Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Semi-Automated Tools User scripts for GAR: Opening: GAR-helper Closing: GANReviewTool

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Archives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 2025-09-21 19:02:28: Hepatitis C
  
• 2025-10-05 04:05:31: Current date for reference

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

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

Result pending

How was this article promoted in the first place with a bunch of citations missing urls? This article should mention what will happen to the barn with the Heathrow expansion, this is completely outdated. Yilku1 (talk) 04:01, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I've gone through the article, removing materials cited to those untraceable sources, and adding some new details from Historic England and English Heritage. I've tidied several refs and done a bit of copy-editing for tone. There was exactly one seemingly uncited statement, which I've removed. Mentioning the future is always a bit of a doubtful proposition, but I've added a mention of the Airports Commission findings about Heathrow expansion's effect on the Great Barn. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

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

Result pending

Procedural GAR nomination: the contents of the article was merged into 1992 Atlantic hurricane season. Thus, this article no longer exists. Z1720 (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: while the article was indicated as delisted on the talk page, no formal GAR was opened. Not sure if this is just me being needlessly bureaucratic (and this can be closed) or if this GAR should proceed. There are a couple of hurricane articles in similar situations. Z1720 (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, including the entire "February" section Z1720 (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. "Demographics" section (or something similar) is missing from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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) 21:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

This is just a plot summary; no reception & analysis (fails GA criteria #3 "Broad in its coverage"); as such it can be tagged with {{notability}}. Main creator pinged, discussion on talk since few days ago but nobody has volunteered to improve it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:01, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Torchiest is not heavily active at this time, but hopefully he has a chance to respond in the near future. BOZ (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it brings you joy to delist it, go for it. It absolutely passes WP:GNG though. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The "Reception" section does not speak very much about the episode's reception from television critics, and most of the section is devoted to its reception in Australia. I think this is incomplete and should be expanded upon. The lead is too short and does not describe all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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) 15:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon Harley and Keith H99: As information - if you have not seen this yet. Donner60 (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I now see you are notifying authors or major contributors to GAR military history articles when you can identify them. I will discontinue looking at these unless they are articles that I think I can work on and might wish to notify a few others in addition to the notices on the military history project talk page. Kudos. Good work. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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, mostly entire paragraphs. The article, at over 15,000 words, is WP:TOOBIG and too detailed: some of the information should be moved to other articles or summarised more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a first step, I've deleted the listings of the various prototypes. It really needs to be rewritten.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The lead also needs to be expanded to include all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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) 00:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an unresolved dispute about the article name. 9 years after the change of name/sponsorship the article should probably be renamed to Principality Stadium. Sionk (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There may also be unreliable sources present on this article but I think almost every source will be reliable such as the BBC website. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and the "Vasant Panchami" section (which also looks underdeveloped). Z1720 (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 I can help with this. Asteramellus (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Asteramellus. Yes, you can help out there. Fade258 (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to give a quick update here - I fixed some of the uncited statements, and have tried fixing other areas. Will find sources and look into developing "Vasant Panchami" section next. Asteramellus (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am done here with the concerns noted here. Asteramellus (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Uncited statements in the "Characterization" section. Z1720 (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Hi, I went with an easy option by removing all the uncited text (~three paragraphs). This source says Phineas had a hard time without gadgets, but I think calling it an addiction withdrawal is too much and it happend only in one episode (as far as I know). This and this sources talks about P&FxMarvel crossover, but don't mention Phineas' anger. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 09:19, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

An IP has requested that a GAR be opened for this article. Relevant comments include:

"This article is outdated, and its analysis in the GAR section wasn't very thorough. It has the following problems: first, there are many primary sources in both the "Gameplay" and "Plot" sections. I know that these types of sources can be used sometimes, but it should be balanced and include much more professional sources. Second, in the "Development" section, there is no mention of how the game was created, nor the destra team, or how something came about; it only mentions its release and re-releases. In short, this article has too many problems to maintain its GA status, which is why I'm including it in the GAR."

"I'd also add that the "Plot" section is unnecessarily long, as it explains in detail what happens in the game. And this shouldn't be the case, given that this is a platform game. The best thing in this case would be to summarize the plot better without having to go into obvious details."

"I must clarify for any user that, while the problems can be solved, it will take a lot of work and many sources to save the article. The "Plot" section needs a summary; it's already too long. The "Development" section should include information about how the game was created, like the Castle of Illusion Starring Mickey Mouse article on the Russian Wikipedia. I don't see the need to split the reviews into "Contemporary" and "Retrospective" sections; they should be combined for a more coherent reading. In any case, I'm republishing it on GAR because the article needs a lot of work."

"...regarding gameplay sources, I found one from VentureBeat and Sega-16 (although you can use sources from that era, such as Computer and Video Games, Sega Pro, and Console XS). As for development sources, I found the following: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (from Newspapers.com) [6] [7]. In addition to these two items, the "plot" section also needs to be cut down, as it's too long for a platformer." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

I am placing this article up for GAR because I believe it contains multiple quality related issues that do not make it deserving of GA status in the modern day. I posted concerns regarding this articles GA status about a month ago (here), and my extended rationale can be found there beyond this summarization of key flaws. I intentionally waited an extended period to see if anyone would respond to the quality concerns without having to take one of the most famous and well-regarded songs of all time here. Furthermore, because of the song's status, I was worried that, as someone who works on music articles of a significantly lesser caliber, I could be missing some deeper reasoning for the article to be like this and I may not be experienced enough to make such judgments. One month later, and the only comment responding to my post was one by Binksternet (talk · contribs) which agreed with my concerns. So, here we are.

Again, a deeper rationale can be found in my initial reasoning. This is a mere summary of the big problems.

• Addressing a major elephant in the room for starters, this article was promoted in 2008 when it was effectively a completely different article (the article in the state it was promoted in can be found here). This means that, arguably, the article we see before us now may as well have never been reviewed by the community proper for its quality.
• The article writing is extremely fractured and doesn't flow together well. As Binksternet put it, it's a "patchwork construction with unrelated thoughts butted up together". And in my personal interpretation, it feels like this article, especially in the lyrics and musical composition sections, expects people to already know what "A Day in the Life" is. It jumps into analysis of lyrics and specific elements of the song without giving background information or describing the song. To make an article understandable to even those unfamiliar with the subject is not only a crucial aspect of writing about a work, but just about anything, if you want the article to be "good". I also think it at times delves a bit too much into trivia; does listing out all differences between the versions of the song really help anyone beyond diehard fans?
  • Multiple sentences across the article do not make sense either. The two most confusing ones, to me at least, are "Crosby later expressed surprise that by 1970 the album's powerful sentiments had not been enough to stop the Vietnam War" (I presume this is refering to the legacy of Sgt. Peppers but what's that have to do with the song?) and "In a 2017 article for Newsweek, Tim de Lisle cited Chris Smith's recollection of him and fellow art student Freddie Mercury "writ[ing] little bits of songs which we linked together, like 'A Day in the Life'", as evidence to show that "No Pepper, no 'Bohemian Rhapsody'". Binksternet also brought up how the Orchestra section of the article gives this sentence: "The orchestral portions of "A Day in the Life" reflect Lennon and McCartney's interest in the work of avant-garde composers such as Karlheinz Stockhausen, Luciano Berio and John Cage.", which is followed by an explanatory footnote that talks about the Beach Boys and has nothing to do with what the note is implicitly meant to back up that sentence at face value.
• There are numerous questionable approaches to section organization, such as separate Legacy and Reception sections existing, which in theory would do fully separate things for such a well regarded song, but instead bleed into each other for a rather poor reading experience. To just copy paste what I originally put, "why would we go from information about the song inspiring the start-up sound for the Macintosh, to rankings of the songs in retrospective commentary? And then why is a Grammy nomination randomly tossed into the rankings before going back to rankings? Why is retrospective commentary regarding the song the only thing given attention here beyond that Grammy? Was there no reception regarding the song at the time? I doubt that was the case. Surely there was something about the song that newspapers or critics said at the time".
  • Regarding what I put for the Legacy and covers: "You'd think [the Legacy section] on paper would cover things such as the Macintosh start-up thing. But it's effectively a non-section. It covers how the song was performed by Paul McCartney, a certification, and how the original hand-written lyrics to the song were sold at auction. Was this really all of the impact the song left on the world outside of critical acclaim? This song itself is listed as a vital article, so I doubt this is all that there was". "The cover versions section borders on trivia and doesn't feel cohesive at all. Some of the entries in the list aren't even covers (e.g. the statement that David Bowie used a lyric from "A Day in the Life" is not the same as a cover). Just because it can be proven with a reliable source that a musician/band covered the song doesn't mean it's relevant for inclusion."
• Multiple sourcing issues. While most are relatively minor and the article does incorporate lots of literature, it still raises eyebrows regarding quality. Genres are not sourced in the article at all, rather in the infobox (which I'd personally argue fails MOS:LEAD), while the genre of experimental rock is fully unsourced. Sites such as the open-source music production blog that corrobates information regarding the Macintosh sound effect, as well as rockcritics.com, are probably not reliable sources. Where the personnel is cited from directly, while more likely than not the liner notes, is not made explicitly clear and should have some sort of citation to signal where it comes from. Otherwise, this could be interpreted as original research. Several citation needed tags exist in the article alongside two unreliable source tags, which would result in a quickfail on its own if brought up to a modern GAN review.

