reverts. I've seen that trend before and always change it because it is outside Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions, image captions do not have to be short and should not be so short that they omit useful information to the reader. The term the MoS uses is "succinct", which means don't use ten words when five or six will do.

  • "Succinctness is using no superfluous or needless words. It is not the same as brevity, which is using a relatively small number of words. Succinct captions have more power than verbose ones."

Other points in the MoS that apply here are

  • "The caption should lead the reader into the article."
  • "While a short caption is often appropriate, if it might be seen as trivial (People playing Monopoly), consider extending it so that it adds value to the image and is related more logically to the surrounding text (A product of the Great Depression, Monopoly continues to be played today.)."
  • The special situation section of that MoS (MOS:CAPLENGTH) includes a video game cover as an example of a full-sentence caption in the infobox, citing Bioshock Infinite: "BioShock Infinite gives an example of an informative yet brief full-sentence caption describing the key element (the singular protagonist) depicted and its relationship to the article's subject."

While I agree the caption itself does not need to mention that the characters are new to the series, this is the only visual information in the article that depicts what the two characters (who are mentioned prominently) look like as the screenshot uses only tiny pixel sprites. Identifying them by name and connecting that to visual information helps most readers process and retain information. Basically, treating the caption as only a label is a missed opportunity to enrich the article. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Update - there are some places that could use some polish and there are probably a few more rabbit holes I could dive into for content, but I'm basically done with my improvements. If someone could review/copy edit the whole article, that would be helpful. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Syd Barrett

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending
  1. Large portions of cited text were removed from the article last August which I feel harms the overall quality.
  2. There's a maintenance template indicating verfication is needed for footnote ref 122.
  3. There's a clarification needed template after a sentence in the death section which refers to something called "cambridge 2005", presumably a book but I can find no evidence of its existence.
  4. Footnote reference 99 is for a fansite called "pinkfloydfan.net" which doesn't satisfy WP:RS. If someone wants to cite Record Collector they should cite it directly rather than copyvio duplicates on fansites.
  5. Footnote 109 references a fan created database of bootleg records and also a fansite "echoeshub", neither of which satisfies WP:RS,
  6. Several other similar non RS fansites are cited. No point in listing every one.
  7. Reference formats are inconsistent. And in some cases, citations to print magazine or newspaper are missing page numbers, bylines and other detail. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has deteriorated somewhat in the last 10 years and wouldn't pass GA now. I have book sources available to fix this, and if I can improve the sourcing this week, I will, otherwise I'm going to reluctantly suggest a delist. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having had a closer look, I think this one is salvageable. I was expecting to have to rewrite large sections, but it seems that this is simply an unwatched article that has been degraded by inexperienced editors. Regarding, Several other similar non RS fansites are cited. No point in listing every one. I am going through and tagging claims with {{better source needed}} to remind me to do them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested to know why you think the article improvements by Popcornfud in August 2024 harmed the quality of the article. In view, they did the exact opposite - they improved it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think they improved the article? Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the edit summaries said, "this is all detail more about Pink Floyd, and should be covered in the main Pink Floyd article. keep the focus here on Syd Barrett" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I disagree with that assessment. Barrett was a member of Pink Floyd, so some detail of his former band, especially reliably cited detail in proper context, seems useful. Especially when most of the other issues I raised here were left unaddressed. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your reference updates have been helpful! Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's tons of detail about Pink Floyd in the article, but it has to be kept to an appropriate degree of context. For example, most of this detail about Piper at the Gates of Dawn is about Pink Floyd in general, with little specificity to Barrett. We don't need a quote from Nick Mason discussing their debut single, not here. Popcornfud (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting there with sources and verification; things look in better shape. There are still a few things left that I want to tidy up though, plus then I plan to do a copyedit of the whole article (unless Popcornfud gets there first). Then I think it'll be okay to retain its GA status. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is looking in better shape now, so I'm going to conclude we should keep it as a good article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit [3] has introduced language that I believe doesn't match the source. From what I remember of the Schaffner book, groupies did not make the claim to Meades. The quote itself is from Meades and his allegation was against the groupies for committing the act. Popcornfud, are you verifying any of these changes to cited material before changing the meaning? Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't intend to change the meaning there. I misunderstood what the previous prose was trying to say, and on rereading it, I don't feel too guilty about that, as it was a fairly baffling sentence. Fixed. Popcornfud (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. With that corrected it seems much better. Yes, the old sentence was clumsy and unclear. I give thumbs up to keeping it as GA. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Carlsen

