Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 79: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 32: Line 32:
{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (American game show)/1}}
{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (American game show)/1}}
{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Cathay Dragon/1}}
{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Cathay Dragon/1}}
{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Golden Ambrosian Republic/1}}

Revision as of 07:16, 6 September 2024

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← (Page 78) Good article reassessment (archive) (Page 80) →

D.C. United

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of uncited text, including multiple paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Batman: Anarky

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. Hog Farm Talk 01:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text throughout the article, and the reception section is too long and disorganised. Z1720 (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oof aye, this article has problems, definitely major enough that I don't think they can be easily fixed. The reception section, aside from being too long, consists largely of very confusing and contextless block quotes. The "themes" section might as well be written off as original research, as it is almost entirely cited to the comic itself, so it appears as though this is the editors own interpretations of the comic. It is severely lacking in citations to reliable, secondary sources, citing only a hand full. And as the nominator said, a lot of the text is entirely uncited, in sections you'd expect to be fully sourced. This is definitely a delist from me. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the "unsourced" bits aren't really unsourced. Here's an example: Cam Smith, Ray McCarthy, and Josef Rubinstein completed the ink work for "Anarky: Tomorrow Belongs to Us", "Anarky", and "Metamorphosis, respectively. That might be false, but it's not unsourced - the front of each issue will say who inked it. If there are other parts that are a problem, can you point them out specifically? I've only just skimmed it, but it's things like that that I found, so they're fine.
I removed the disorganized part of the reception section and it already looks way better. I haven't followed up with any of those sources though, nor have I checked to see if there are major omissions in that section. -- asilvering (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Asilvering: I have added cn tags to the article. If the article is citing the comic as its source, it will need an inline citation (with the exception of the comic's plot summary). I agree with Grnchst above that the Themes section should not be citing the comic, but rather what secondary sources have said about the comic. Z1720 (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist for breadth. Biggest issue for me is the Themes section based on primary sources. It's synthetic/original research to say that those primary source mentions constitute a theme. We need secondary source analysis to warrant those conclusions. czar 22:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources that could be useful to fix up some of this:
    Klaehn, Jeffery (1 July 2020). "An interview with Alan Grant". Studies in Comics. 11 (1): 193–204. doi:10.1386/jem_00021_7.
    Berns, Fernando Gabriel Pagnoni; Veteri, Eduardo (2023). "Batman, Defender of the Status Quo?: On Anarchy and Anarky (Guest Villain: The Ventriloquist)". In Favaro, Marco; Martin, Justin F. (eds.). Batman's villains and villainesses: multidisciplinary perspectives on Arkham's souls. Lanham: Lexington Books. ISBN 1-66693-083-0.

asilvering (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Milkman Conspiracy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Speedy kept, nominator didn't leave a proper rationale as you're supposed to. λ NegativeMP1 15:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

goes in unnecassary detail, skewed more towards the games favor, seems unnecessary for a article on just one level just for its humorous content, not well written NoKNoC (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an inactionable GAR, so you are going to need to elaborate more than that.

  1. Can you provide examples where the article goes into unnecessary detail?
  2. Can you provide examples of how the article skews towards the game (and, frankly, what that even means)?
  3. Can you provide the GA criteria that "seeming unnecessary" fails?
  4. Can you provide examples of issues with the quality of the writing?

As it is, it just seems to me like you don't like the article, and are in turn coming up with reasons to have it deleted that are not relevant to any guideline or policy on Wikipedia. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I did some minor cleanup and did not notice anything unusual. The article still meets the WP:GA? criteria after 4 years of its first GA nomination. Looking at the article history, its talk page, and the recent AfD, this rather seems to fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WP:GAR states: "Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed." The nominator did not specify or provide examples, so I'd recommend to speedily close this if the nominator does not respond. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tropical Storm Don (2011)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural GAR following merge. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Carl Tanzler