I do not believe this article meets the good article criteria at present and should likely be improved drastically or demoted. I maintain that, if this article were brought to GAN today, it would fail immediately based on both sourcing and writing. If an improvement effort for this article begins here, I am willing to be involved in the ways I can. However, this song is definitely not anywhere near comparable to what I am used to working with on Wikipedia, so any significant clean-up work wouldn't be coming from me. But, in full honesty, my faith that this article could feasibly be rewritten and fixed within the confines of a GAR is low. λ NegativeMP1 00:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist – You might as well go ahead and delist. All the WPBeatles members are gone, and the ones who are left hardly work on Beatles stuff anymore. Imho there's no way this will reach current GA standards without proper sources, and given that "ADitL" is one of the most discussed Beatles songs ever, that will be extremely difficult. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 02:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Rework. Enough interested editors are still active here, for instance Hogyn Lleol, Sixsevenfive, Martinevans123, JG66 and Jeferman. The GA requirements are not so tough as compared to FA, and I think we can straighten out the kinks here. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Only really interested in the 4,000 holes in Blackburn, Lancashire, but you never know. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  JG66 unfortunately hasn't edited since January 2023. Real shame, hope he's doing ok. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 02:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I question the feasibility of reworking it here considering how thorough these issues are. Would love to see it happen, but it'd take a lot. λ NegativeMP1 17:42, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I'm active on Wikipedia, but only ad hoc: all I do is resolve issues encountered in my non-systematic reading; that is, my activity on Wikipedia is limited to specific small and isolated changes, not larger-scale projects such as this. I'm not saying it's not worth doing, but rather it's outside the scope of my involvement in Wikipedia. Best wishes going forward! Sixsevenfive (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

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

Result pending

One of the last 39 remaining entries at WP:SWEEPS2023, this 2009 GA promotion contains enough uncited text that it is an issue with WP:GACR. Hog Farm _Talk 01:22, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Uncited statements in the "Ride experience" and "Theme" sections. I also think the lead can be expanded upon to include all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

As noted earlier this year on the talk page, for basic GA breadth, the article is missing discussion of the compilation sequels: Crooning on Venus, Guitars on Mars, etc. Also the book (Ocean of Sound) and its companion compilation album are covered together in sources, indicating that they're part of the same entity. I wager that the book would be best represented within this article's scope rather than as a separate article. czar 01:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

There wasn't much post-2013 information, so I did a quick Google search and found out that he wrote a book in 2019 [8], and other sources that could be used in the article [9]. This makes me believe that the article needs to be updated with more current events. Z1720 (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

My rationale is at Talk:Suicide#GA status. I posted there first because I was hoping someone would be interested in addressing the concerns. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

The article relies heavily on unreliable sources. A 550-word plot summary is likely far too detailed for a 22-minute TV episode (including intro sequence and credits). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Big MOS/WP:V failures as identified by @MIDI: at both the DYK nom and the talk page. Launchballer 10:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya @Launchballer, the problems mention above appear to have been resolved by Meganenohito. I'm happy to do additional source checking, but is there anything else you're specifically looking for in this reassessment? (Also, for the record, the only parts of the MOS required by the good article criteria are MOS:LEAD, MOS:LAYOUT, MOS:WTW, MOS:WAF, and MOS:LISTS). Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

No post-2020 information in the prose, even though he is still an active player. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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) 14:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Lots of uncited statements, including almost the entire "Reticle types" section. Z1720 (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

This was listed as a GA in 2014. Unsurprisingly, a lot of changes have been made since then, and unfortunately a lot of the recent ones introduce problems that -- while I don't have proof -- are very characteristic of LLM use. While there is no policy against AI-generated text, the issues here are specifically the ones like editorializing, undue emphasis on symbolism, superficial analysis, etc., that imply inherent WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problems that violate Good Article criterion #2. I'm not reviewing every diff -- and can't, because a giant swath of edits from 2021-2024 has been revdelled -- but here are some with issues.

• The edits by @Pwoli show consistent issues. To name a few: This one inserts a large wad of unreferenced, editorializing AI slop under the "Society and culture" section. This states that animal models play a central role in epilepsy research, an assertion of importance over other kinds of research that doesn't seem to be borne out by the source or in general. This inserts a lot of unsourced material like the assertion, with no citation, that delays in diagnosis are highlighting the importance of careful clinical assessment and appropriate use of EEG and video documentation, which may well be true but is still original research.
• The 2024 edits by Saraakwong also show signs of AI use. Some of these were reverted in the edits above (which is for the best since I found a hallucination in one of them), but at least one, this, may be an overly close paraphrase of the source material, judgment call.
• In general I see several uncited statements ending paragraphs. I'm not tracking down the origin because, again, it's entirely possible that I can't.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnomingstuff (talk • contribs) 19:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments:

• Animal models are hugely important in drug research. I think that "central role" is a fair and neutral description in this case. The cited source (which, if you would like, may be fairly criticized on WP:MEDDATE grounds, being ~12.5 years old) uses words like "valuable" and "urgent" and "needed" to describe animal models. If your personal priority for epilepsy is more like prevention or figuring out how many people have it, then I could imagine animal models seeming less important to you, but within the biomedical research community, this really is of central importance. No new AEDs should realistically be expected until there are useful new animal models.
• What you deride as a large wad of unreferenced, editorializing AI slop under the "Society and culture" section appears to me to be an attempt to comply with the WP:UPFRONT guideline, by giving a general summary of the long section. For example, the second sentence is People with epilepsy may experience social stigma, legal restrictions, economic disadvantage, and barriers to education and employment., and the next three subsections in this section are: "Stigma", "Economic impact", "Driving and legal restrictions". The fourth sentence says Efforts by advocacy groups and international organizations aim to improve public understanding, reduce stigma, and promote access to care and the fourth subsection is "Advocacy and support organizations". I doubt that this is best explained by assuming LLM use.
• In terms of "editorializing", I don't see anything in that paragraph that isn't just the plain facts. The plain facts are that people with epilepsy sometimes do experience stigma. They do get fired from their jobs. They do get kicked out of school (maybe not in your country, but in many). They do get rejected socially. Editorializing sounds like "Society should be more supportive of people with epilepsy". Editorializing does not sound like "Social consequences, such as educational exclusion, unemployment, and social isolation, further compound the impact on quality of life". The sentence in the article is just stating the facts. There are social consequences, and those social consequences hurt people with epilepsy.