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

The article has become bloated, with many minor events added to the article and too much detail of games and events. This causes the article to be WP:TOOBIG and efforts to spin out text or remove unnecessary prose have stalled. The article also has some uncited text. Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bloat and article size are not among the GA criteria. An article can be WP:TOOBIG and still be a good article, and quite a number of articles meet this description. Bloat and article size are entirely irrelevant to GAR.
That leaves uncited text. I would be happy to work on this. As a courtesy, can you give us an idea of where you have found this, so that we don't overlook something? Bruce leverett (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added citation needed templates, per requested above. In regards to article size, good article criteria 1a states that "the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct". I do not think the prose can be concise if the article is this large and bloated. I suggest as a starting point that "Notable games" be removed as, unless a source has declared these games to be notable, this section is original research as Wikipedia cannot make this declaration on its own. Z1720 (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing I have read in Wikipedia policy would lead me to your conclusion that the article must be smaller to conform to criterion 1a.
    Regarding Notable games, there was a lengthy discussion about that in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 34#'Notable games' inclusion criteria. I would ask you to read that discussion. I am not satisfied with the present Notable Games section of Magnus Carlsen, but again, this is separate from the GA criteria, and should be sddressed as a separate subproject.
    Thanks for adding the CN templates, I and perhaps other chess regulars can tackle those. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bruce leverett: The guideline WP:AS state "While expert readers of such articles may accept complexity and length provided the article is well written, the general reader requires clarity and conciseness." Earth, one of Wikipdia's featured articles, is a great example of summarising a large topic and spinning out notable prose. I also invite other editors to comment on if the Carlsen article, with the prose currently in the article, adheres to GA? 1a. Z1720 (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the issue is more the WP:PROSELINE feel of the year by year sections. There we have a clear violation not so much of 1a, but of 3b, which tells us to use summary style and to avoid too much detail. For an example from a different type of competition, the Roger Federer article is much better at explaining what was important in a given year and relegates the excessive detail to appropriate subarticles. (I personally think it should be more concise, but it is a lot better than the Carlsen article). —Kusma (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Moran

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

There is uncited prose in the article, including two direct quotes. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Astrology

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

Procedure

Extended content
Wound theology: I don't see any advance notice of this GAR on Talk:Astrology? The normal procedure is to state one's concerns on the talk page, and if there's no (satisfactory) response, to proceed to GAR. I suggest this GAR should be withdrawn now, so we can discuss the matter on the talk page first. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the archives; I previously brought up certain issues (the theological viewpoints, in particular) and even flagged it with a disclaimer as being unbalanced. It was ignored and the template was eventually removed because no one else seemed to care. wound theology◈ 09:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was well done, and I see you've made some helpful additions to the article recently as well. But neither of those things constitute putting a notice on the talk page that you're considering a GAR, in the week before you do so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: The edit in which I added the Template:POV is here and the previous "discussion" is at Talk:Astrology/Archive 36#Theological viewpoints. Note that the edit in which VenusFeuerFalle (talk · contribs) removed the template has an inaccurate summary, stating there has been consensus for "over a year" -- I did explain to her here that a lack of discussion is an example of WP:NOCON rather than the opposite. wound theology◈ 09:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find "GAR" anywhere in that archive. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest: I was just following Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/guidelines, which is the first search result for me. That page only says to [c]onsider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors. Unless there is some hard-and-fast policy like the WP:3RR about talk page discussion about a GAR specifically, I think the problems on this page are serious enough to warrant a reassessment. The page is largely the accretion of several slow-burn edit wars and POV-pushing from both sides in the ten years (!) since it was elevated to GA status, and from my own personal experience editing the page -- not many are willing to give the proper historical context needed here. The fact that a cleanup template could stay up for over a year and then be quietly removed for a lack of discussion is evidence enough of that. wound theology◈ 09:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, GAR it is then. Let's proceed to technical discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Much has been changed and argued about since this page was promoted a decade ago. In general it is unbalanced and skewed -- not in the WP:FRINGE sense but in that it tends to ignore how widespread astrology was in ancient and medieval times, and seems to misrepresent the work of ancient philosophical skeptics (who rejected all philosophical and scientific inquiry.) The "Theological viewpoints" section, likewise, implies that astrology was historically rejected in both Islam and Christianity, despite the fact that the exact opposite is true. wound theology◈ 08:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as a comment about content; reviewing the six GA criteria, the only one near it is Neutrality, but the page is studiously neutral, despite much added-and-reverted partisan editing. Instead, your remarks about "ancient philosophical skeptics (who rejected all philosophical and scientific inquiry.)" and "Theological viewpoints" (Islam and Christianity) are both matters of historical detail, which can be fixed simply by adding a bit more detail in both cases. I suspect you have historical texts to hand which could fix both matters quite easily? I'll be happy to support you in getting such materials into the article, but I see that as normal development, nothing to do with neutrality (basically, just fine adjustment).
As for your remark about "how widespread astrology was in ancient and medieval times", I'd say (looking at the article after a long interval), that it does quite a good job of indicating the topic's importance in those eras, giving substantial weight in a detailed 'History' chapter to this aspect. That does not mean we can't add more detail, and I suggest we do, to satisfy your concerns. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it is either Neutral nor sufficiently Broad in its coverage. The single largest section in this page is dedicated to the reception of astrology in the hard sciences, which dwarfs the comparatively tiny section on the principles and practice of astrology -- which covers three entire civilizations in less space than it takes to debunk the particular claims of modern horoscopic astrology. Elsewhere, significant weight is given to skeptical opinions in historical contexts, and even those viewpoints are presented in a very skewed manner -- the description of Plotinus as a critic of astrology without discussion of his very complex astrological views is heinous, in my view (see Adamson, "Plotinus on Astrology" in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 35 for context on that issue.) Giving even broad coverage to the Theological viewpoints section is, to put it simply, a Herculean task -- it is a massively complex topic spanning centuries and dozens of particular schools and opinions, practically none of which can be given a single "pro" or "contra" summary; exactly why I find the lack of interest in expanding that section particularly telling. wound theology◈ 10:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't find anything "particularly telling": my view is that our job on Wikipedia in a top-level overview-of-a-major-topic article is to give a very brief summary of many large and complex issues in a small space. I'm happy to help you extend the history, as long as it doesn't overwhelm the article; any further detail would go into subsidiary articles on Babylonian astrology, Hellenistic astrology (substantial articles, which we certainly can't and shouldn't try to duplicate here), etc.
With respect, we are very far from falling foul of either GACR Neutrality or Breadth criteria here: the article gives what many readers will find a surprising amount of detail on ancient matters. However, I'm very happy to accept your steer towards additional materials (possibly by asking you to email me a photocopy). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a brief statement about the ancient skeptics challenging everything: it's a bit of an iffy thing to do in an article as philosophers and others leap gleefully on anything with a "forall" in it, and it's close to being off-topic too, but it may help to answer your first concern (which I really don't see as misrepresentation at all: the article just says "A says x", which does not imply "A does not say y", specially as "y" is outside the article's scope). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a sentence on Plotinus from Adamson, mentioning his interest and two key concerns identified by Adamson. If there are further points on other ancient figures you'd like added, please identify them and I'll add them to the article (unless you feel like doing so yourself). Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for keeping

