---

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article has lots of uncited statements, with one statement tagged since March 2012. It also has too much detail, with over 10,000 words in the article. I think some places like "First years", "Early career", and several sections of "Commentator, controversy and personal life" can be summarised more effectively so the article can be more concise. Z1720 (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand WP:GACR, I think this fails each of points 1a, 1b, 2b, and 3b. I would demote it to start-class as I'm doubtful about it meeting either of the B-class or C-class requirements, but that's another matter. My problem with the article is statistics. I don't see any need for the tables in the later sections, which fail the list incorporation part of point 1b. The tables are an obvious statistical excess, but even worse is the way statistics are used in the county and Test career sections. It seems as if large portions of narrative were derived from statistical information, and the reader is overwhelmed by averages, scores, totals, and strike rates.

For example, On 8 and 9 June 1967, he made his highest Test score of 246 not out against India on his home ground of Headingley. Batting for 573 minutes, Boycott struck thirty fours and a six at a strike rate of 44.32. He began his innings slowly, taking six hours over his first 106 runs; he scored 17 in the first hour and 8 in the second. That is followed by a lengthy and uninteresting piece about slow scoring and being dropped from the team. Why not simply say: He made his highest Test score of 246 not out against India at Headingley in 1967, but his slow scoring frustrated the selectors who dropped him from the team, partly in response to media pressure, and then move on to the next match he played in? That would be more than sufficient.

I entirely agree with Z1720 about excessive detail in the "Commentator, controversy and personal life" section. The piece about domestic violence is completely unbalanced. It begins and ends with single-sentence paragraphs which sandwich a bloated account of his conviction and its aftermath. That fails point 3b. In addition, the fifth paragraph needs three citations (point 2b). The whole sub-section should be rewritten and condensed.

If the article was being nominated at WP:GAN now, I think it should be immediately refused because of point 3 in WP:QF—it has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. Those would include {{cleanup}}, {{unreferenced}}, {{citation needed}}, and {{clarify}} of the examples given.

I support the proposal to demote the article. ReturnDuane (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This perfectly good article has been polluted with a small amount of WP:OR. I'll remove it now. There is no reason to delist the article, which is well-written, well-structured, and thoroughly cited. There is no reason to think the tables excessive; a man who gets to world standard in a sport can very reasonably and in an encyclopedic manner have his performance illustrated in tabular form: it's far clearer and less space-consuming than writing it all out in text, and arguably less usual too. The table of partners is less common, but it clearly illustrates his exceptional performance, and it is reliably sourced. The article cannot be described as table-heavy, either.

I'm not sure I totally agree with the text changes suggested by ReturnDuane but I've made them anyway for the sake of harmony: it's basically just a matter of opinion on Wikipedia style and appropriate amount of detail, not a GA matter (and certainly not a GAR issue). I've cut nearly 10,000 bytes of text from the article.

I've added citations to one paragraph. I believe the article is now in a tidy and good state. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap, I've looked further into the matter of list incorporation, which is an important component of CR1b. It leads to WP:NOTSTATS, which is a site policy, and I think this article must breach that policy because it is overrun with statistics, especially in the narrative, as I outlined above. While I make that point, I must admit I'm not sure about the extent to which NOTSTATS applies, so I'll keep an open mind on it for the present.

There is, perhaps, another issue concerning the use of Boycott's own written works as sources, because they account for more than 10% of the citations. It could be argued that much of the content dealing with controversial topics is skewed in his favour. Having said that, his biographer Leo McKinstry does seem to present a balanced view. ReturnDuane (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing. The NOTSTATS thing is about making articles overwhelmingly statistical, whereas this article is, as you have noted, rather textual (and possibly long-winded at that). I've cut down the text, but the stats remain a small component of the article, and I think an entirely reasonable one. If we were going to cut down any table it would be to reduce the details of the opening partnerships to say the top ten partners, but even they are so remarkable that this not-at-all-sporty editor is impressed. As for having primary sources for 10% of the citations, that seems pretty reasonable as a ratio; if it were 66%, we'd be rather more concerned. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: I have tagged some other places in the article which will need a citation with a "citation needed" template. Z1720 (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed those. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, particularily in the "Risks management" section. Z1720 (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will fix what I can. Please tag or list all issues requiring attention. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the two I could find · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbsouthwood: I added citation needed tags per the above request. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I missed those as being obvious, but obvious is in the eye of the beholder. Should be possible to find refs, but may be a little tedious. You tagged one as dubious, but I cannot see why, as it falls within the definition of a muti-level dive. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 03:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added citations, clarified where I thought it would be useful, added a few links, and removed one or two claims that I could not find any source for. Please take a look and see if anything else is needed. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Citation concerns resolved. Z1720 (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article has multiple sources. However, most, if not all, of these sources are from the same source, just from different parts of the source. Thus it should need to cite other sources as well instead of just citing different parts of the same source.