I do think this article needs work, but I don't think that "AI slop" is actually one of its faults. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside that the entire first paragraph of this is redundant, vague, and unsourced, and that the treatment gap is mentioned twice and only defined the second time, by editorializing I mean stuff like the treatment gap underscoring the need for strengthened health systems and public health interventions, which is written from an advocacy perspective. Stating that a specific societal change is a "need" is an opinion, not a fact. Other people may have different opinions about what "the need" is: loosened regulations on pharmaceutical companies, or decoupling health insurance from employment, or research into alternative medicine, or abolishing capitalism entirely, or patiently staying the course with no policy change, or even that the treatment gaps is not a problem so no change is necessary. The same goes for cost-effective treatment strategies -- if someone can't afford treatment then by definition it's not "cost-effective" for them. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnomingstuff Seeing as Whatamidoing has already debunked the editorializing claim, can you expand on undue emphasis on symbolism, superficial analysis, etc., that imply inherent WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problems that violate Good Article criterion #2. Specifically can you identify the the cases of OR and SYNTH that led you to open the reassessment. I'm not sure how to help here when you haven't pointed out the inherent OR/SYNTH. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 08:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just explained it. I don't know how else I am supposed to get across, for instance, the fact that stating something is a "need" is an opinion. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I can see what you mean by the wording being odd (as Whatamidoing pointed out not all the odd wording is editorialization). I think the other odd wording may come from the fact that medical articles do say things like “cost effective treatment strategies” and “the need for…” and many people not well versed in medical talk then use those phrases, not understanding that the audience of a research paper is different than the audience of a wikipedia article.

Please correct me if i’m wrong here as I’m just trying to understand the issue at hand, but is your issue the odd wording (i haven’t looked at it enough to call it editorialization)? because if that’s your main concern then that’s a pretty easy fix and i can get started on that.

However you also mentioned that there is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH which you still haven’t shown evidence of. To make an claim of OR or SYNTH i’m assuming you looked at the sources and found that they did not support the claims being made, it would be helpful if you could just point out which sources and areas of text were the ones that led you to the conclusions of OR/SYNTH. I’m not asking for every instance of OR/SYNTH that you found, just whatever one led you to making that claim. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 07:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnomingstuff could i please get an update on this? I don’t want to get too into cleaning up the sources without knowing which ones had inappropriate SYNTH or OR attached to them. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 21:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry, as English is not my main language, I have used LLM in order to translate the things. If this had been AI slop, I would have simply copied and pasted directly from a language model. Instead, I used it as a tool to assist with rewriting, and I reviewed and adjusted the text myself. At no point did I copy and paste output directly. While I cannot provide proof of this process, I am being transparent in stating that I used the tool solely to support rewriting. Given that Whatamidoing has already debunked the claims, could we please remove the notice? You will probably think I used AI for this too, but I am just autistic and verbose. Sorry again, I am very ashamed for this whole situation. Pwoli (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that you needed to be ashamed of anything, I was just citing the specific diffs that I was referring to. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pwoli didn’t ever claim that you said they needed to be ashamed either. @Pwoli seems like they were just trying to help build the encyclopedia and because of english not being their main language and maybe not realizing they needed to adjust their language for Wikipedia may have used some wording that is indicative of AI. However just because something sounds like it could be AI doesn’t mean it is (which i know you know)and since we have now gotten confirmation that they did not copy and paste from AI I am going to go ahead and remove the banner until there is some evidence of AI usage. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 07:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

I was originally looking at the article seeing as it had a (now-declined) RFC, but then I noticed that the GA had a citation needed tag since October 2020, as well as some end-of-paragraphs not having a citation. The GAN was passed in 2008, and would likely be quickfailed under criteria 3 at its current state. This is my first GAN btw/ JuniperChill (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Whilst I believe some uses of {{citation needed}} are still passable under the GA criteria, I agree that this article is missing citations on too many claims, particularly at the end of paragraphs that should be cited. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 02:57, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

(I've never done this before so apologies if I am doing it wrong.) I believe this article was generated by AI, an issue that goes back to the first version. While the article creator has denied using AI for at least some tasks, there are just too many indicators -- and not just involving language quirks, but larger issues of puffery and synthesis. While we don't have a policy prohibiting using AI in articles, I do not think this meets Good Article standards as it currently stands, and I don't think it met them at the time either.

The bulk of the text was created in 2023 and originates in diffs like this, and much of that text still remains; citations were added later. The prose displays many tells of LLM use, particularly the ones -- e.g., undue emphasis on symbolism, editorializing, superficial analysis -- that inherently imply WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problems. There are too many examples to list here, but as an example, the article claims that a political party's choice of candidates was reflecting the ongoing discussions about religious and regional balance in politics. The source it's cited to does not mention anything about "ongoing discussion," being a largely analysis-free news update; literally, its only mention of religion is one word about the party platform. This kind of thing is just all over the place; elsewhere, the article asserts The nation's diversity is its strength, but the persistent use of such tickets can strain the delicate fabric of unity as a fact despite being an opinion attributed to no one, and the article it is cited to does not mention anything about diversity or unity, primarily mentioning media coverage and election logistics. A statement that the choice of one candidate was seen as a strategy to appeal to the northern regions is cited to a short news brief that, once again, mentions nothing even slightly related. All of this is very characteristic of trying to source synthesis after the fact.

As far as the good article criteria, WP:QF #3 doesn't count since I was the one who added the maintenance tag. But the issues above suggests the article doesn't meet criteria #2 or #4, nor did it at the time. Arguably it does not meet #1 because stuff like the nation's diverse socio-political fabric, revolves around the delicate balance, underscored the persistent debate, etc. is cliched puffery and also not concise at all (another issue brought up in the original nomination). Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnomingstuff Thank you for raising concerns. I am keeping this based on my fixes and improvements with additional (academic) sources. Kindly take a look and let me know what you think. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Lots of uncited statements, including several entries in the "Popular culture" section. The lead is also quite short and does not summarise all major aspects of this article. Z1720 (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done I added missing citations and copy-edited the page. In regards to the lead section I couldn't come up with any missing points. It mentions Hamnet's death and its potential influence on Shakespeare's work. His "life" section has +2 more paragraphs but I don't think there are too important for the lead. We can mention the 2025 film about Hamnet, which is rather popular? —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 08:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Some uncited paragraphs, including the entire "In popular culture" section. Z1720 (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

The lead is too short and does not cover all major aspects of the article. Meanwhile, there's an "Overview" section that could be merged with the lead and resolve this concern, but this information would need to be checked against the article body to ensure all information is cited in the article and trimmed for length concerns. The "Works" section is uncited, and the article is over 12,000 words in length, so it probably needs to be trimmed for information that is too detailed or can be summarised more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that there is a fair amount of reliance on primary sources (diary entries, contemporary army handbooks etc). In some cases these primary sources are the only source for a statement; at other times they are lumped in with other more reliable sources which points to WP:OVERCITE and WP:INTEGRITY issues. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:00, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As information. As with many older articles, there have been many contributors to this article. However, the user who contributed the most text to this article RoslynSKP has not edited Wikipedia since 2014. Of course, that does not mean that others who have contributed to the article or who are interested in it might not step forward to work on it. It does mean that other than the post on the military history project talk page, there seems to be no individual contributor or small group of contributors who could be notified directly about this GAR. Donner60 (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Given it needs updating since 2016, I don't think this should stay a good article. Roast (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That marking is clearly incorrect as that chapter says: "In 2019, the Icelandic parliament passed the Gender Autonomy Act". So it was last updated in 2019.