  • Keep: 1) the article is studiously neutral, covering multiple points of view and giving equal weight to history, principles and practice, theology, science, and culture, and has been edited and debated by many editors; and 2) the article offers detailed and balanced coverage of a very large subject in the space of a single overview article (in "summary style" with "main" links to subsidiary articles). In particular, this one article cannot and must not attempt to cover every detail of everything that the more than 60 astrology articles on Wikipedia cover already: as sketched in the tree diagram below, this article is at the top of a substantial hierarchy of articles, and its job is to give new readers a compact overview of the field: which it does. Accordingly, it is a valid Good Article and should be kept as such. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Astrology
over 60 subtopics
covered in subsidiary articles


24: The Game

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

There are "citation needed" tags since 2016, as well as uncited statements that are not tagged. There is a yellow "encyclopedic tone" banner at the top of the review section. Z1720 (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

29th Infantry Division (United States)

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

There are a lot uncited statements, including several large paragraphs, in the article. There are unreliable sources in the article, such as GlobalSecurity, IMDB, and "Hobie" (a blogspot). Z1720 (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry

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

There are uncited statements in the article. There is an "unreliable sources" orange banner at the top of "Islam and Freemasonry" section. Is this still valid? Z1720 (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s tricky… The sources cited in that section are reliable as primary sources for verifying what Islamic critics of Freemasonry claim about the fraternity… they are not reliable as secondary sources for saying that these claims are in any way accurate. Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of secondary sources relaying what they say, they shouldn't be included at all, per WP:DUEWEIGHT. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

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

Lots of uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 02:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, this is better sourced than it was when it was originally promoted. There are a few non-controversial paragraphs near the start that have never had citations; if that’s the issue, we can work on it. Lastly, there are about a half dozen tags that have crept in over the last 3-4 years when someone has added something that’s either uncited, poorly cited, miscited, etc. I’ve been hesitant to strike those totally though because I don’t want to WP:OWN the article, but if those are the issue then I can certainly strike them, no big deal. Trevdna (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trevdna: If an editor couldn't find a reliable source to support a claim, I would removing the information. If you are still unsure, you can always remove the information and open a discussion on the talk page. Z1720 (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I’ll go through and either remove or find citations for statements that are currently uncited or that have tags on them. Give me a couple of days. Trevdna (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I actually got some time to go through and handle these right now. (Decided to just do it and keep it off my to-do list.) How does the article look to you as it currently stands?
Note that per my understanding of MOS:LEADCITE, few if any citations are required in the lead section, as it summarizes content that is properly cited elsewhere in the article. But let me know what your thoughts on it are. Some citations are present for items that, in the original editor's judgement, may have been controversial or challenged, or I guess where they thought that having a citation specific to that statement was just a good idea. Trevdna (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citations only need to be in the lead under specific circumstances (like quoting someone) but usually they are not needed and should be removed. The information in the lead should also be in the article body. I have added "citation needed" tags to various locations that need citations. Z1720 (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think that should do it. All the items you tagged have now been addressed. And all citations have been removed from the article lead, one way or another. Let me know what you think. Trevdna (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brian's Got a Brand New Bag

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

There is an "Original research" banner at the top of the uncited "Cultural references" section. Z1720 (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed them as they were added in 2017 when the article was already a GA. @Kaliforniyka: Since you added them, would you like to add it back but with sources? Otherwise, I think it is best just keeping it out. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics

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) 02:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a look at this. The lead could do with some tidying up, and I can see some unsourced statements on first pass. Will look more closely and check out previous review for further inspiration. Rodney Baggins .talk. 09:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article can easily be saved as GA with a bit of work, which I'm slowly getting on with. I've been making some improvements to the prose and sourcing, with more planned. I do think this is quite an important article in the grand scheme of things and as I'm a member of WikiProject Olympics, I'm happy to take it on. In terms of meeting the GA criteria, I think the following needs doing:
  • Tidy up lead section, source any miscellaneous statements not expanded in main article, e.g. Beckham at closing ceremony
  • Medal count / doping issue in lead needs to be expanded/explained more clearly in body.
  • In Medallists section, the medals not covered by ref.7 need to be separately sourced, i.e. the 4 bronze medals awarded at a later date in athletics.
  • Check all sport sections are sufficiently sourced, add new sources where necessary.
  • Swap in a few alternative sources to reduce over reliance on BBC (as mentioned in initial GA review).
I've rescued the "Official Results from the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games" source (in References, General) and cited both parts ("– Archery to Handball" and "– Hockey to Wrestling"). As these constitute a general reference that can be used to verify the numbers and names of Team GB participants in each discipline, as well as all the results, I thought rather than cluttering up the article with ref/rp tags, I could instead add a useful note to help the reader locate the relevant info, e.g. below the first: "Contains results for the following disciplines: Archery (page 1); Athletics (page 55); Badminton (page 415)..." and below the second: "Contains results for the following disciplines: Hockey (page 1); Judo (page 352); Modern Pentathlon (page 414)..." Rodney Baggins .talk. 14:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darian Durant

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

There's uncited parargaphs throughout the article. There is a lot of MOS:OVERSECTION, and I think some of these sections can be considered to be merged together. The lead is too short and does not mention all aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Irwin

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

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. There is an orange "expansion needed" banner from December 2024 Z1720 (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • I updated the citations in the early life section and reworked it a bit.

I will do more soon as the article needs some work. Idiosincrático (talk) 09:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Hitchcock

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 and verification needed tags. The article is not concise and is considered WP:TOOBIG. I suggest that some information be moved to other articles or removed if unencyclopedic. Z1720 (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jodrell Bank Observatory

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) 01:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blackdown Hills

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) 02:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Highway 33

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) 02:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Marsh

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

Could have violated WP:NPOV and has a lack of cites on some sentences. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 23:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give examples of how it violates NPOV as from a quick glance I have not noticed it? Also, can you please give examples of sentences needing cites to help people wanting to improve the article? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Freedoxm: saying "could have violated" makes you seem unsure of there actually being NPOV violations, and every single paragraph is sourced (not every sentence needs to be sourced), so i'm leaning towards a keep until there are actually problems pointed out. 750h+ 08:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak interaction

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

The talk page had concerns about the article's quality posted 3 months ago, mainly about numerous uncited statements. This is still an issue three months later so I'm nominating it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Onegreatjoke I must strongly disagree with the statement "concerns about the article's quality posted 3 months ago" used here. What is in the talk page comment is mention of some paragraphs without sources, and the lead being an incomplete description. Similar to an AfD discussion, that is not the strongest argument. A topic such as Weak interaction is almost impossible to summarize in a simple lead, it is too large and complex. Also, looking quickly, many of the unsourced paragraphs are connective or introductory. Maybe someone will add some sources, I am not qualified to even though I have a physics background. I suspect that many potential editors will be put of by the abrupt nature of this nomination and a lack of detailed physics-based analysis of the issues. While it is easy to count sources/paragraph, I don't think that is high level analysis, sorry. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are still some statements that seem to be uncited regardless of whether they're connective or introductory. Plus, the GA guidelines state "reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)", so these will need to be cited regardless. I'm not sure if the lead is an issue but i feel that the citation of the article still requires work. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Hakim

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

The "Awards" and "Filmography" sections have "unsourced" banners from 2022. The "Biography" section has numerous paragraphs, and should probably be broken up with level 3 headings. The lead does not have post-2011 information and events in it. Z1720 (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Dale

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

The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. The article doesn't have much post-2011 information in the prose. There is a "more sources needed" orange banner on top of the "Filmography" section. Z1720 (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the lead, which it appears someone deleted for some reason. Will try and have a look at the career section soon. Gran2 20:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still need to find a few more sources for the filmography, but I think overall the article is in much better shape now. Gran2 18:49, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honiara

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 paragraphs. The "Administrative divisions" table should be updated with the latest population figures. Z1720 (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I was only thinking that yesterday! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysler 180

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

Multiple uncited statements, some tagged as such since March 2023. While some work has been done to rectify this, the work seems to have stalled. Z1720 (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 I think I have resolved your concerns. Cos (X + Z) 21:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Canaan

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

Requesting reassessment of Lydia Canaan due to unsourced and poorly sourced material, which violates Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Unsourced content may be challenged or removed per Wikipedia:Content removal and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Removal of Unsourced Material. Poor sourcing undermines article reliability as outlined in Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Mesoutopia (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mesoutopia, I'm glad you opened this but as far as I am concerned we should just yank this plus sign immediately: the article is terrible, and it was terrible already when it was "reviewed". Drmies (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't agree more, but I don't think I have the authority to do that. Can you? In my opinion the subject isn't notable enough for an article in the first place. Mesoutopia (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this article is currently seriously below GA standards. Aside from the serious cleanup tags which need addressing, there are at a minimum also issues with encyclopedic tone (e.g. the last performer to grace its stage; the buzz culminating in a promo tour in England) and bullet-point lists which should be rewritten as prose (e.g. the §Public speaking and §Charity and advocacy sections). Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, unless someone steps forward to work on it. Far too much uncited, including lengthy claims about an unreleased record (see WP:DUEWEIGHT as well as the obvious questions about how we can be so precise about a record that doesn't exist). UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Archuleta

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

This article has been at GA status for over 16 years and hasn't been reassessed since. There are a some issues that should be looked at if this article is to remain at GA status.