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 listing that was last reviewed in the 2009 sweeps fails GACR 2a, having multiple unsourced areas and a largely unsourced crufty "pop culture" section. Queen of Hearts (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got rid of the pop culture section. Not only was it unsourced but there were hardly any items that were notable on their own. The one thing I kept was a note on the mausoleum pieces being used in an exhibit (which is also unsourced). I will try to look at finding where the unsourced info came from but I don't know if I can find relevant information. Reconrabbit 04:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Laura Robson

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains many uncited statements and paragraphs. The lead should be reformatted into 3-4 paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed the lead slightly, but I don't see any need to reduce it any further. It adequately covers her junior career, her singles career, her mixed doubles success, her injuries and her retirement (and future career, should that receive coverage). Also, the reason this article gives more weight to earlier years of her career than later years is because those are the most notable parts of her career, when she was a junior champion and rising star on the WTA tour. Iffy★Chat -- 12:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Galveston, Texas

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited text throughout the article. The end of the "After World War II" section contains many one-sentence paragraphs which should be merged together. The "Demographics" section only lists the racial composition of the city and does not include other demographic information like income, religion and age, nor does it talk about historic patterns in demographics. Some information from "County, state, and federal government" is sourced to 2008 information and needs to be updated. Z1720 (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ucu Agustin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has no post-2011 information, and should include some of her recent projects. More sources should be found to expand the "Personal life" section. Z1720 (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kony 2012

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article is incomplete. Nothing about the $12.6 million in donations raised or how it was spent? Nothing about the legacy of the film or the current whereabouts of Joseph Kony? Schierbecker (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arab migrations to the Maghreb

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: WP:CLOP not resolved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing a spot-check on this article's sources, and I have, unfortunately, found a non-insignificant amount of close paraphrasing and direct copyvio from the article's book sources. I'm going to list all the examples I've found so far, but it's going to take a while to fix them and more thoroughly check the rest of the article. I have also found a few cases where the close paraphrasing either distorted the meaning of the text to the point of inaccuracy, or was accidentally cited to the wrong source.