I'm a bit confused by this nomination. This is currently citing 4 distinct sources - Conley 1998, Polemis 1968, the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, and Garland 1999. All the sources look reliable to me, and the article looks to be about a comprehensive as it can be on an ancient figure this obscure. The GA nominator Iazyges has not been notified as is recommended in the instructions at the header at WP:GAR, nor has the primary author Cplakidas. I think this should be closed as keep unless actual major problems with this article and the good article criteria are identified. Hog Farm _Talk 20:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I literally do not see any other citations except those from different parts of the same book. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference is "Polemis 1968, p. 46; ODB, "Doukas" (A. Kazhdan, A. Cutler), pp. 655–656." So there's one citation to Polemis, and another to the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. The next one is "Polemis 1968, pp. 47–48; Conley 1998, p. 52.". So another citation to Polemis, but there's a citation added as well for Conley 1998. You then have " Polemis 1968, p. 47; Garland 1999, p. 171.", so a citation to Polemis and one to Garland 1999. [4] covers "Polemis 1968, p. 47; Garland 1999, pp. 173–174, 176; Conley 1998, p. 52." so there's three sources being cited there. Refs 5 and 6 only cite Polemis. Reference [7] is to Conley, and then [8] is Polemis again. So different parts of Polemis are cited 7 times, Conley 1998 three times, Garland 1999 twice, and then the ODB once. Yes, this is a bit heavy use of Polemis 1968, but not to the extent that this should be delisted. I wonder if the way most of the references are bundled is causing issues with whatever device you are reading this on, so you're only seeing Polemis, which is the first entry in all of the bundled citations. Hog Farm _Talk 21:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see it. Yeah then I agree this doesn't really meet the requirements for delisting. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains uncited statements. The "Music" section is underdeveloped. Z1720 (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Provided link to Brown University Library's Digital Repository Feickus (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Feickus: There's still some uncited statements in the article. Would you be willing to address them? Z1720 (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Kept. Hog Farm _Talk 00:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited text, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied this up. Some of it was simply thoughtless splitting of cited paragraphs; there was a small amount of simple OR added post-GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: Thanks for doing this. There are still some unresolved "citation needed" tags in the article. I do not think the three-paragraph quote in "Flight testing" is necessary and might be a copyright concern: I suggest that this is summarised as an unquoted prose instead. Z1720 (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Concerned resolved. Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Kept. Hog Farm _Talk 00:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited sections, particularily entire paragraphs in the "History of fieldwork" section. The "History of fieldwork" needs to be updated, as it currently stops at 2012. Z1720 (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important topic: I'll take a look at it. — hike395 (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Field work on the ice and in the ocean next to the ice seems to have tailed off around 2014 (I cannot find sources past that). It appears that aerial surveys and satellites are now the dominant data sources. I've added a new subsection about those, to round out the history. I've also trimmed back the unsourced trivia in the section.

Still working on the overall article. As usual, marking sentences with {{cn}} would be helpful for me. — hike395 (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hike395: My citation concerns seem to have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! What I've done is reorganize the sections to be parallel to the Thwaites Glacier GA, added newer references throughout, cleaned up the lede to reflect the rest of the article, and change the image choice to support the material in the article. I think we're now back to GA-level quality. — hike395 (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: No consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements in the article, particularly in the "In popular culture" section. Lots of critical commentary is missing about the article, including the poem's reception and analysis of themes or writing style. Z1720 (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on the article a bit to cite unsourced claims and re-organize some information. I also deleted the entire 'in popular culture' section, since it seemed too trivial to be worth sourcing -- especially in context with a legacy like Orphan Annie and Raggedy Ann! I'd say the "Poem" section includes plenty of analysis of the poem's writing style. I also personally think the article is OK for breadth without much analysis of themes; there is an explanation that it gives a moral about obedience, and it is just a four-stanza children's poem. There's definitely still room for expansion in the "impact" section, but with these edits I think the article is no longer so far from the GA criteria that it needs to be delisted. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Issues resolved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of uncited text, particularly in the "Satellite data sets" section. There is an orange "update" banner from 2022 on top of the "Changes due to global warming" section: has this been resolved? Z1720 (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Unfortunately no - so unless anyone has the time and energy to summarise IPCC AR6 section 4.2.1.1 Observed Changes in Precipitation from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/chapter-4/ I think the article is no longer good Chidgk1 (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will get to it shortly. E_F⁵ 19:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: and @Chidgk1: I've removed all uncited (and some weirdly promotional WikiHow links), I'll get to the "need update" banner shortly. How does it look now? E_F⁵ 19:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5: Thanks for doing this: it looks a lot better. There was an unresolved citation needed tag, and I added a second one. Z1720 (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Issues seem resolved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains numerous uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

good article though, would be shame to delete! Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kellycrak88: WP:GAR is a discussion on whether the article meets the good article criteria. If it is delisted, the article will still remain on Wikipedia. Z1720 (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to find citations. --Chronicler Frank (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of it already have citation. Do you mind to take look at it once again Agus Damanik (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Agus Damanik: I added two cn tags. After looking at the lead, I think a brief sentence or two should be added about his cultural depictions. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