I brought these up at the talk page a week ago but I don't think anyone is watching.

Some issues I noticed:

  • The latter section of the Career section is very poor. Most of the more recent stuff (last 10 years) reads as a WP:PROSELINE list of chronological events that has been assembled piecemeal instead of written as proper prose. (WP:GACR6 #1)
  • Some of the paragraphs are very short - some only two short sentences long. These should probably be restructured to be more substantial. (WP:GACR6 #1)
  • There are a few citation needed tags (and other tags) interspersed throughout the article, once again mostly in the latter part of the article. (WP:GACR6 #2)
  • Not particularly a GA issue, but in general the citations in the lead & in the infobox should be moved into the body of the article (MOS:INFOBOXCITE, MOS:LEADCITE)
  • It doesn't look like there are any citations at all for the Performances table (WP:GACR6 #2)
  • The Filmography section is also missing many citations. (WP:GACR6 #2)

RachelTensions (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grey's Anatomy

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

There's uncited text, including entire paragraphs. This article, at almost 14,000 words, is not concise. I think some information should be spun out into daughter articles. It also uses some unreliable sources, like IMDB. Z1720 (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Waldorf

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

Uncited text, including entire paragraphs and sections. The "Reaction to triangle" and "Controversy" sections under season 4 seem to be in the wrong location in the article, leading to some disorganization in the layout. Z1720 (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Home (Game of Thrones)

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

The "Plot" section has an "excessively long" banner, which might mean it is not concise. Is this still the case? The "Casting" section has uncited text, and uses IMDB as a source, which is not recommended at WP:IMDB. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • These problems are genuine but seem surmountable. The nominator has since been indeffed: as the reviewer I am willing to undertake shortening the plot summary (600 words currently, MOS recommends 400) and citing the brief sections currently unsourced or cited to IMDB. That said, the nominator was indeffed for sockpuppetry, and the SPI indicates they were actively misusing multiple accounts around the time this article was being reviewed. As such I'm somewhat undecided on whether we should simply let the GA status lapse. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now dealt with the tag and the uncited text. I remain undecided on GA status, as above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beyoncé

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN from 2008
Result pending

After giving this some thought, I'm not convinced the article still meets GA standards. Starting a reassessment that probably should've been initiated earlier. Along with talk page complaints about it reading like a fan page (as of this diff), here are some issues I found from a glance:

  • "Early life" goes into excessive details about heritage. We could just stick to a general summary where her ancestors came from, and maybe mention some relatives outside of her sister and their parents who have articles.
  • The 2019 version of The Lion King doesn't need to be linked more than once within "Career" section (the 2018–2021 section is ideal when that's the first mention). It's also unnecessary to link things like Destiny Fulfilled and "Instagram" under "Fashion lines" after previous sections already do so.
  • I doubt there's any need for a whole quote box on Black Is King for "Videography and stage"
  • There's various redundancies when talking about Ms. Knowles' marriage with Jay-Z (who seems to be her only publicly known non-platonic relationship). When largely intertwined with both of their careers, it would probably be best to integrate details into the "Career" section and perhaps have a "Life and career" section (which I believe this article once did many years ago before getting restructured). Since she's also worked professionally with both daughters they have together (not sure about their son), such a rearrangement could also help avoid repetition of such endeavors.
  • Under "Activism", the tone of "our" from "persistent in our societies" is inappropriate
  • The whole "Interests" subsection seems trivial
  • "Music video" is a very commonly known term that doesn't need linking per WP:OVERLINK
  • Within "Legacy", it sounds like fan puffery to say "artistic innovations"
  • Lots of incorrect formatting (e.g. The Wall Street Journal is missing italics from the "Fashion lines" subsection while About.com, Box Office Mojo, Chime For Change, CNN, NPR, and Recording Industry Association of America shouldn't use them at all for citations, Elle is wrongfully written in all upper case)
  • I would try to find stronger sourcing than BuzzFeed, "Fashionlooks.com" Metro, and "quotefancy", also there's some dead links that need fixing/replacing

The above isn't an exhaustive list of the problems this article has, and others are free to list other qualms they have. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

icon, i think i'll have to take this on. 750h+ 13:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS i think i've addressed most your problems (not sure about the fourth problem), but if anyone has any issues feel free to list them but i'm leaning keep. 750h+ 01:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Things definitely look better than before overall, so kudos on that. In case it wasn't clear before, I meant that "Marriage and children" could easily be interspersed throughout "Career" given how much Beyoncé and Jay-Z have worked together both after and before getting married to each other. Doing this would make it less likely for any mentions of the pair's collaborations to be repeated throughout the body. To a lesser extent, their 3 kids have each also worked with both (and I have since found out that son Sir also appeared in the Black Is King movie along with both parents and his sisters). The rest of "personal life" could be rearranged without being subsections of that. Nevertheless, I do recommend waiting for others to leave comments before we close the reassessment, and on another note it's needlessly repetitive to use "Knowles" more than once in the opening sentence. Maybe later I'll dig deeper into the page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I also just realised i haven't fixed the dead links, so I'll get to that. 750h+ 12:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lois Riess