  • Article: The organization of the Aghlabid army was largely based on the Arab tribes who settled in Ifriqiya in the late 7th and 8th centuries. The troops were paid at clearly defined times, while cavalry received twice as much as infantry because of the greater cost of their horses and equipment.
    • Theotókīs, Geṓrgios (2020). Warfare in the Norman Mediterranean. Warfare in History. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press. p. 89. ISBN 978-1-78327-521-2.: The organization of the Aghlabid army was largely based upon the Arab tribes who settled in Ifriqiya in the late seventh and eight centuries. Its troops were probably paid at clearly defined times, with the calvary receiving twice as much as the infantry because of the greater costs of their horses and equipment.
      • The close paraphrasing also distorted the meaning of the original text; the source merely says that the discrepancies in pay "probably" existed, while the paraphrase makes the fact seem much more definitive.
 Done Skitash (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: To persuade the Banu Hilal and Banu Sulaym to migrate to the Maghreb, the Fatimid caliph gave each tribesman a camel and money and helped them cross from the east to the west bank of the Nile River. The severe drought in Egypt at the time also persuaded these tribes to migrate to the Maghreb, which had a better economic situation at the time. The Fatimid caliph instructed them to rule the Maghreb instead of the Zirid emir Al-Mu'izz and told them "QUOTE" and told Al-Mu'izz "QUOTE".
    • El Hareir, Idris; Mbaye, Ravane, eds. (2011). The spread of Islam throughout the world. The different aspects of Islamic culture. Paris, France: UNESCO Publishing. ISBN 978-92-3-104153-2. OCLC 779275979.To persuade the Arabs of the Banu Salim and the Banu Hilal to emigrate to the Maghrib, the Fatimid caliph gave each tribesman a camel and money and helped them cross from the east to the west bank of the Nile. He also instructed them to rule the Maghrib instead of al-Mu'izz. Yazuri told them: 'QUOTE' He then wrote to al-Mu'izz saying: 'QUOTE'
    • El Hareir, Idris; Mbaye, Ravane, eds. (2011). The spread of Islam throughout the world. The different aspects of Islamic culture. Paris, France: UNESCO Publishing. ISBN 978-92-3-104153-2. OCLC 779275979.In the eight years from 446/1054 to 454/1062, Egypt suffered from a severe drought due to a fall in the level of the Nile. This was followed by a plague that is the subject of many terrible and horrific stories. The ensuing economic crisis encouraged the Banu Salim and the Banu Hilal to embark on their celebrated westward march to the Maghrib, which at that time enjoyed a better economic situation
      • This line is fine paraphrasing-wise, but the source states that the drought and plague caused an economic crisis that led to increase migration. The article only attributes the migration to the drought.
 Done Skitash (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: The Banu Hilal conquered lands which they largely destroyed, whose cultivation then began to decline, leading to the rise of nomadism
    • Benouis, Farida; Museum With No Frontiers, eds. (2022). An architecture of light: Islamic art in Algeria. Islamic art in the Mediterranean. Vienna: Museum With No Frontiers. ISBN 978-3-902966-14-8.: The Banu Hilal took land which they had largely destroyed, and whose cultivation then began to decline. As nomadism spread, territories of the local tribes changed and shrank
      • The close paraphrasing distorted the meaning of the text; while the source connects the rise of nomadism to changes in the tribe's territories, our article links the invasions to the rise of nomadism. While that seems likely, I'm not seeing our source make that connection.
 Done Skitash (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: According to Ibn Khaldun, the lands ravaged by Banu Hilal invaders had become desertified and turned into completely arid desert
    • Potential source: (info seemingly fails verification in the given one) "Populations Crises and Population Cycles". web.archive.org. 2013-05-27. Retrieved 2024-08-25.he also noted that the lands ravaged by these invaders had become completely arid desert.
      • This example might have fallen under WP:LIMITED, except for the fact that it wasn't cited. In addition, the preserved creative language of "ravaged" really should be in quotes and more directly attributed to the original author.
 Done Skitash (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: The study found out that the majority of Eu10 chromosomes in the Maghreb are due to the recent gene flow caused by the Arab migrations to the Maghreb in the first millennium CE.
 Done Skitash (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Skitash (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: Therefore it has been established that the Eu10 chromosome pool in the Maghreb is derived not only from early Neolithic dispersions but to a much greater extent from recent expansions of Arab tribes from the Arabian Peninsula.
 Done Skitash (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: These Bedouin tribes accelerated and deepened the Arabization process, since the Berber population was gradually assimilated by the newcomers and had to share with them pastures and seasonal migration paths. By around the 15th century, the region of modern-day Tunisia had already been almost completely Arabized.
    • Holes, Clive (2018-08-30). Arabic Historical Dialectology: Linguistic and Sociolinguistic Approaches. Oxford University Press. p. 42. ISBN 978-0-19-100506-0. These immigrant Arab tribes accelerated and deepened the Arabization of the Maghreb since a large portion of the Berber population (in particular those living as pastoral nomads) was gradually assimilated by the newcomers who had to share with them pastures, as well as seasonal migration paths. It seems that by around the fifteenth century, the regions occupied by modern Tunisia had already been almost completely Arabized
 Done Skitash (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: According to Ibn Khaldun, they were accompanied by their wives, children and stock. They settled in the Maghreb after repeatedly fighting battles against the Berbers, such as the Battle of Haydaran.
    • Potential source (it's not cited to this)el-Hasan, Hasan Afif (2019-05-01). Killing the Arab Spring. Algora Publishing. p. 82. ISBN 978-1-62894-349-8. According to Ibn Khaldun, the Fatimids sent them to settle in the Maghreb accompanied by their wives, children, and stock. After repeatedly fighting battles against the Berbers, they eventually co-existed with them.
 Done Skitash (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: The Arab Muslim conquerors had a much more durable impact on the culture of the Maghreb than did the region's conquerors before and after them, and by the 11th century, the Berbers had become Islamized and Arabized.
 Done Skitash (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GreenLipstickLesbian, do you feel the issues are resolved? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 That's what I found with a 30 minute spotcheck - I genuinely have not had the time to look further, but thank you for the reminder. And while I also thank Skitash for making a good faith effort to fix the close paraphrasing and copyright issues, they appear to have done so by swapping out words with their synonyms. (Special:Diff/1242269783 shows this).
But picking two paragraphs at random, I'm seeing
Upon arriving in the Maghreb, the Arabs had to decide between settling in existing Roman and Byzantine towns or constructing new Arab towns in new locations. Archaeological and historical evidence suggests that they did both. Arab groups settled in old Roman towns such as Setif and Cherchell in Algeria and imposed their own architectural needs on the old, while other groups built totally new towns such as Basra, Fez, Qsar es-Seghir and Sijilmasa in Morocco.
and the source:
In crossing North Africa, the Arabs faced the choice of settling own in an existing Roman or Byzantine town, many of which were still inhabited, or of building a new town in a new location. Archaeological and historical evidence indicated they did both. Some groups moved into old Roman towns, like Setif and Cherchel in Algeria, and imposed their own architectural sensibilities and needs on the old. Other groups built completely new towns, such as al-Basra, Fez, Qsar es-Seghir, and Sigilmasa in Morocco.
and
The number of Arab migrants of Ifriqiya concentrated in the army and the cities, mainly Kairouan, has been estimated at 100,000. Most of the Arab migrants came from Syria and Iraq, which from the start supplied numerous migrants to the Maghreb
versus the source:
The number of Arab immigrants concentrated in the army and the cities, chiefly Kairouan, has been estimated at one hundred thousand. Most of them had come not from Arabia, but from Syria and Iraq, regions from which from the start had supplied numerous emigrants to the Maghrib.
Unfortunately, my random picks again show close paraphrasing. So no. I'm not convinced the issues have been resolved. If somebody else more familiar with the process would like to weigh in, however, that would be much appreciated. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and as a copyright violation is a quickfail criterion, I have delisted the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2008 Mumbai attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is difficult to follow because it is written poorly. Every statement should answer the five Ws: who, what, when where and why. This article does not do this. For example: "NSG Commando Sergeant Gajender Singh Bisht, who was part of the team that fast-roped onto Nariman House, died after a long battle in which both perpetrators were also killed."