already done the lead Agus Damanik (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first cn, is that the citation is the quote itself. Agus Damanik (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thomas Kinsella (translator), The Táin, Oxford University Press, 1969, pp. 156–158 Agus Damanik (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Agus Damanik: Does the citation verify that the subsequent quote is "The most elaborate description of his appearance"? I would also suggest putting "— Thomas Kinsella (translator), The Táin, Oxford University Press, 1969, pp. 156–158" into a footnote. Z1720 (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i don't understand. In my opinion, it means the tain is the most elaborate description and it shown by the tain itself. Or did you mean we need citation that the Tain is the most elaborate one? Agus Damanik (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Agus Damanik: Yes. Wikipedia cannot state that the quoted text is the most elaborate description: that would be original research. Instead, a source needs to state that the quoted description is the most elaborate, and that source cited in the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any resource that say most elaborate, but i find other reference. Do you mind to make it footnote, cause i don't know how. Thank you Agus Damanik (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agus Damanik, see WP:HELPCITE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements throughout the article. The "Filmography" section has had a "more sources needed" orange banner since 2019. Z1720 (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied this up and split off the Filmography. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Uncited statements have been sourced or removed. Z1720 (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Kept. The results are as follows: 1 Hold and 4 Keep. The arguments here were long and reasonable. Some argued that length doesn't matter, while others argued that "personality" should be removed. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 02:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is excessively long, about 17000 words. It also has some slight WP:NPOV and WP:MOS issues. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 15:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explain, what are those WP:NPOV and WP:MOS issues?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back, I don’t think there are any significant NPOV issues. However, in terms of MOS, sentences like 'On 10 March 1985, Chernenko died.' may convey an unnecessarily emphatic tone. Overall, the tone throughout could be improved to sound more encyclopedic. While I initially said there were no NPOV issues, some examples, such as 'He would stop to talk to civilians on the street, forbade the display of his portrait at the 1985 Red Square holiday celebrations, and encouraged frank and open discussions at Politburo meetings,' come across as slightly biased and could benefit from a more neutral phrasing. And yes I used ChatGPT to fix my own phrasing. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 07:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nom seems to be working on this, having spun out General secretaryship of Mikhail Gorbachev. There are also four citation needed tags that should be resolved (although I just added three of them and none seem particularly hard to rectify). charlotte ^👸🎄 06:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNs fixed by @LastJabberwocky (and me). charlotte ^👸🎄 01:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All Tomorrows No Yesterdays do you still intend to work on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I intend on summarizing the Leader of the Soviet Union section.but that's about it All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 @Queen of Hearts @3E1I5S8B9RF7 any further comments? All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 06:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're working on summarising that section, no. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly didn't see any major issues with the article to begin with. To me, the reassessment was unnecessary. The article is long, but considering the importance of Gorbachev on history, it deserves this length.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3E1I5S8B9RF7, I managed to summarise Genghis Khan, one of the most consequential figures in history, to FA standard in less than 10,000 words. This article has over 17,000. The length is simply not justifiable within Wikipedia summary style guidelines. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Genghis Khan is a good comparison; there is bound to be more available detail on a modern political figure than one of the 12–13th centuries, no matter how iconic. Some 20th C examples which are featured/good... Nelson Mandela 14,788 words, Jimmy Carter 15,286 words, Franklin D. Roosevelt 14,331 words, Winston Churchill 14,739 words. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Formally putting down a delist; no work has been done to slim down the general secretaryship section, and 17k words is far too long for any article. 13–14k would be a much better ballpark, and if it could be slimmed down even further that would be great. charlotte ^👸♥ 01:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with thanks (as always) to Chiswick Chap. charlotte ^👸♥ 10:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a long article, but it's also a biography, which is one of those types of articles perhaps not as amenable to summary style as others. The obvious option for that would be to spin off the sections of chronology (Early life and education, Early CPSU career, Secretary of the Central Committee of CPSU, Leader of the Soviet Union (1985-1991), Unraveling of the USSR, and Post-USSR life), either together or individually (or a mix). Is there appetite for this? CMD (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I again have to repeat, 17,000 words don't bother me in this example. The article deserves this length, considering the major changes that Gorbachev made on history and the high amount of sources that cover him.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 07:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a workable yardstick, if we treated article length as a function of impact and source number we'd end up producing books. CMD (talk) 08:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've cut down the tagged over-long section from 4,800 to under 4,000 words, and copy-edited other sections. The article does not seem overlong really; it's far from being the longest biography. I think splitting out the main sections of his biography would be a strange thing to do in a biography article, and I can assure you, having just tried, that the material cannot readily be condensed much without discarding substantial and useful material. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hold. I am still concerned about the article's length. I would WP:SPINOUT his ideology, move some of "Leader of the Soviet Union (1985-1991)" to General Secretaryship of Mikhail Gorbachev, move some of "August coup and government crises" to 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt, remove "Personality" (most Wikipedia biographies don't have this anymore), and merge "Reactions" with "Legacy" (reactions is mostly people commenting on Gorbachev's legacy). Z1720 (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure that concern is not outwith the GACR as there isn't a hard limit in policy. However:
    • Have split out the Ideology; that has cut another 700 words from the total, down to 15,660 words. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Leader of the Soviet Union": reduced to "main" link (existing) with summary. That saves another 3,700 words, down to 11,900 in total.
    • "August coup and government crises": we're down amongst the weeds (minor tweaks), but reduced to "further" link" (existing) with summary. That saves another 400 words, down to about 11,500 in total. The article is now shorter than those of the major figures above, so it's time to stop cutting. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:GA? 1a states "the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience;" In my opinion, the length of this article causes the prose not to fulfil the concise requirement, and the level of detail makes the article difficult for a broad audience to understand. Z1720 (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well it's a lot shorter now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• My above suggestions were about the article version that was live when my comment was posted. Z1720 (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've implemented ALL your suggested changes, cutting the article from ~220,000 bytes to 169,000 bytes. Napoleon is ~190,000 bytes, for comparison. It is well within 'normal' length parameters now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Great work has been done so far to make the article more concise. I think there's still work to be done. I don't like using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but Earth, classified as one of Wikipedia's most important articles, is under 9,000 words. Napoleon was also demoted from its GA status in 2021 and A-class status in May 2024, so I don't know if this article should be compared to that article.

While most of my suggestions were implemented, others were not (Personality section and reactions sections are still in the article). I am happy to discuss if they should be removed/merged.

• No issue with Personality/Reactions, those'll be done now.
  • Personality s/section removed.
  • Reactions: much of this is just 'I'm very sorry to hear that' (no encyclopedic value), so cut. I've folded the small amount remaining into Legacy.