Iceland has an archive over old newspapers at timarit.is, and searching there with the local name of the comitttee, mannanafnanefnd, shows (https://timarit.is/?q=mannanafnanefnd&size=10&isAdvanced=false ) that icelandic newspapers covered it 49 times in 2020-2029 compared to 258 in 2010-2019. Most of those are just new names being added to the allowed names list, which is not noteworthy.

I have a counter proposal. There was an attempt in 2020 to remove the comitee, which failed. I propose to add that, remove the outdated notice and close this reassesment as keep the good article status. Snævar (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You changed my mind—I agree with the counterproposal. Roast (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a quick look through the article, I agree with Snævar's assessment above about adding the attempted removal of the committee. I would also like to rearrange the formatting of the article a little bit to make it easier to find information and to remove the "Controversies" heading, which might not be NPOV. Lastly, if there isn't a wiki-article on the list of approved names (I could not find one) I suggest that this article give information and statistics on what names have been approved (% of male-female-non-gendered names, how many new names are accepted or removed by the commmitee each year, etc.) Here's my suggestion for format: Lead, Composition and mission (if this section becomes too large, it can be split. This should only refer to the current composision and mission), History, List composition (where stats would be added). I also think the current lead is too short and needs to be expanded to cover all aspects of the article, regardless of what is included as headings. Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine to have a vision, but there needs to be available sources for these improvements. There really is not a regularly updated statistic of approved names. Decisions made by the comitee are on https://www.stjornarradid.is/gogn/urskurdir-og-alit-/$LisasticSearch/Search/?SearchQuery=&Ministries=&Committee=Mannanafnanefnd&Year= and I think making a statistic out of that would run afoul of Wikipedia:No original research. There is a list of given names to newborns in an particular year since 2021 (https://www.skra.is/gogn/thjodskrargattin/vinsaelustu-nofnin/vinsaelustu-nofnin-2023/ is the link for 2023, the page is in Icelandic).

It is unclear what you are planning with the History section.

Icelandic Wikipedia has an outdated list of Icelandic names:

• Top used names
• Names used by 3-9 people
• Names used by 2 people
• Only one user (a-j)
• Only one user (k-ö)

Snævar (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

As a 2012 nomination, this one hasn't held up.

• Very choppy prose. Lots of one- and two- sentence paragraphs.
• 21st century needs a copy edit. Lots of "In year, this happened. In year, that happened." type prose.
• Despite almost all of his singles having articles, many are not linked in the text.
• The article is very sparse on critical reception, themes of his music, vocal type, and other basic information on the structure of his albums.
• Lots and lots of unsourced sections.
• "Stated on Finding Your Roots" -- exactly how is one to verify this?
• Awards table should be split into its own page.
• Several unusable sources such as YouTube and Amazon. I already pruned a personal blog.
• ETA: Reviewer was blocked as a sockpuppet, and nominator has been inactive since 2014.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:21, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

There are lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The "History" section stops in the 1800s. Is there any additional information to add from the article from the 1900s or 2000s? Any information that should be added about post-WWII migration? The "Demographics" section doesn't have post-2008 information, so this section probably needs to be updated. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. At over 14,000 words long, the article needs to be trimmed of too much detail. Z1720 (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good Article With how good his career has been, and all the notable events and moments in his career, I honestly don't see how it could be trimmed. Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This article has just over 15,000 words, which is in the 'Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed.' category on WP:TOOBIG, though I don't really see where this article can be trimmed as mentioned above. I also feel this article is sufficiently broken up into sections that are one or two paragraphs long that the length isn't as much of an issue as it would be on articles that are just huge walls of unbroken text.

Could you provide examples of the uncited claims made in the article? SnowyRiver28 (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Servite et contribuere and SnowyRiver28: I have added "citation needed" templates in the article after the phrases and paragraphs that are missing citations. These need to be resolved before I can recommend a keep designation. As for the length: the article does not need a paragraph (or multiple paragraphs) for each tour and tournament in which he participated in per year. Instead, the biography should summarise the most notable events in his career and other information should be moved to other articles or removed as too detailed. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, I can see where citations are missing now, no idea how I didn't notice that before! Thanks for adding the tags :)

Whilst GA criteria doesn't require all citations to be absolutely perfect (it allows for some citation needed tags), I think the sheer number of them present here (roughly 40) means something is amiss. I might have a go at adding some citations to the article and I'll reply here if I make any significant progress.

As for the trimming, I do see your point about not needing such detail for tours and games, particularly when they have their own main articles. I would agree that it can be trimmed to only include detail that is important and specific to the subject, and that content that describes the game or series on a more general scale can be removed and left for its main article. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SnowyRiver28 It is 1:27AM where I am so I might not reply to your next reply till later, but basically what I am arguing is that there are some articles where over 15,000 words might be acceptable. Smith is known for his unorthodox batting style, comparisons to Don Bradman, and much more (But I am somewhat tired and just a bit hungry so might not be at be my best RN) like initially being an All Rounder, but he still did some bowling, although he hasn't bowled in Test Cricket since 2023. I might be able to find some to trim. Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There's also an "updated needed" orange banner at the top of the "Modern overview" section, where the 2020 census demographic information should be added. The article is also almost 10,000 words long, and I think some information can be trimmed like older census information or promotional/touristy prose. Z1720 (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 entire Articles of capitulation are quoted in the article, without much context for important sections (except for a controversy about article 10). I think a summarised version highlighting the most important aspects, as identified in secondary sources, would be more appropriate. Z1720 (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Overview was split off from the lead in 2023 by a longtime well experienced user who I presumptively will assume should have realized that putting entire paragraphs without citations into the body of the article would degrade it. But apparently the editor was so focused on cutting the lead that the flaw didn't come to mind. The edit summary shows that the user thought the lead was too long and that was the reason for splitting the "overview" out. Now it seems to me that the lead is too short for a long article. I think the lead likely would not be too long if most of the overview text was restored to it. Also, since the overview material came from the lead, much of the content in that section should be, and probably is, repeated or summarized later in the article with citations. The fix is probably to put the uncited material back into the lead, with any required editing, and to put any remaining material not already in the body into the body with any needed citations and omission of anything that is duplicated but not necessary for the lead.

It seems to me that a summarized version of the articles of capitulation, with citations as needed, as your suggest, is a revision that should be made.

I am confident that I have the sources available in my home library (and via JSTOR if necessary) for any needed citations.

I am preparing to give an hour long presentation on September 9, and have written that I should be able to add needed citations and/or rewrite later sections of P.G.T. Beauregard. I have some coordinator tasks that I have been doing as the months come to a close - and some real life to fit in. So I may not be able to get to this for at least two weeks. That will still be within the usual time to start work on editing an article up for reassessment.