How did he die? He just died?? Poof, dead?

Here is another example of bad writing: "Before his execution in 2012, Ajmal Kasab,[25] the sole surviving attacker, disclosed that the attackers were members of the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba,[26] and were controlled from Pakistan, corroborating initial claims from the Indian Government.[27] Pakistan later confirmed that the sole surviving perpetrator of the attacks was a Pakistani citizen."

We are neck deep in this article and we are confirming the identity of the terrorist group as if this were new information. Also Pakistan found out he was Pakistani after they executed him? Schierbecker (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

British people

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about out-of-date information brought up on the talk page have not been addressed. There is uncited text, including the entire "Chile" section, and the demographics section needs to be updated, as it uses sources from 2005 and the 90s. Z1720 (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, immediately, without going too far, in the lede, reference 28 about CUKC is not explained correctly and doesn't address the situation British people in regards to an influx of Caribbeans identifying as Britons. And the infobox regarding Regions with significant populations is onto the right idea, however again, poorly constructed. Perhaps something on the lines of e.g. Canada 603,000 ~ 17,325,860, as the notes are hidden and don't offer a clear explanation of the figures. Cltjames (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article has 69kB of readable prose, so is on the large side - would be good to trim to under 50kB prose. Lots of things to look at. Lots of direct quotes that should be de-quoted and written differently (if they need to remain at all) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist 1) The infobox is mainly about the diaspora, while the lead mentions the diaspora only in the last sentence. Languages like Virgin Islands Creole are mentioned in the infobox, but not in the article (against MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). The infobox starts with the Union Jack. A few lines later we read that there are more than 100 mill. in the USA. Do we really want to give our readers the impression that 100 mill. Americans fly the Union Jack ?
2) Arbitrary selection of pictures of people: There are four photographs of individuals: Rowling (why select her, and not nobel laureate Abdulrazak Gurnah ?), Rhodes (without even mentioning his connections with colonialism and racism), Paddy Mayne and three gold medalists of the 2008 World Orienteering Championships (the most famous British sportspeople ever ?). All of them are White.
3) Is the diaspora really so important for British identity ? About a third of the whole article is about British diaspora, with a long sub-section e.g. for Chile.
4) Why are the British Overseas Territories and Northern Ireland (in the sub-section on Ireland) covered in one section with the diaspora ? Rsk6400 (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brown v. Board of Education