• I think some sections are too specific in its detail right now because a lot has been written about him, and a concise article on a broad topic like this person would be more general in its information, while more detailed information would be in daughter articles. Upon a closer reading of the article, I see more information that can be spun out or removed. Some examples include Gorbachev's height and weight, extensive detail on who sent his family their condolences after his death (which is expected behaviour after a notable statesman has died), and Gorbachev's opinion on several major events in the 2010s in the "2008–2022: growing criticism of Putin and foreign policy remarks" section (including almost yearly quotes on his opinion on Russia's invasions of Ukraine). If editors want I can do a detailed look through the article and suggest other places where the article is not concise. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not keen on this stepwise approach. However,
    • Condolences have gone already (Reactions cut).
    • Personal life: Height, weight etc: gone, section trimmed.
    • Death and Funeral sections trimmed and merged.
    • "2008–2022: growing criticism of Putin and foreign policy remarks": radically cut down.
    • In same vein, have proactively trimmed "1991–1999" and "1999-2008" sections.
    • These edits have cut the article further from 169,000 bytes to 134,000 bytes. Over 40% of the text has been cut since I started on this; 17,000 words have been reduced to 9,000. This is not at all an unusual length for articles.
• Keep Length concerns are resolved, no uncited text found, no unreliable sources found. Z1720 (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging @All Tomorrows No Yesterdays as the one who started the GAR; if they (or anyone else) don't have objections, I think this can be closed as keep. charlotte ^👸♥ 22:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Kept. Hog Farm _Talk 23:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are several uncited sections, paragraphs, and sentences. Several sections are quite short, and probably need to be expanded. The "History" section seems to end in 1987. This should include more recent events. Z1720 (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go at this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've tidied this up, removed editorial, weeded the images, trimmed the lists, and added a ridiculous number of citations. It's not perfect but it'll pass muster. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: The "History" section still seems to stop at 1987. Any major topics that should be included in the article about the topic post-1990s? Z1720 (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's a bit soon to document the history of the 21st century, but I've added a section on that century, looking at strategy and major trends. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: Thanks for doing this. After reading the "Future" section, I think some of that information could possibly be updated or moved up to "History". For example, the Oman botanical garden is cited to a 2011 source, so has it already been built? Once this is complete I think this article will probably be a "keep" for me. Z1720 (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In 2025 the Oman website, now cited, is still in the future tense, so it seems the garden has not been constructed. I've redistributed the 'future' materials. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, thoughts? (please  mention me on reply) charlotte ^👸♥ 02:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Concerns are addressed and resolved. Z1720 (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say this article goes in-depth; there was a ton of uncited info a few days earlier and now it's very short. I was waiting until after it was on the POTD to do this, as I don't want to be a party-pooper. :) E_F⁵ 18:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I was waiting for a week after I posted to the talk page, but yes, delist per nom. charlotte ^👸♥ 20:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @EF5 and Queen of Hearts: "very short" is not a reason to delist an article, unless it is shown that the article does not cover the main aspects of the subject. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Already fix a few thing. I think the reassessment can be canceled Agus Damanik (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not seeing any glaring issues remaining, and as AirshipJungleman29 says length on its own is not a failure reason assuming it's beyond a stub (and this article is about 600 words so easily long enough). I think this can probably be kept. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There's not much information about his academic career or personal life. There are some questionable sources, like ref 36: whyevolutionistrue.com. Z1720 (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The use of whyevolutionistrue.com is just to quote the definitely-notable Jerry Coyne so the source is fine for that purpose.

Keep: I've done a lot of tidying-up, have added multiple sources, and have rewritten quite a bit. The limited detail on personal life and career reflect the sources, which all focus on his philosophy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements in the article, and an unresolved "more sources needed" orange banner from 2023. There are numerous one-sentence paragraphs in the article, which negatively affect the MOS:LAYOUT. These should be merged together and formatted more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you could give a more detailed description of the issues with the article, similar to a good article review, so me and others have a list of things we can go through and tick off. – Editør (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the article and attempted to fix the issues. Let me know if there are any further issues that need to be resolved. – Editør (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Editør: I have added citation needed tags to the places that need citations. The "Beliefs, interests, and charity work" has a lot of short paragraphs that should be merged together: I suggest that an editor read through and reorganise this section, as it looks like these additions have been made piecemeal. Z1720 (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added one or more sources for each citation needed tag and reorganized the section. – Editør (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Is there anything else? – Editør (talk) 08:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Concerns resolved. Z1720 (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Kept. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 21:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements in the "Investigation" section. Z1720 (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I've removed the uncited information that I couldn't find a source for and added sources for things I could find a source for. How does it look? E_F⁵ 21:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5: Added a citation needed tag for a paragraph in "Investigation". Z1720 (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, added sources. — E_F⁵ 21:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. My concerns have been addressed and resolved. Z1720 (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Kept. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 14:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article heavily relies on primary sources; WP:ABOUTSELF wouldn't apply here, as it says such sources can be used for info about the subject as long as it's uncontroversially talking about itself (Y) and not used in excess. (N) 🌙Eclipse (she/they/it/other neos • talk • edits) 11:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not think that it needs to be delisted at the moment per the arguments given in Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Neighbours 30th Anniversary/1 and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Additionally, several of the primary sources are then backed up by secondary sources. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Kept. Hog Farm _Talk 18:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited prose in the article, including entire paragraphs and an orange "more citations needed" orange banner at the top of "The Night Watch" section. There are also some unreliable sources used in the article like IMDB; with the extensive amount of literature written about him, I think it would be a good idea to replace some of these website sources with higher-quality publications, but at least remove the unreliable ones. Z1720 (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look when I have time, though as I said in the other section (where is that now??), the ARTICLE IS CERTAINLY far BETTER than when it passed GA. Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, that's on Talk:Rembrandt.