I think this is likely to be an article that would be of interest to other editors who may be able and willing to work on it sooner, although I should get to it in good time if not. Donner60 (talk) 06:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a copy of Greene's work on the battle published by Savas Beatie on the way. I will take a look here once that arrives. Hog Farm _Talk 22:20, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It will be about another week before I can do any work on this. I need to do the work on the P.G.T. Beauregard reassessment first, among a few other Wikipedia and real life tasks. I do consider this of top importance to U.S. (and perhaps even British) military history. Donner60 (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The book I ordered has arrived, and I intend to work on this. But I likewise want to have Beauregard dealt with first. Hog Farm _Talk 02:46, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - so I've nuked the uncited pseudo-lead, leaving a link in the edit summary to this discussion in case it proves controversial. Donner60 - do you think you'd be able to re-expand the lead like you suggested above? If this sticks, then all that will remain is cleaning up some minor uncited text and dealing with the quotation of the articles of surrender. The quotation feels more like a WikiBooks then a Wikipedia thing to me, but I also consider that to be more of a FA issue than a GA issue. Hog Farm _Talk 03:05, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to get to it within the next few days. Donner60 (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten and restored to the lead an edited and somewhat shorter version of the removed material. All of it is supported by citations in the text of the article. I have found the pages in four different books which describe the capitulation document. I will use them to write a summary of the document. Mostly, the sources concentrate on the four of the fourteen articles proposed by Cornwallis and negotiated by officers from each side, with reservation by the American officer, John Laurens, that Washington would reject some of them. Indeed, he did reject the four and compromised to some extent on one. I plan to write up this revision no later than the next few days. Donner60 (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have written a revision of the articles of capitulation section offline. I keep a summary of each article in updated language and specifically point out the changes or explanations required by Washington in five of them as well as the one he rejected. I am adding at least one more source. I am not posting it yet because I want to decide whether to add citations and because there are few small corrections needed in citations, which could affect my potential additional citations. This is about in shape for the GA to kept already. I agree with Hog Farm's remark that the statement of the articles rather than a summary or rewording should not be necessary for the GA, especially in this situation where the length of the article is not a problem. Within the next few days, I should have my changes ready to post. Donner60 (talk) 04:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the relatively minor changes, substitution of a reference and addition of references in the Aftermath section. Now, my comment about the article being ready for a conclusion that the article has been sufficiently improved for the GA to be correct can be stated without the "about in shape" proviso. However, I will proceed to review my offline draft of a revised articles of capitulation section as I described in the previous comment and post it with a few days. Donner60 (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, AirshipJungleman29, and Hog Farm: I have substituted a version of the articles of capitulation with some editing, modernized language and additional citations. I think this is now ready for review and for closing with the GA assessment kept. If something else needs to be done, please let me know. Donner60 (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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) 14:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like an easy enough fix; did you make sure to notify Masem ahead of time when you raised the issue on the 15th? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukie Gherkin: While the GAR instructions ask editors to consider posting a notice on an article's talk page, it is not required, nor is contacting or pinging an editor prior to opening a GAR. Pinging and posting on user talk pages yield mixed results: some respond positively, some question why I did not fix it myself (which is a different discussion), some are annoyed that I pinged them and asked that I stop, and some don't respond. If anyone thinks notifying an editor before opening a GAR should be required, I invite them to open a thread at WT:GA. Note that I would probably oppose this as it adds another bureaucratic step to the GAR process, and I think if editors care about an article's status, they should maintain the article without prompts. Masem did receive a notice from the GAR helper script after this GAR was opened. Z1720 (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cukie Gherkin: Are you interested in addressing the above issues? Of course, there is no obligation. Z1720 (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

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

Result pending

The "History" section does not have much post-1970s information. When I looked for sources online, I found news stories about how the school is decreasing in numbers and selling its real estate, but also past events like a film produced by its students screened at Sundance and retrospectives during the 50th anniversary. The "Reception" section also only includes perspectives from the 2000s: I think the article should include opinions from when the school opened and recent reviews of the school. Further exploration of sources will probably find additional information about the 1980s-present day that should be added. Z1720 (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might be a matter of organization. The sale of the building is mentioned in the high school program section. The "History" section is more of an "Overview" since the Program is also technically the History of the institution. Can you link to these news stories you found? czar 14:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some links, though I encourage interested editors to search themselves: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], Making It Up as We Go Along: The Story of the Albany Free School, Political and Civic Engagement among Free School Alumni: A Range of Outcomes, Do Free Schools Promote Chaos?. These were found after a quick search. GAs do not need to be complete, but they do need to cover all major aspects of the topic and I think there are several gaps missing in the article, as outlined in my original statement. Z1720 (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly, I don't find these to be major gaps, since they're already covered in part. The "Making It Up as We Go Along" author is affiliated with the school and the other sources are local news filling in minor details. Reviews of schools at their opening is not traditionally something that would appear in reliable sources. I can reorganize it if it's causing a readability issue. czar 00:24, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Thanks for your analysis of the sources. Normally I would agree with your comments about the reviews at its opening, but AFS was/is a very unique and controversial school structure. I think critical commentary of the school at its opening is notable and relevant. Z1720 (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find any such coverage about its opening. It's a school with a few dozen students and most free school movement schools opened without much fanfare. czar 04:02, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Uncited text, including entire sections. MOS:OVERSECTION in the "Mesoscale" section. Z1720 (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will be fixing it up shortly, would hate to see this get demoted. ^EF⁵ 15:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5: Do we think the mesoscale section might benefit from a section-transclusion from the main articles? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 15:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds like a good idea. ^EF⁵ 15:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No longer any uncited text. Ce'd a lot of it. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Hilaria is featured in The Baldwins, but this article only has one line about it in the lead. Information about her involvement with the show should be added to the Career section. When looking for sources, I found an event in 2021 where Hilaria was interupted by/interupted her husband at a red carpet event. Many pop culture news outlets covered the event, but this article does not have information about it. I suggest that this be mentioned in the article. There doesn't seem to be much post-2019 career information. Besides The Baldwins mentioned above, is there other information to add here? Some unreliable sources are used in the article like Meaww, Hola! and New York Post. These should be replaced by reliable source. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

an event in 2021 where Hilaria was interupted by/interupted her husband at a red carpet event. Seems like that event would fall under WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTDIARY. Some1 (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Some1: When I did a search for sources, this event was mentioned by several sources: some included critical commentary as a possible example (or how it should not be an example) of Mansplaining/manturupting (sources: [15], [16], [17].) I think the extensive coverage of the event means this should be mentioned in the article.

Also worth noting that Baldwin is a contestant on the upcoming season of Dancing with the Stars so information about that will also need to be added to the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Sun (your first link) is a tabloid newspaper, and the other two sources don't constitute "extensive coverage". I agree with you, though, that her being a contestant on the upcoming season of DWTS should be mentioned in the article and am actually surprised that it hasn't been added yet (I had actually came to this article because of the DWTS cast reveal!). I'll get the DWTS stuff added to the article. Some1 (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

There are uncited statements in the article, including most of the "Americas folk metal" section. Unreliable sources used in the article, including www.metal-archives.com, www.spirit-of-metal.com, and ONSP. Z1720 (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would delete the "Americas folk metal" section, as all it adds is a load of redlinks. I’ve only left it because this discussion is taking place. --Northernhenge (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Some uncited paragraphs and other uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Several uncited statements and paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some citations. I'll continue to add more citations to this. If there is anything else you feel needs improving, let me know! LunaExplorer (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Feel free to ping me when ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, including most of the "2007 mini-tour releases" section. Z1720 (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist – I know it's early to say but I'm honestly surprised this became a GA to begin with. The reviewed version was practically the same as it is now. However, the entire "2007 minitour releases" section was absent: I assume that was merged into here from a previously deleted page. Even without that though, critical reception has only had one review in prose since its promotion (unacceptable even by 2013 Wikipedia standards); the general prose, although thoroughly sourced, isn't exactly sourced by quality ones. The article realistically needs a complete overhaul to keep GA status by today's standards, and I don't have the interest in doing so. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to check out what Z brought forth, once again at the behest of the now-retired nominator, but after zmbro's points I don't know if I have it in me to fix the whole thing. mftp dan ^oops 12:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, I have some time on Saturday afternoon (EDT) to address whatever concerns there are with this. Doesn't look frightfully difficult. But you can expect me then. mftp dan ^oops 17:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Article is over 11,000 words and could be summarised more effectively. Demographic information is from 2011 and needs to be updated. "Sites of interest" section seems to have a promotional tone. Z1720 (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, There's a lot of work to be done on this. I will chip in as soon as I've finished getting another UK delisted GA done (currently waiting on the reviewer's close). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've already given the lead a very brief CE, and updated the Wikilinks. However:

• It is verbose, the language is not sufficiently succinct

• It contains too much detail that should be in the body (the lead should summarise what is to come in the article)

IMO this probably reflects much of the style of the rest of the article. See a snapshot of its its listing as GA in February 2019. A further 539 new edits made since. Although the article has not been delisted, the scope of the work to be done is possibly as much as a full GAN. I'm not the assessor but for anyone who also wishes to help out, I'm posting this basic GAN checklist of possible items to be addressed. If you make any improvements, to avoid duplication or edit conflicts please add a {{done}}, or {{fixed}} or a {{doing}} template, plus a brief description and your signature (~~~~). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 There is massive duplication in the lead and the main sections. There is so much detail in the history it would be preferable to split it off into a separate page History of Berkhamsted, and leave a shorter, summarised history in the parent article. There is no miniumm size requirement for GA and with a little bit of work this article will retain its GA status. As a consequence, I have removed the huge history from the lead and redistributed its parts to the relevant history sub sections. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Article at History of Berkhamsted has been created. The history here can now be edited down to a readable size for a town article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I've reduced the history section by 46% but it can still probably sustain significantly more pruning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Section 'Sites of interest' renamed 'Historic buildings' and bulleted list converted to prose (MoS). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Most sections cleared of superflous detail (especially from items that have their own articles) and restructured for better page clarity. Unsourcable items removed. Still to do: Section 'Demography', 'Economy and commerce', check for images still needing alt text. Entire article (text) is now 46% of the original GA without losing any essential content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Z1720, I now have the datata for updating the demnographics. I'll insert them as soon as I have time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added citations to most of the previously uncited statements. Dormskirk (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dormskirk, thank you enormously for addressing all those sources and updating them. The demography section is proving to be quite a challenge because first of all it is vastly over-detailed for a Wikipedia article and I'm not sure all the house price information is strictly relevant. - what do you think?

Secondly, the ONS has changed their format of reporting census information and in their endeavour to make it more transparent, and providing new tools, they have made it harder to use. I am working offline on completely rewriting the section which I will add as soon as possible but RL is getting in the way at the moment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I would be pretty ruthless in removing any remaining poorly sourced material (as well as the over-detailed house price data). Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 21:38, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There are some unreliable sources used in the article like sbnation, PR newswire and a wordpress source. At over 13,000 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. Can any of the information be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed as too much detail? Z1720 (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article definitely needs a lot of refinement and editing. I'd be happy to work on it, but as it's so large it wouldn't be overnight—whether that affects or does not affect the reassessment, I'm not sure. I'm assuming that if good article status was removed it could then be added back once the article is at a higher standard? PunkAndromeda (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PunkAndromeda: Thanks for offering to work on this. A GAR will remain open while edits are ongoing. Feel free to ping me if there are any questions or ths article is ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One concern I have is the "most recent game", "most recent streak" statistics. Are they being updated consistently and on time? As of today's game (Sep 30), there was quite a delay in updating. JDiala (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 and sections. The article has lots of block quotes. These should be written in summary style or reduced in size to its most important aspects. At over 14,000 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. I suggest that text be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed. Heritage Foundation is used as a source, which is considered unreliable on English Wikipedia. This citation should be replaced or its text removed. Z1720 (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thanks for the detailed nomination laying out a roadmap for needed improvements, Z1720. Fairly confident that I am finished with Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Legal history of cannabis in the United States/1, so I can commit to taking this on, albeit slowly. I plan to use Barron and Dienes' First Amendment Law in a Nutshell for guidance on the major cases, given that there are hundreds of SCOTUS opinions in this area. I also hope to reduce direct citations to cases themselves if not outright eliminate them in favor of more clearly secondary sources like law review articles. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 23:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

This article, which was promoted in 2009, has since then accumulated a number of maintenance tags related to uncited material, with several of those tags dating back to 2010 and 2011. In its present state, the article does not meet the WP:Good article criteria (in particular, 2b). Pinging editors involved in the original GAN review that led to promotion and some additional major contributors: @Cirt, Peregrine Fisher, BOZ, Hiding, Casliber, EyeSerene, Tenebrae, Clayton Emery, Kchishol1970, Kaijan, and Mark Staffieri:. TompaDompa (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added citations for all of the tags. FlairTale (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am always wary of adding citations to uncited material—as opposed rewriting and adding citations—as experience shows that it is often something of a cosmetic fix. A brief spot-check reveals that this is also the case in this instance. Citing Wikisource:Comic book code of 1954 for the statement To address public concerns, in 1954 the Comics Code Authority was created to regulate and curb sex, drugs and violence in comics, marking the start of a new era. is not adequate. Likewise, the source added to the passage Ajax/Farrell Publishing's 1954–55 revival of the Phantom Lady; Strong Man, published by Magazine Enterprises in 1955; Charlton Comics' Nature Boy, introduced in March 1956, and its revival of the Blue Beetle the previous year; and Atlas Comics' short-lived revivals of Captain America, the Human Torch, and the Sub-Mariner, beginning in Young Men Comics #24 (December 1953). In the United Kingdom, the Marvelman series was published from 1954 to 1963, substituting for the British reprints of the Captain Marvel stories after Fawcett stopped publishing the character's adventures. only covers the Marvelman stuff. Those are just the first two newly-added citations I checked. TompaDompa (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few checks later, it is obvious that there are still massive sourcing issues here. TompaDompa (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I might also add that the "Collectibility" section contains a list of various magazine issues (presumably collectibles) without any clear inclusion criteria for that particular selection of issues. TompaDompa (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the paragraph about counterculture (which I am in the process of rewriting) all remaining failed verification tags have sources that verify exactly what they say, such as the population grow and science/magic sources for example. FlairTale (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The cited sources for the parts tagged as failing verification do not verify that particular content, hence the tags. This source does not say that this rise [in juvenile crime statistics] was shown to be in direct proportion to population growth as our article does, it says that The juvenile delinquence rate is not increasing. It is decreasing, and has been decreasing for the past 5 years (i.e. the second half of the 1940s). Likewise, this source does not verify [science-based explanations for superhero phenomena and origins in the Silver Age were] inspired by contemporary science fiction or the Golden Age, which commonly relied on magic or mysticism [to explain superhero phenomena and origins] on the cited page, it only says about the Silver Age that This age of superheroes was primarily of the Science type. The reworked versions of JSA with the Flash and Green Lantern had more scientific than magical underpinnings. This also includes the Marvel Silver Age [...]. As I keep making spot-checks, I keep finding instances where the article goes beyond what the cited sources say (and other kinds of issues—I have added some tags). The "Collectibility" section, as noted, has no clear inclusion criteria, and when I spot-checked a sample of the cited sources in that section they did not verify that the issues in question are collectibles. TompaDompa (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