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

Spotchecks by myself and Cielquiparle have revealed significant integrity problems with the citations provided, in that they often do not verify the content they're attached to. A citation spotcheck does not appear to have been done in the GAR by 750h+. This was first discussed at the DYK nom for this article, where the nom was closed as a fail on these grounds. Further discussion with Afrowriter on the talk page hasn't resolved these issues to my satisfaction. Tenpop421 (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenpop421 For real, to your satisfaction? You can also make your statement and nomination without saying that, "I don’t edit Wikipedia to cater to your satisfaction, nor am I obligated to create articles for your approval. That said, every detail and piece of information in the article is supported by inline citations, and they align with every spot-check performed. If you believe something isn’t right, feel free to edit it yourself—I have better things to do than argue over this for weeks. Cheers, and happy editing! Afro 📢Talk! 19:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite alright, @Afrowriter:. I've said my piece and we can go our separate ways. Tenpop421 (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The way you did put your message sounded like i am suppose to take permision from you before editing or publishing an article . @Tenpop421 Afro 📢Talk! 19:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't intend it like that, my apologies Tenpop421 (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenpop421 @Grumpylawnchair i have fixed and replace or supported the tagged sections with reliable source please confirm Afro 📢Talk! 13:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Tenpop421: @Afrowriter: I added some unreliable source templates since it is not ideal to use infotainment sites for a BLP GA and Metro should not be used for BLPs, per WP:METRO. Grumpylawnchair (talk)

Spot checks

Footnotes 10, 11 do not verify After completing high school,; they say that she was 20 years old when they married David, nothing about her completing high school.  Done
Footnotes 12, 13, 14 do not verify They raised three children  Done
Footnote 15 verifies that she had a gambling addiction, but nothing about the timeline the article describes (i.e., that she had a hobby that eventually escalated into a significant gambling addiction)  Done
Footnote 16 does not verify An audit uncovered specific transactions, including payments to a deceased relative, withdrawals for personal "guardian fees" totaling $8,500, and $15,000 allocated as supposed gifts to nieces and nephews  Done
Footnote 17 does not verify Although law enforcement considered criminal charges for felony theft, no prosecution followed at that time or the date in Instead, a civil judgment was issued in 2017,  Done
i.e., 9 out of 10 of the citations in the "Early life" section fail to verify some of the content they are attached to. Tenpop421 (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenpop421 Cross check when you are less busy Afro 📢Talk! 08:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work to verify these! I will when I have some free time. Tenpop421 (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. Spot checks look good to me now. I will get to the other sections when I can. Tenpop421 (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenpop421 Hello friend whats the update on this ? Afro 📢Talk! 12:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Afrowriter: I apologise, things have really gotten too busy recently. I should be able to get to this by this weekend. Apologies again, Tenpop421 (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenpop421 No problem take your time. Trust you are doing fine Afro 📢Talk! 16:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenpop421 Hello brother what's the update on this ? Afro 📢Talk! 07:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy

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

Uncited statements, especially in the "Gameplay" section. Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of Lexington and Concord

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

The article has uncited statements. It is also quite long, at over 10,000 words: I think some information can be spun out or removed because it is too much detail. The article has many block quotes, which are not needed for the reader to understand the context and contributes to its long length. Z1720 (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important subject. I'll at least take a look. Hog Farm talk 04:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly this article appears quite notable, rated as high importance for US history, in that context I don't think I find its length objectionable or unmanageable.
Some quotes could be removed and summarised;
"We ... find that a part of your Majesty' s subjects, in the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, have proceeded so far to resist the authority of the supreme Legislature..."
"Whenever the army under command of General Gage, or any part thereof to the number of five hundred..."
--
Whereas I would oppose the removal of the quotes from participants in the battle that seems more relevant to the article at hand, without some other reason to suggest they represent a POV that should not be included, I think they are fine.
--
I am unable to find any statements in the article that are not cited at least at the paragraph level some uncited paragraphs exist but these appear entirely unobjectionable at least to me and the GA criteria are
> reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is some touching-up that could be done here. I'm busy with work but I'll try to make a library run either this weekend or next weekend. Some of the tags confuse me - I don't know what needs further explanation about "Nearly a hundred barrels of flour and salted food were thrown into the millpond". I have doubts about the free license status of the Franklin Mint medal and have nominated it for deletion on Commons. Hog Farm talk 16:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duchess Tatiana Nikolaevna of Russia

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 quotations. Z1720 (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination is without merit. I do not see any statements tagged "citation needed". Yes, the lede does not have footnotes, but this is not required from the lede, which is supposed to be article summary. If it contains suspicious statemnts, they must be tagged, so that thic can be fixed promptly, without drastic acttions. --Altenmann >talk 22:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Altenmann: Uncited statements do not need "citation needed" tags for them to be uncited, nor do they need the tags placed before it is brought to GAR. Nevertheless, I have added the citation needed tags so that editors can easily find these statements. Z1720 (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do not place "citation needed on each sentenc4e. Often there is a single footnote for a paragraph. 15:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
  • @Altenmann: GAs are held to a higher standard and need a citation at the end of each paragraph. Per the GA criteria, "All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)". In my review of the article, I saw many sentences at the end of paragraphs that were uncited. Z1720 (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Littleton