Z1720, far be it from me to take over from Johnbod on a history of art topic, but something does need to be said here. The article is indeed of good quality; the letter-of-the-law approach is seen in an instance like this - a really nice article, well-constructed, well-illustrated, well-written, and almost completely cited - to be about to give the wrong answer, viz., a few refs could be added so it's not a GA, bang. That really isn't a particularly forgiving approach, or to put it another way, the (at random?) choice of this article seems especially unfortunate and inappropriate. If this gets towards a timeout, then let me know (either of you) and I'll add the needed refs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I should get round to it, but by all means add to it, refs especially, if you can. Presumably the The Night Watch article has refs, which I haven't explored yet. I do have books on R though. Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I see The Night Watch is oddly thin on the content of the painting itself, which it would be good to expand on. Johnbod (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap and Johnbod: When reviewing articles for GA status, the article is reviewed based on its current version, not how much it has improved from before. It is also reviewed based on what the GA criteria are today. If there are concerns about how I review articles, editors can post them on the GA talk page. Z1720 (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we may need to do that, again. The point is not what the letter of the criteria say, we can read, but what the proper interpretation should be on the balance of all the facts in a situation, which are not limited to CN tags, nor should those be considered specially important. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, Keep, for the reasons stated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added citation needed tags, and the orange banner on top of the "The Night Watch" section still needs to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• That's frankly a misunderstanding: not helpful and not necessary, I can see the gaps for myself and so can Johnbod, and that section is the one place where we all agree things should be improved. What we don't agree is that such a thing demands a GAR: on that we differ fundamentally, and splashing CN tags about won't help resolve that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, I've done a little tidying, reffed all the obvious places, and a basic rewrite of The Night Watch. There was only one passing mention of IMDB (on the back of another ref, about publicity for an exhibition): I've removed it - really not worth flagging up. Johnbod can certainly do better but for the immediate purpose here that should be enough. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Great - I hope will do more later, but all the issues raised above are sorted. Many thanks, So, Keep. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for your hard work. There's one citation needed template to resolve before I can recommend a keep. It is for the sentence that starts with, "Also notable are his dramatic and lively presentation of subjects". Once resolved, editors can ping me and I'll take another look. Z1720 (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; I removed the one unreliable source I saw since it already had another cite. charlotte ^👸♥ 00:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems good now - but really we ought to find material for a 4th para to the lead. Probably on his style. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Essentially a withdrawn by nominator. Hog Farm _Talk 17:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a lot of post-2017 information: a search for sources found lots of new sources profiling him and his career which should include more recent works and milestones. Z1720 (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know what my plans for the weekend are then... - JuneGloom07 Talk 00:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun adding post-2017 info, including his appointment to design director of Aspinal of London, new collaborations, and the move into interior design. - JuneGloom07 Talk 05:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the sections have now been updated with new info. I did add to the lead, but I will update it a bit further. Are there any other major issues preventing this article from maintaining its GA status? - JuneGloom07 Talk 05:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JuneGloom07: A sentence or two of his more recent work (post-2018) should be included in the lead. Other then that, a quick skim does not show additional concerns. I recommend splitting up the "Career" section using level 3 headings. Z1720 (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I've updated the lead to reflect the new info and added subheadings to the career section. - JuneGloom07 Talk 05:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Kept. Real4jyy (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA articles relating to musicians must include the a Musical style and influences section, possibly titled "Artistry". Without this it is not comprehensive, per WP:WPMAG. For example, A Good Time mentions Afropop as one of his genres while many Nigerian sources and an interview show his inspirations. Best, 750h+ 09:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I can definitely include an artistry section to the article, I will work on the article this weekend. Thanks for your comments.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Versace. You can add a word or two on his musical influences as well. I am following this page.HandsomeBoy (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an artistry section to the article. Please let me know your thoughts about it.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