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of uncited text throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. This was brought up in the 2023 GAR, and uncited text seems to have been brought back into the article. Also, the "Other comments" section should have a heading that describes the text more effectively or have the information moved to more appropriate places in the article. There are several sources listed in "Further reading" that should be evaluated for their inclusion as inline citations or removed, and too many external links listed. The "Legal criticism and praise" section is quite long, and I think lots of that information and block quotes can be more effectively summarised. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, but the reason why it was kept originally mainly has to do with it being okay for GAs to have general references back then. However, with updated quality expectations I'm not sure if this article would pass reassessment now. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rocky Balboa (film)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of uncited text, including entire paragraphs. The "Release" and "Other media" suffer from MOS:OVERSECTION: either these should be expanded or the level 3 headings removed. Z1720 (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to WP:OVERSECTION there appears to be one editor with an obsession for adding "Other media" a section heading and cramming subsections under it with no regard whatsoever for the 'oversection guidelines. They also have persistently moved the Home Media section and put it as a subsection of Release, where before it had been a separate section near the end of the article. For years they have spammed their personal preference across many articles, including this one(diff) and they've done it so persistently and obsessively and for so many years that editors might be tricked into thinking there was any actual consensus for any of this.
I see no logical reason to force Sequels under "Other media". I see no reason not to give "Video game" its own top level heading. -- 109.79.169.171 (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am very skeptical of the Soundtrack section and the suggestion that there was "debate". I don't think it meets current standards at all. -- 109.79.169.171 (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fancy rat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text, including entire paragraphs. The "Fiction" section contains too many short paragraphs and needs to be reformatted, with the text cited and evaluated for their inclusion in the article. The "Health" section uses a lot of sources from 2009, which is when this article achieved GA status: this section needs to be updated with more current research. Z1720 (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Civil Air Patrol

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an old GA that hasn't stood the test of time, unfortunately. Large number of uncited sentences and paragraphs, some from as far back as 2010. The article also overwhelmingly cites the CAP itself, which is a violation of WP:RS's requirement that articles be based on independent sources. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Hard Day's Night (film)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 promotion has some parts lacking citations, may not follow the current MOS in some places, and uses questionable/self-published/unreliable sources. Spinixster (trout me!) 13:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (American game show)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. Queen of Hearts (talk) 07:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a lot of uncited text. While some of it can be covered under MOS:PLOT, other sections like "Syndication" should be cited. The article is also quite long, and I think suffers from too much detail. Someone familiar with the topic should go through and cut down the prose. Z1720 (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cathay Dragon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. Queen of Hearts (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of uncited text, including entire paragraphs. There is an orange "more sources needed" banner from May 2024 that needs to be resolved. The "Demise" section needs additional information. Z1720 (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Golden Ambrosian Republic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. Queen of Hearts (talk) 07:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article relies on "Ady & Armstrong 1907" for most of its sourcing. A quick Google Scholar search found additional, more recent sourcing that should be used instead. The lead is too short and does not summarise the article's contents. The battles listed in the "Aftermath" sections should be moved to the "History" section. "Aftermath" needs to be expanded with more information. Very little information is given on the governance structure (in the "First capitani e defensori" section) and no information is given on the demographics, culture, or traits of this entity. Z1720 (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_79&oldid=1244301636"