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

Uncited statements. The lead's organisation is also unusual with several small paragraphs, and doesn't mention the subject's death. Z1720 (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harold B. Lee Library

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

Article has prose issues, particularly the active templates. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements are ongoing at Talk:Harold B. Lee Library#Addressing "sources too closely associated with the subject". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call those improvements just yet... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism

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

There are some uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. When the article was first promoted to GA status, it was about 6200 words. It is now over 10,000 words, and WP:TOOBIG recommends spinning out articles of that size. Is there any information in the article that can be spun out or stated with less words, to make this article more concise? The "Demographics" section seems to end at 2016. Are there more up-to-date statistics? Z1720 (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The article already makes abundant use of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, and I am impressed that such a general article comes in at only 10,425 words, which is perfectly in accord with WP:TOOBIG. I have reviewed the article and tagged every instance of a missing citation. Since none of the statements are controversial, I expect editors will fill them in now that they have been flagged. Demotion seems unwarranted and nonproductive. Patrick (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Patrick Welsh: I have added additional citation needed tags. The GA criteria states "All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph". The numerous citation needed tags (including for entire paragraphs and quotes) and the "additional citations needed" orange banners will need to be resolved before I can recommend that this article keeps its GA status. Z1720 (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why you would add those redundant tags, which make the article look messier that it is.
    As long as the unsupported content is uncontroversial, which it is, I will remain opposed.
    Placing an artificial deadline on editors to make these improvements seems counter-productive. Patrick (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TOOBIG isn't a hard rule; note that it says "> 9,000 words – Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." (emphasis mine) I think a general article about feminism should be on the larger side, and 10,000ish words isn't an exhausting length. The citation issues aren't major and can be remedied easily, eventually. Yue🌙 08:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earth, one of the biggest scopes on Wikipedia, is under 9,000 words, so spinning off prose can be done. In my opinion, an article should be concise and spin out material into daughter articles instead of long, hard to load on slow internet connections, and have too much detail that distracts from the most important information. None of this negates the citation concerns which still exist in the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
80% of the feminist theory content of the page could be removed, and the page would lose nothing in terms of detailing what exactly feminism is. After a talk page discussion, I once removed an entire subsection on "architectural feminism" that was based on a single article from a feminist journal. If you Googled the subject, all that it returned was the Wikipedia page and the article itself. This is what I'm talking about: this article has chronic issues with detailed descriptions of incredibly minor topics, in this case one so minor it couldn't even warrant its own article. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The article has had serious length and POV problems for years now. The article received GA status in 2011, just before the advent of "4th wave" feminism, when feminism itself was significantly narrower in scope. The anachronistic issues that once plagued this article have mostly been addressed, but length issues are still present.
Feminism today has become something personal for many people, which I think is the source of the POV and length issues. I honestly believe the only reason this article has maintained GA status for so long despite its glaring issues is that feminist editors see delisting it as an attack on feminism itself. Because of that, I doubt it will ever be delisted, even though it hasn't deserved GA status for nearly ten years. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are the POV issues? Patrick (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it stands for Point Of View issues. Basically using too many pronouns like "I," or "you," or including opinions. 66.110.254.14 (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right. Thanks! The policy is WP:NPOV.
My inquiry was intended to be about specific violations in this article, which should be addressed if they are based on high-quality sources, but disregarded if they are one editor's problem with the topic. Patrick (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, we generally use "keep" or "delist" at GAR. It can be confusing to say "support" or "oppose" because it isn't clear if that means you're supporting or opposing the delisting or the keeping of the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

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

There is a lot of uncited text. The article uses lots of block quotes, when Wikipedia recommends a summary style. The article is quite long: removing some of the block quotes might help with this, but there might also be places where the prose could be shorter. Z1720 (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in helping, although the timeline of GARs may be on the fast side relative to what I can contribute. I've put this and the article on my watchlist, and I'll see what I can do. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in helping also. Remsense ‥ 论 07:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek: GARs now typically stay open for a month (or will be closed as "keep" early if concerns are resolved). If there's ongoing improvements it will remain open past that one month. Z1720 (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek and Remsense: are you still willing to work on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if they are still interested, but I will start addressing the uncited text and excessive block quotes now, so I would appreciate keeping this review open for a few more days. Thanks! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 20:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I have done the lead, Section 4, Section 5, and Adoption sections with some big cuts, mostly along Z1720's opening remarks that the prose is excessive, especially in block quotes to SCOTUS cases. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 04:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overhauled the Citizenship Clause, Privileges or Immunities Clause and Due Process Clause! Still have the Equal Protection Clause, state actor doctrine, Section 2, and Section 3 left to go. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 19:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Przemysł II