citation style is a little inconsistent throughout and some websites should be italicized but i think the article for the most part is better 750h+ 11:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• keep: Article meets GA features. Not having a musical style is not a feature and WP:WPMAG is just an essay. - Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have minor issues with the Artistry section. It gives the impression that western musical influences are at par with local singers in shaping his career but that is not very factual. Aside from multiple references that clearly show bigger impacts of local artists such as Dbanj, Don Jazzy, 2Face, etc on his career 12, 3, he has also narrated this local influence in the lyrics of his songs, something I can't recall he ever doing for 50 Cent, etc. There should be a balance in the tone of the section that show he isn't an "Americanized Nigerian singer" that came into afrobeats. In addition, I propose having at last 2 local musicians mentioned as influences as well, and they should be written first. HandsomeBoy (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @HandsomeBoy: I'm not sure why you aren't editing the article. Is there something preventing you from adding Davido's musical influences to the article? I'm curious because you're complaining here instead of working on improving the article. Just because Davido mentioned Ja Rule and 50 Cent as artists he grew up listening to doesn't mean he cited them as musical influences. As a matter of fact, the artistry section doesn't list any of his musical influences. I really don't know why you derived the false narrative about depicting Davido as an Americanized Nigerian singer.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Versace1608: actually, it's not their responsibility to add to the article, they are a reviewer: reviewers usually highlight their concerns but it's not their responsibility to edit the article, but they can if they want. In this case HandsomeBoy is allowed to bring up as many complaints as they want but they don't have to edit to the article. 750h+ 13:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How is HandsomeBoy the reviewer? Weren't you the one who created the GA reassessment page and notified both me and HandsomeBoy about the issues you had with the article? Am I missing something here?  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  yes, i opened the reassessment (by the way, when you open a reassessment, the script automatically notifies the GA nominator, relevant projects, and other main editors). also, from what i've seen above, HandsomeBoy is only giving reviews and has only commented on issues they have on the article (they don't look like they'd like to edit, from what i've seen above), while you committed to helping fix the article. best, 750h+ 14:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  HandsomeBoy is the page creator. You cannot conclude that he does not like to edit simply because he decided to leave a comment instead of making edits to the page. You should give him a chance to respond to the questions I asked him before drawing conclusions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  page creator or not, he doesn't have to edit the article. however, we can ask @HandsomeBoy: if he'd like to edit the article or not and address the concerns he listed. 750h+ 14:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not going to be adding anymore info to the artistry section. Whoever feels like the artistry section needs more info should edit the article and add the info. You requested for an artistry section to be added to the article, and I did just that. Someone else mentioned that the page you cited to justify this reassessment isn't a policy, just someone else's opinion. I see that you have no rebuttal to that. If HandsomeBoy has issues with the article, he can edit it. There's no law preventing him from editing the article and he is not the reviewer.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Versace1608, I am leaving the article to you since I have removed "your important additions" according to you. I think having two editors trying to restore a GA looks difficult, however I am sorry if I scattered things for you. I don't like it when a Nigerian article is delisted. I would vote keep when things are sorted out, when your "GA-dream article meets GA features. You can revert my edits too. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologize if you feel like I did not appreciate the contributions you made to the article. It wasn't my intention to offend you bro. I just feel like you removed a few vital info from the article. Davido's musical start as a member of KB International is one of the information you removed. I personally believe this info is vital to the article. You also removed info about some of Davido's singles from the lede. Someone falsely listed Davido as the most charitable musician in Nigeria without backing it up with any evidence. The lack of an artistry section was the only issue that 750h+ had with the article. I believe I have addressed this particular issue despite HandsomeBoy's comments. Please feel free to edit the article and add new info you feel is important. At this point, the article needs more info, not less.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I don't see any issue again. The GA [imporver] has solved the problem raised by the noninator. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I added a citation needed tag to the article. I also don't think Bellanaija is a reliable source. Z1720 (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Z1720, BellaNaija is a reliable source for entertainment news. A few Nigerian editors have reached consensus regarding its reliability and added it to WP:RSNG. Our discussion can be seen here.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article seems to address major topics and my citation concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains many uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The plot is not concise and should be summarised more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay lack-of-sourcing should be easily fixed. Plot absolutely needs trimming. Only two other things I see missing sources, one being the 2013 quote from Hubbard, but which I cannot find where it came from via a google search yet, and the sequel (which shouild be easy). — Masem (t) 17:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found the quote source, from a Jace Hall interview [1]. --Masem (t) 17:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: I added cn tags to the article. According to WP:VG/LEAD (gameplay section is underneath the lead section) the gameplay does need references to reliable sources, so these will need to be added. I put citation needed tags in the article to indicate places that might need them. Z1720 (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, gameplay does need sourcing, but that usually can be pulled from reviews. Culling the plot is tricky only because it's been a long time since I played to know what to cull. — Masem (t) 16:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've never played this game (or heard about it until earlier this month) so I'm not sure if I will be helpful to trim the plot. Z1720 (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have tackled cutting down the plot, sourcing the gameplay section, and removing a few statemnts that were tagged with CNs. There's only on CN remaining (regarding the nature of the acronyms) but I do not think that requires any demotion of this as an existing GA. — Masem (t) 19:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a single paragraph without a citation. What are you talking about? Tigerboy1966  17:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigerboy1966: I have added "citation needed" templates to the article to show prose that need sources. The missing citations for an entire paragraph were the last paragraph in "Background" and first paragraph of "Assessment, honours and awards", although there are other sentences and phrases that also need citations. Z1720 (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I will work my way through these in the next few days. Tigerboy1966  06:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Overview" section has a "duplicates" yellow banner from 2023. This information should be moved to other areas of the article and removed so that the article can be concise. There is not much post-2016 information, including their current circulation and information on thier current business practices. There are a couple of uncited sentences. Z1720 (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added missing sources to two sentences in the "MediaNews Group era" section and added a line on the 2012 website redesign. I also added info on the 2020 layoffs, Virginia Farmier being named publisher and the Saturday print day elimination to the "Back to the Sneddens" section. Do you think anything else is missing from the most recent sections? Eric Schucht (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric Schucht: I am not an expert in this topic, but the article now looks up to date. I think the "Overview" section should be removed as it is just a repeat of the lead. I would also use level 3 headings to divide the "Snedden era" section. Z1720 (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support merging and consolidating the Overview with the opening section. And level 3 headings is fine by me. Feel free to make the changes. I'm not an expert on this either. Eric Schucht (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I moved some info over from the Overview to the introduction, removed duplicate info, added the year to circulation figures and re-titled the Overview section to "Circulation and coverage." Do you think that works? Eric Schucht (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains lots of uncited statements, including some marked with "citation needed" since September 2023. Z1720 (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see only one "citation needed", something about the cold war context. Could probably refactor the statement to say that the match generated considerable international media interest or something to that effect, which is fairly self-evidently true, but could easily find cites from among our existing references. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I added citation needed tags to the article to indicate other places where citations are needed. Some of these are necessary to support opinionated statements. about the matches. Z1720 (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A lot of those are completely unnecessary. "Fischer won, putting him ahead 5-3". That's how scoring works in chess, this WP:BLUE stuff. The Alexander quote is obviously related to the book which is cited in the very same sentence. The fact that Spassky would have retained the title in the event of a tie is cited earlier in the article.... MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone thinks a citation is unnecessary, they can remove it. WP:BLUE is an essay, "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors...it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." It does not supercede WP:V. Regardless, I think statements like, "Fischer dominated the 1971 Candidates Tournament; his 6–0–0 defeats of both Mark Taimanov and Bent Larsen were, and as of 2024 still are, unparalleled at this level of chess", "Fischer won 19 games (plus 1 win on forfeit) without losing once, almost all against top grandmasters", and "Excitement grew as the match was postponed and people questioned whether Fischer would appear" need citations. If something is cited earlier in the article, the citation can be repeated. If the citation is earlier in the sentence, the citation can be moved to the end of the sentence. Z1720 (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me like excessive and possibly reactionary WP:TAGBOMBING for earlier opposition in this thread. For example, how do you justify putting a citation-needed tag on an already cited quote:

According to C.H.O'D. Alexander:<ref>Alexander 1972, p. 96</ref> "This game was notable for two things. First, Fischer played the Queen's Gambit for the first time in his life in a serious game; second, he played it to perfection, the game indeed casting doubt on Black's whole opening system."^{[citation needed]}

If the citation is earlier in the sentence, the citation can be moved to the end of the sentence. Z1720 (talk) Instead of tagging, why not just move it?! --IHTS (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ihardlythinkso: This article has multiple missing citations. It would take me hours to look at each uncited text, understand what the text is telling the reader and possibly find a reliable source that will verify the information. Fixing one missing citation will not allow this article to meet the GA criteria. If other editors are interested in fixing up the article, I am happy to provide another review once the work is complete and indicate where citations are missing, as I did above. Z1720 (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No one asked you to go digging to source any missing refs, just move a ref in lieu of tagging it lacking. And am not sure it's required that a ref be located at the tail of a quotation instead of at the head. (Does it in any policy or guideline?) And whether a text requires a cited ref is afterall a judgment call (reasonably open to challenge), you seem to suggest it is more of an absolute requiring "fixing". Am in agreement w/ Max that you've added several unnecessary flags. --IHTS (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ihardlythinkso: Before moving a reference to the end of the sentence, I would have to check the reference to make sure it is verifying the information I am claiming it is verifying. If sources have been moved without this check being done, then the article will have to go through a source check before it can be declared "keep". Z1720 (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:PAIC says "All reference tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies", which also applies to quotes. Z1720 (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• According to WP:V, all text needs a reference to verify the information. An exception includes the lead (because the information is cited later in the article). Z1720 (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CITEFOOT says "The citation should be added close to the material it supports, offering text–source integrity." According to WP:V, all text needs to be verifiable (not "needs a reference"). --IHTS (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GAR coordinators: some adjudicating needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    GA Criteria 2b says "reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)." I see a lot of bits of text that could, in my opinion, be reasonably challenged. As such, I don't think we can reasonably call the article good enough to retain GA status until this is dealt with. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:V applies to all of Wikipedia. GA has a higher standard which de facto is "all content needs a reference, apart from the usual exceptions" which Iazyges mentions just above. Now sure, if a quote is attributed to (making up a fake example) "Nuclear Energy by Z1720, Ph. D" but the citation is before the quote, the logical thing is to put the citation after the quote instead. This changes when it's unclear if the cited source also supports the content after it. Not everyone will have access to a given source, and improper attribution is something we should always avoid. It's harder to catch than simple uncited sentences.

    Having taken a quick look at the article, I see clear instances of things that need citations but lack them; for example: The combination of the intrigue surrounding whether Fischer will play or not and the "American versus Russian" narrative within the Cold War context sparked excitement throughout the world has no source (and uses "will" when it should use "would"). This is a claim that could certainly be challenged. If no one is willing to source things like that, then why should we allow this article to remain a GA?

    If someone here does have the sources, and they do support the content, then moving and editing them to reflect this should not be a huge deal. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ihardlythinkso and MaxBrowne2: are either of you interested in fixing up the above? To be clear, there is no obligation at all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I care, but the reqs to fix are a bit vague, and RL considerations currently keep me confined to casual editing only. Sorry. --IHTS (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Made general improvements and added citations in spots marked by Z1720 (except one citation) → "Over the course of the match "nearly one thousand" moves were played,[15] which would equate to nearly two thousand plies." Byrn & Nei cite the number of moves made in the course of the match, and the article makes the conversion of the number of moves (def: two changes on a chess board) into plies (def: one change on the board), thus doubling the number given by Byrne & Nei and getting nearly two thousands. I don't see it as an original research. If you do, it's easier to just remove this uncited info. - LastJabberwocky (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If one number is WP:CALCed from a source, it should be cited to that source. That said, is this just repeating the same number in two different ways? CMD (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"That said, is this just repeating the same number in two different ways?" Exactly that. The same number converted into another unit of measurement (plies). - LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be better to just say the number of plies, perhaps explaining it? Then an unfamiliar reader wouldn't have to go to the plies article to figure out what the sentence is trying to say. CMD (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a chess expert (I know how to play but little about higher level strategy). Is there a significance to stating the number of plies here? If not, why should it be stated rather than left implied? It seems like a very simple calculation to anyone familiar with what plies are. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Z1720: The citation problems has been resolved, plus slight expansion and copy edit from passingby editors. Pinging you to make the verdict as an impartial observer. LastJabberwocky (talk) 11:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. The "Gameplay" section has a "encyclopedic tone" banner at the top, placed in Dec 2023. I agree with this banner, as the tone of some of the prose in this section is promotional. The article uses IMDB as a source a couple times: this website is considered unreliable and should be replaced with with reliable sources. Z1720 (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I love this game and wish I had time to take a crack at fixing this, but as I look over the article I think it’s going to need nearly a total rewrite to maintain GA status. The development and reception are super thin and the plot seems quite excessive, even with multiple storylines that are quite similar to each other. It feels like this article needs just about a new everything - research, restructure, and rewriting. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I started filling in what I could find for development. Fleshing out the reception shouldn't be too hard, but you're right the big task is redoing the plot section. I'll see if I can do more later this week. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Out topic @Guyinblack25, glad you haven't retired yet. I wanted to let you know that one of your FA articles Kingdom Hearts needs some hand also. Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I still do consider myself retired; I just help out here and there when I have a spare moment. I'm not really in a position to be back full or part time. I just happen to be very familiar with this game, so I know I can help without it taking too much time. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Question about sourcing - Could the description section of a YouTube video be used to cite composer, arranger, and lyricist credits? It is the music video on the singer's official YouTube channel. I can't find anything else for the theme song "Cross Colors". If someone has the CD insert or another source, that would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