The "Evolution of criteria" and "Revocation" sections have long bullet point paragraphs that is difficult to read, especially on mobile. These should be broken up with headings, summarised and trimmed of excess detail, and split into paragraphs. There is an "outdated" orange banner at the top of the "Legal protection" section. There are external links in the "Authority and privileges". Instead, this section should use prose to describe the information. There is some uncited text in the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Foxtrot5151 has been heavily editing the page. I see five remaining examples of uncited text: first Each Medal of Honor recipient may have his or her name entered on the Medal of Honor Roll (10 U.S.C. § 1134a and 38 U.S.C. § 1562) so long as they qualified for the medal under modern statutory authority., second some text under the "2013" section, which should probably be renamed "Stolen Valor Act", third The first action by a black man to eventually earn the Medal of Honor was by William Harvey Carney. He earned the Medal during the Battle of Fort Wagner, but was not presented with it until 1900., fourth text about double medals, fifth text about uncle-and-nephew recipients. The final section should be removed as it is redundant to the hatnote at the top of the page. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:46, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Unreliable sources like YouTube, IMDB, vimeo and Panarmenian.net are used. Z1720 (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious as to why Panarmenian.net is unreliable. It's a quite well-established Armenian news agency. ----Երևանցի ^talk 08:39, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yerevantsi: This determination is based on consensus at WP:RSN, including the latest one at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 445#panarmenian.net. Z1720 (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to focus largely on the article (which does appear problematic), not its reliability per se. A simple Google Books search indicates that it is widely cited in scholarly works. ----Երևանցի ^talk 11:10, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Panarmenian aside, I've already removed some of the uncited sentences and paragraphs and will work on the rest in coming days. ----Երևանցի ^talk 11:10, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yerevantsi, do you feel that the article has been brought up to GA status, or would you like more time to work on it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think much of the uncited material has been removed by now, but not all. I'll take another look and work on the rest. ----Երևանցի ^talk 18:52, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All done on my side.----Երևանցի ^talk 12:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple more references, but a few passages still need verification. I marked those with "citation needed", and hopefully shortly return to source them. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 17:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 07:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which paragraphs did you have in mind? The introduction summary doesn't need citations (unless to support something like a quote) and the two uncited paragraphs towards the end of the article were uncited in 2008 when the last GA decision took place. Sionk (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720; @Sionk - some reorganising done, refs checked (some needed moving or updating) and some added. A little more to do, but getting there, I think. Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added cn tags to the article, although it looks like most of the uncited statements have been resolved. @Sionk: The GA criteria has been updated since this article was promoted; one such change is that all statements (except usual exceptions like the lead, plot summaries, and WP:CALC) need to be cited. Z1720 (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think everything is cited now, and some more fixing, copy editing and tweaking done. Happy to do more if any suggestions for further improvement are forthcoming. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I took another look at the article, and see that the "History" section stops at 1941. Surely there must be some events of note to mention in the article from the last 80 years. At the very least the island's contribution to major historical events, like WWII, Welsh devolution and their voting history, economic impact post-WWII, Brexit, and COVID-19 can be mentioned. "Governance" section suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION. Z1720 (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Z1720, the island has a population of 1. Apart from WWII, which is discussed in the "Radar station" subsection, what precisely do you anticipate for the island's contribution to Welsh devolution, voting history, economic impact, Brexit, and COVID-19? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @AirshipJungleman29: Somet things that could be included: Opinions and political changes due to Welsh devolution, voting patterns for Brexit, how the economic situation of Wales has affected (or not affected) this region, how COVID-19 affected the economic and political conditions, the resident's health outcomes, and how travel was or was not restricted to the island. While sources might not have talked about all of these issues in great length, having no historical events mentioned on the island post-WWII is a very large gap, and a search might find other events that could also be added to the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Z1720, to repeat: the island has a population of 1 (one). With that in mind, can I ask you to produce sources on Brexit voting patterns or details of resident's health? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Sorry about that: I was going quickly and, reading the information about the various buildings, assumed that there was a more steady population on the island. I think I was also further mistaken because "History" section talks about a preacher administering to residents on the island, but there is no mention of a mass exodus or population decline in the article. I'm looking for additional sources to see if there's an explanation for this. In the meantime, additional sources that could be used in the article are as follows:

• Population size, ecology and movements of gulls breeding on Flat Holm Island
• The use of mowing and herbicides for vegetation management on the Island of Flat Holm
• A 2019 event where three people accidently came to the island (multiple news stories about this event).
• Impact of cyber-invasive species on a large ecological network: gives extensive detail on the ecosystem of the island

If consensus is that no other information needs to be added, I'm fine with this being closed. However, I think the post-1940s gap can still be filled with information on why there is only one person on the island right now. Z1720 (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

GA from 2016. Multiple uncited sections and general article structuring issues. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I might try to work on it. Probably beyond anything I can do. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chicdat: There are still uncited statements in the article, and your last edit was Sept 1. Are you or other editors reading this still interested in addressing concerns? Z1720 (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging MSLQr who is certainly far more of an expert in this area than I and who has been doing some work on it. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 14:08, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

There is lots of uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. At over 12,000 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. I suggest that information be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed. Z1720 (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Curator" of the article here. Won't argue any of that in the slightest. It's been a decade and a lots of material has been added since. I did originally mean to spin off the History section into its own article but never got around to it. Would that be a good first step? As for detail, any particular sections that should be trimmed? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mac Dreamstate: Spinning out the "History" section might be good if the article on its own would be notable (I suspect that it is). I usually prefer subject-interested editors to review the article's prose first because they often have a better sense of what is the most important information. However, I think spinning out/reducing the amount of text in the History section will probably solve most of the too-detailed concerns. Z1720 (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'll get to work on that. Also, could you point to the paragraphs of uncited text—those should be easy to fix. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mac Dreamstate: I have added citation needed templates to the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mac Dreamstate: Maybe it should be considered to move some of the content from the "Rules and technique" and "Scoring and judging" sections to the Ski jumping article? Since most of it applies to both ski jumping and ski flying, and the coverage on these topics in the other article is less detailed. Rewording the Ski flying article in such a way that the common regulations are only roughly outlined and the focus is given to the key differences. Maybe it would prove to be more friendlier than laying out every detail of the combined regulations in a unified fashion? Dżamper (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That could work as well. At the time of writing, I was more enthusiastic about fleshing out the ski flying article to notice that the ski jumping article was sparse in comparison, and written—in part—by non-English speakers. What I'll focus on first is addressing all the cite tags, then creating the History article, and finally seeing what I can do about transplanting some of the Rules and techniques content to the ski jumping article. I will say, however, that a lot of the techniques described are specific to ski flying, so it's not a simple copy-and-paste job. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion, having dealt with a decent amount of cite tags: rather than create a separate history article, would it be sufficient for bringing the page size down if the content from the abovementioned Rules and techniques section (as well as Scoring and judging) were instead incorporated into the ski jumping article? I'd much rather summarise the latter than write up new truncated prose for the current History section. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mac Dreamstate: Yes, information can be moved to ski jumping if it is appropriate to do so, as that article is not very large right now. Z1720 (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll continue on that. I certainly haven't been trying to stall to game the system or anything like that. It's just been a busy few months, and it is a lot of content to sift through. I've also significantly cut down my activity on WP this year. A smidge more time would be appreciated before a de-listing occurs. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mac Dreamstate: I struck out my delist below. I do not think you were gaming the system, just wanted to provide an update an update (and sometimes a declaration encourages editors to address concerns). If you have a question for me, or this is ready for a re-review, please WP:PING me as I sometimes miss updates on my watchlist. Z1720 (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Work seems to have stalled and citation concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Z1720, I think Mac Dreamstate would appreciate clarification regarding their question above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    