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

Uncited statements throughout the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the relevant criteria is "reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged.... must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)". IMO concerns should be expressed in that context. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: Content in good articles need to be cited. I am happy to add citation needed templates if requested, but there are some citation needed tags from 2018 that are unresolved. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was not arguing either way, just for a clearly expressed-concern that uses the criteria as a guide. And so an uncited statement per se is not a violation. On another note, an unresolved CN tag is a whole different different thing than the general thoughts expressed here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do in terms of sourcing, but no promises. Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Found one source that partially supports the statement but I don't know about the rest. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Piotrus and @HełmPolski: Can either of you help? I'm sorry, I'm kind of grasping at straws here. Thanks, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ping folks more familiar with that history period active on en wiki: @Merangs @Volunteer Marek @Orczar Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: &@Grumpylawnchair: – I can try to fill the sections where the 'citations needed' notes are present in the text. Is there anything else that requires addressing? On a personal note, I think the footnotes/citations in the lead section make it very untidy and any referenced information there should already be in the body of the article. Merangs (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The uncited statements are the entire basis of this GAR. I could help you tidy up the lead if you deem it necessary. Thanks, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Merangs: On that note, the notes should probably be put in their own notelist instead of the reflist since it is unwieldy. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, notes and refs should not be mixed, good point. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: & @Grumpylawnchair: – Just wanted to let you know that I was able to locate and place sources for the uncited passages in the article. Merangs (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Merangs: Thank you very much! I'll take care of separating the notes from the refs. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: The article probably needs a good copyedit (maybe someone should place a request to the Guild of Copyeditors), especially the footnotes, and a lot of the info in the footnotes can be moved into the prose. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: @Merangs: @HełmPolski: Honestly, some of the sources need replacing. Polskie Radio, while usually reliable, is not a good source for a history article. The sources to news articles should ideally be replaced. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For a copyedit, I would ping @Nihil novi, although I am not sure if they'd be interested in this topic. My skills are not a good match for this particular problem. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to take a look, but it seems you've resolved the issue :) HełmPolski (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Merangs, Piotrus, Grumpylawnchair, and HełmPolski: there is still uncited material throughout the article, if any of you are up for referencing it inline? Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic

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) 04:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific - I see one overtly problematic paragraph (second paragraph of Sovietization), what other ones are of concern? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn: I have added citation needed tags where they are needed. Z1720 (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making some progress with the uncited sections, will keep working on it, I'll need four or five days. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did a pass wielding the "Armenian concise history" book—added citation, expanded, shuffled info, etc. Only one citation-less paragraph remains, a list of Armenian people from 20th century who defined certain period of Soviet Armenia, but I have a feeling it's just a list of successful people from 20th century Armenia who have a wiki pages, and a wiki editor loosely connected them. Since they are popular and sucessful figures, it can be assumed that they are a part of Soviet Armenia zeitgeist, but the concise history and google didn't produce anything remotely useful to prove it. I would delete it. LastJabberwocky (talk) 12:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of the University of Santo Tomas

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

There are uncited statements, including the entire "Filipinization of the university" section and several paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for reminding, will update in the coming days. I hope youll give me a sufficient time to overhaul the article. just a bit busy. KingTiger1611 (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some temporary references to that section; please read the edit summary. Queen Douglas DC-3 (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Queen Douglas DC-3, KingTiger1611, and MultiJames95: do any of you intend to continue working on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm won't be able to provide any more time to it. Queen Douglas DC-3 (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, while you're here, University of Valle may need a GA reassessment too. Queen Douglas DC-3 (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I will continue to rehash the whole article. I hope the editors would be able to provide me ample time to extensively overhaul the article. Many thanks! KingTiger1611 (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KingTiger1611, how much time do you think you need? Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope Id be given a few months... but ill try to reorganize the article as soon as possible. Thank you! KingTiger1611 (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire folklore by region

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

There are some uncited statements in the article, including entire sections. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article came about after being excised from the (large) parent article. Been ages since I looked at it - will do so at some point this week. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Casliber do you still intend to work on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. A few bits and pieces (citing or removing the Cambodia section, also pondering about what to do with the Folktales section at bottom) and rejigging the lead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, follow up poke, just checking you're still interested. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Will do over weekend. I have commented out unreferenced section as I suspect it will require more snooping than I am prepared to do currently - I'll make a note on the talk page for later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This hasn't seen any activity since December apart from one section being commented out, I'm inclined to close as delist unless someone intends to make improvements soon or there's a consensus to keep. Potentially this could be kept by excising the remaining unsourced material. @Casliber and AirshipJungleman29:, any thoughts? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had commented out the main chunk of material (I thought all of it...??? Oh, found and removed some more). The outstanding issue was rejigging the lead. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually not too sure what to do about the lead. Is a little small but as much of the article is quite listy in its content, it'd be making a mini-list in lead, which I don't think is that helpful Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unsure how to evaluate the broadness of this article. The article states that "the entity known today as the vampire originates almost exclusively from early 18th-century Central Europe", but the article body seems to extend the article to... anything that drinks blood? If the focus is the 18th-century mythology, then the continental division doesn't feel like it makes much sense. If the focus is anything drinking blood, or similar, then the balance between the sections seems very off (even then continental division seems unlikely to be related to vampires, but taking it as a rough category is probably fine). CMD (talk) 05:52, 27 March 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=1225482527"