I'd say the development and reception sections are in a good place now (still room for improvement for anyone so bold). I'll take a stab at condensing the story section later this week. Any copy edits or feedback would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Here's what's left on the to-do list for anyone able to help.

• rewrite the "Gameplay" section
• condense the "Wu story" section in a paragraph under the general "Story" section
• integrate the "Other stories" section into the general "Story" section
• condense/rewrite the second paragraph of the "DW4 Empires" section
• not needed, but reception content for the two expansions could easily be added

As always, any copy edits or feedback would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Another update. Here is what's left to do if anyone is able to help.

• sourcing for the "Plot" section (the game levels/scene should work, it will just take time)
• information about non-North American releases for the expansions
• condense/rewrite the second paragraph of the "DW4 Empires" section
• reception content for "DW4 Empires" section

As always, feedback/copy edits would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Probably last update of what's left to do.

• sourcing for the "story" subsection (the game levels/scene should work, it will just take time)
• information about non-North American releases for the expansions
• a copy edit/review from someone else would be helpful

(Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC))[reply]

@Guyinblack25: Thanks for doing these updates. I have added two citation needed tags to the "Gameplay" section. Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed those parts because I could not find written sources for them. Parts of it where there before and I rewrote it from what I remembered from playing the game. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC))[reply]

There are a few more references I plan to add to the last paragraph of the story section, but aside from that I'm done. I realize this reassessment has been open for a while, so if you need to close it I think the current state of the article is good enough to stand as is. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC))[reply]

I'm done with my edits to article. If some one else can give it a copy edit, that would be appreciated. Regardless, I think it meets GA criteria now. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC))[reply]

---

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

Result: Keep, concerns addressed PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fails GAC3 - broad overview of the topic. This is almost entirely cited to long ago news reports and advocacy group publications from when the game came out, so it does not adequately explain what sources discuss about the topic. While they aren't unreliable and that would be OK if that was all there was, this article contains literally none of the actually quite large amount of the scholarly discussion on this game [2]. We don't need to do all of them, but for a topic on RW extremism this cannot be a broad overview without scholarly sources, which this article cites nothing from. And do we have a cover of the game case or title screen, something to go in the infobox? We used to have one of the title screen but that was removed in 2023 without comment for seemingly no reason. An article like this should have something for the lead, or else it fails that aspect of the GAC too. It's also been basically entirely rewritten since it was GAN'd the first time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The most recent rewrite was done by me when I was reworking the articles of unusual games that use the Genesis3D engine. My edits focused mostly on expanding the existing article (previously with only minor changes from the original GA) with additional journalistic sources and bringing the writing more in line with current standards. As it was a quick side-project on an existing GA, I didn't extensiely check for scholarly sources, but that is something that can be easily addressed. I will look into it in the coming days. As for the title image, using screenshots in the infobox is discouraged (per the template documentation), so I removed it in search of a better alternative. While there is a scan of the inlay, it is of rather low quality, which is why I avoided uploading it. Looking it up now, there is a logo on the game's archived website. Would you consider this a viable replacement? IceWelder [✉] 20:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IceWelder Your rewrite was a definite improvement, it was much further away from fulfilling our current standards before. For curiosity's sake, what was the other GA? I could help address the scholarly sourcing issue as well it just seems to be missing a lot of it which is why I sent it to GAR instead of addressing it myself.

Ah, did not know that with the screenshots - still I think the title screen was better than nothing. The logo would be fine. Just something in it to represent the game. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two other Genesis3D GAs I wrote were Catechumen (video game) and Special Force (2003 video game), although the latter might also need some scholarly input now that I think about it. I will look into everything during the weekend, but I believe the article is definitely salvagable. IceWelder [✉] 09:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went through 10 pages of Google Scholar and added what I could access. A lot of papers only name-dropped the game in lists of extremist games, others were merely about the actual concept of that name. When the source was a paid-access book, I checked Google Books but found little cite-worth content. I added eight paper citations as a result, as well as the logo. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 20:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you added looked good. I still recall seeing some stuff about this in other books, so I am going to look for what I can and add that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added some stuff to further reading that has sigcov, I will add from it soon. My remaining concern is I don't think Běláč is reliable? PhD theses are generally reliable, Masters theses can be if cited widely, but bachelors theses don't undergo a lot of review. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have strong feelings for that source, no, although it does provide some good details for the gameplay section. If you feel like it is not even good enough for that, I can take it out. IceWelder [✉] 19:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at it again and removed the Běláč sourced. Also, since the Bowman sources was available online, I added the few details from it to the article. IceWelder [✉] 16:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll probably come back and add some stuff later from the sources I added but looking at this again this fulfills my concerns about broadness now. Concerns addressed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]