---

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

Result pending

In December 2024, an IP introduced an uncited "Society" section to the article. This contributed to the article's bloated 12,000+ word count. There is also other uncited text, especially in the "Administrative divisions" section. Z1720 (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Society section and am planning to rewrite rewrote the Administrative divisions section based on the zhwiki article section (which seems to be pretty well referenced). Could you perhaps highlight if there are any other places that need citations? S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 09:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right...I cleaned up some of the uncited sentences at the end of last month but admittedly I entirely forgot about this later on. @Z1720: could you perhaps look over the article and see if there are any other places that need missing citations? S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 11:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@S5A-0043: I have added a couple citation needed tags. Z1720 (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All three {{cn}} tags have been resolved. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 11:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@S5A-0043: Citation concerns resolved. The article is still over 11,000 words. I recommend that some sections be trimmed of too much detail. Some recommendations to see what can be trimmed and/or moved to other articles include the following sections: "People's Republic era", "Cityscape", "Religion", "Education and research", "Public" (under "Transportation"), "Cuisine" (I think most of the food descriptions listed can be moved to daughter articles), "Sports", and "Parks and resorts" (which has too many one-sentence paragraphs). Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the recommendations. I’ll probably take a look over the weekend. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 03:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 I managed to cut it down to 10096 words. Do you think this is enough to address the length concerns? I'm afraid I'm at a bottleneck on what to trim and with limited time to edit in the next few weeks I can't carry on cutting this for long. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 06:35, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Bumping in case you missed this. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 11:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@S5A-0043: Thanks for the bump. I've been trying to find the time and the will to do this. I'll try to review this soon, and I'll make some trims in the process: feel free to revert if not helpful. Z1720 (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have read through the entire article, reducing the word count to under 8,500 words by removing too much detail, redundancy and WP:PROMO. I think there are too many images in the article and some should be removed, and the lead should be checked to ensure all the information is in the article body. Once these are complete, and if there are no major objections to my cuts, I will recommend that the article keeps its status. Ping @S5A-0043:, though any interested editor can address this. Z1720 (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 I've cross-checked and updated certain stats in the lead and removed a number images. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 03:31, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• @Cmguy777: Yes, Presidency of Barack Obama is 13,000 long. No, it is also not a GA. This process is to evaluate an article against the GA criteria. If the article topic is notable, any editor can make a new article and place information there. I will not be making edits to this article as I am busy with many on-and-off wiki tasks. I am happy to support those who do want to make those edits and will re-review if pinged. Z1720 (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This article passed GA in the past. Yes. There is room for improvement, and thanks for the specifics. I just don't think it necessary to take away the GA status, when in the past it was given GA status, by whatever standard(s) was(were used) at the time. Improvements can be made to the article without removing the GA, imo. I have made past reductions to the article, found in the talk page, to improve the article. Grant's Native American policy, reforms and scandals, have been made into spinoff articles. Probably, the next spin off article should be Grant's Foreign policy. Grant's presidency was different. He was elected and served two consecutive terms in office, that would not be repeated until the election of Woodrow Wilson. Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cmguy777: An article will not be delisted if improvements are ongoing and concerns addressed. My concerns are listed above. The GAR will assess the article against the current criteria, not the criteria that was in place when it was passed. Z1720 (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @Cmguy777: When I say "delisted", I am saying that the article will no longer be designated as a "good article". It will still be a Wikipedia article regardless of whether it is delisted or not. Z1720 (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. I can work on the annexation of Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic) section. That was a primary initiative to the Grant Administration. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I reworked first term foreign policy introduction and the the Santo Domingo section. Does that look alright? Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have not had any reply yet. Please reply. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Cmguy777, you may find it better in the future to WP:PING Z1720, as I have now done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a link that explains Douglas and Santo Domingo. His appointment by Grant represented black progress, that was part of the "new" for blacks. [18] Cmguy777 (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delist. The current format of giving every little detail its own level-4 section is definitely excessive. For one example, there are 224 words dedicated to the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Half of that paragraph has nothing to do with Grant. The parts that do pertain to Grant include a quotation that could be replaced with a concise statement, as well as a line straight up telling the reader the paragraph is not that relevant: "Grant had no role in writing the Civil Rights Act of 1875 but he did sign it a few days before the Republicans lost control of Congress." Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:46, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Civil Rights Act of 1875 was ground breaking. The first in U.S. History. And yes, Grant signed it into law. Grant was the president and deserves credit for signing the legislation into law. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist This article has been open for over a month and a half, and there are still significant paragraphs without citations. The length concerns also still remain. Work seems to have stalled, and it might be better if the article is worked on without the pressure of GAR, and nominated at GAN when it is ready. Z1720 (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I felt I have been the only one who has working on this article. Wikipedia is suppose to be a group editor editing. It's not one editor giving orders. I don’t agree GA should be removed. I felt I have been doing allot of the editing, trying to comply with "suggested" changes. Also, no one ever told me whether my changes were good enough. I hope there is no personal bias against Grant in any delisting process. I stopped editing because there was no positive feed back on my previous edits. That is not my fault. I believe the article is a good article too. It should not be delisted. This article well referenced. There needs to be more editors working on the article. Reducing article size should not reduce content. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Did the Santo Domingo section clean up meet your approval? I need that type of feed back. I have the Grant biographies by Chernow, Smith, and White. I have the two Grant presidential biographies by Calhoun and Kahan. I believe my sources are reliable and trustworthy. Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Result pending

Some uncited text (including entire paragraphs) and lots of one-paragraph sections which should be merged per MOS:OVERSECTION. History stops at 2022 so there might be some recent information to add to the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly needs updating for the past four years, but it's not an impossible task. Best of luck. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some prior work on US drug policy articles like United States v. Doremus, so I will take this GAR on and get started within the next few days. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 19:52, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finished with a comprehensive copyediting of the article, added/removed various references to improve sourcing quality, and combined sections as needed per Z1720's opening comments. Per Z1720, there is still some recent history to be added, but I begin law school tomorrow, so my progress on this will be a bit slower. I expect to finish within a month (ping me if I don't), but anyone else is free to finish the reassessment work in the meantime. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 16:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @ViridianPenguin: There is no rush from me to close this. Happy for this to be kept open. Z1720 (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @ViridianPenguin: It has been several weeks since you have made an edit to this article. Still interested in working on this? Z1720 (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the requested ping! Yes, I will get back to finishing this GAR, hopefully starting today. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 13:09, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @ViridianPenguin: It has been almost two weeks, and the last edit to the article was in August. Would it be better to delist this article, so that you can work on this without the pressure of a GAR, and then when it is ready you can nominate it for GAN again? Z1720 (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry! Since my last reply, I have been reading Owusu-Bempah and Rehmatullah's 2023 Waiting to Inhale book, which has some of the recent history that I need to finish this up. I would like the GAR to stay open a bit longer to now implement this info. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 05:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Z1720 OK, that book ended up being a dud, so I finished off updating claims on state legalization of recreational cannabis using news sites. I am pretty happy that my edits over the past 1.5mo were able to reduce the prose size by 30% to summarize existing claims while adding new details and correcting outright falsehoods. Let me know what you think as to whether the article can be kept at GA or needs further work. Thanks! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 23:04, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ViridianPenguin: Sorry for the delay, I was reviewing another article. Uncited text is resolved. Oversection concerns still remain: these one-paragraph sections should be merged together into larger sections. No sourcing or WP:RS concerns. Z1720 (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a sentence on the Narcotics Control Act of 1956 to avoid the only instance of a one-sentence section, but I do not think any further section merging is possible. I united all the recent ballot measure and legislative legalization of recreational cannabis into two sections, but all of the remaining short sections are reasonably distinct from one another. For example, Biden's 2022 and 2023 cannabis-related pardons are highly significant in the legal history of cannabis in the United States, but there is nothing else in the "Non-medical use" section to neatly merge it with. Thus where MOS:OVERSECTION instructs that "short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheadings," I believe this timeline-based article is a rare exception where major events deserve inclusion, yet not more detail to avoid article bloating. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 02:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, I was not expecting a reply within a day, but I am pinging in case you do not get notifications from normal replies. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 03:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Passing by comment: I am hardly impressed seeing citations like ""Why Is Marijuana Illegal?". weednews.co" to some websites of dubious reliability. They should be replaced with scholarly sources. --_{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 05:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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