---

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There are a lot of block quotes in the article, which would be better summarised. The article is not concise, and some sections are very long which would benefit from being broken up by headings. Z1720 (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It should be straightforward to address the issue with uncited statements, which seems fairly limited with the current text. I've just fixed one issue and will try to fix the others. Nick-D (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I've cited what I think all the material not covered by a citation and added some more sub-headings. I've also trimmed some unnecessary detail. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of the improvements made by Nick-D. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Author addressed most of the issues. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 04:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article might be well written. However, there are visible issues such as unsourced sentences. Additionally, ref 41 is unnecessary, and it should be cited as Behind the Voice Actors instead of bundling it with primary sources; ref 42's website does not show anything and should probably be removed or replaced. The quotes in the citations are mostly irrelevant, especially when the sources are cited in the reception section, like for example. ref 86. Lastly, most of the sources at reception were from game reviews. It wouldn't hurt to expand some necessary sources on the article's talkpage, particularly these [2] [3] per GA's criteria "Broad in its coverage". 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just got a start on making those adjustments. Hoping to get more done soon, namely when I get a retool of the Appearances section figured out. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the wait, but I've finally addressed the lack of sources in the Appearances section. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One CN tag has been added. Since you have been using game reviews mostly at reception, it wouldn't hurt to expand it a little bit. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 08:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Reception's just about the last thing that needs taking care of, so I'll take some time to dig around for some decent sources to spruce it up with. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about this one. The article has been mostly fixed already; thus voting keep. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 04:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Kept. — Anonymous 02:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was rubber-stamped by an inexperienced reviewer. It seems good at a glance, but given that it documents a contentious, ongoing issue, I think a full review would be needed to verify that it is (or ever was) eligible for GA. — Anonymous 01:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was bad at the review, it was my first time Personisinsterest (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Personisinsterest, no worries. I was similarly unfamiliar with the system at GA when I attempted my first review. Generally, there are at least a few issues that can be found in even the best looking articles, so it's helpful to look carefully for them, even if they aren't huge. For a topic as contentious as this, I'd say that goes double. — Anonymous 02:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous username, not my real name - The first requirement for raising a GAR states, "your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria". I don't think that a vague sense of an article being "rubber-stamped by an inexperienced reviewer" meets that requirement. You've not given the nominator, or indeed the reviewer, anything to respond to. On my initial read through, I'm not seeing any of the criteria which aren't being met. KJP1 (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1, my intention was to treat this like a fresh GA review, with the goal of finding someone who would be interested in reviewing it in more detail. If you would like a more specific critique, I see no evidence that a spot check was ever done in the original review. — Anonymous 13:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why, beyond your feeling the initial review was inadequate? That is itself inadequate. You need to set out your rationale for why you believe the criteria are not met. KJP1 (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1, I've read through the article more carefully, and I have the following specific concerns (in approximate order of significance):

• The timeline of events does not go past July 2024. That means it's missing information on close to a third of the war.
• The summary of destruction (which feels out of place at the start of the events section) is dated to January and February of last year. That means more than half of the war has since passed.

• On various points about being up-to-date, the bulk of coverage dates from early 2024. Heritage for Peace's November 2023 report is still their most recent. Librarian's and Archivists with Palestine's February report is their most up-to-date (unless I've missed something). These maps from the BBC indicates that the greatest impact was early in the war. By Jan 2024, more than half of the buildings in the Gaza Strip were damaged and by Jan 2025 this had increased to "almost 60% of buildings across the Gaza Strip". It's not straightforward, but this indicates the majority of the damage was in the first few months and after that there were fewer undamaged cultural heritage sites remaining. ICOMOS looks to have some more recent publications which I'll look over. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Further to the above, the World Bank damage assessment published in March 2024 does not appear to have been superseded (yet). Richard Nevell (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The ICOMOS Palestine documents are individual case studies; useful for some additional detail. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Follow up: The December 2024 UNOSAT assessment is that 69% of buildings in the Gaza Strip destroyed or damaged. Presumably this the the source the BBC piece referred to, and is closer to the recent statement in this BBC piece which says "About two-thirds of Gaza's buildings have been damaged or destroyed by Israel's attacks, the UN says". Richard Nevell (talk)

• The international reactions section has a single sentence dated to this year but nothing else past early 2024. Seems like another case of not fully updated information.
• The background section contains a lot of MOS:FLOWERY content about why cultural heritage is important and why destroying it is bad, but it doesn't really explain if/how Israel has negatively impacted such heritage before this war. The only part specifically mentioning Israeli violence in previous wars is The United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict into the Gaza War (2008–2009) concluded that the "disproportionate destruction and violence against civilians were part of a deliberate policy", but this isn't specifically about cultural sites, making it somewhat random and out of places.

• I've removed the sentence about the UN Fact Finding Mission as it was too general. There are examples of heritage destruction before the outreach of war in 2023 which I'll summarise. I'll address the MOS:FLOWERY issue separately. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I haven't added examples from previous conflicts yet, but the broader point is addressed below. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Cultural heritage embodies the collective and history of the people, who live in the region. This lead sentence is grammatically incoherent plus MOS:PEACOCK.

• Reworded slightly, but addressed below. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Plenty of small prose tweaks I would make, but I think what I've outlined is sufficient to seriously call into question whether the article is close to GA criteria in its existing state.

— Anonymous 17:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. For future reference, I’d suggest a careful read through before initiating a GAR. But you have now provided a rationale which others can engage with. KJP1 (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right then, let's crack on. Though the steps to opening a reassessment seem to have got a little muddled, I'm firmly of the belief that having more editors involved in the article will improve its quality. Anonymous, I'll wait until you've finalised a list of comments before replying and implementing changes. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what is already listed, I have some further commentary (again, in rough order of significance):

• The events section follows an unclear organisation scheme. It opens with an overall (outdated) summary, then provides smaller summaries of specific forms of cultural destruction, then for about the second half is in chronological order. The logical style choice for an events section seems to be strictly chronological. Alternatively, perhaps a summary (an updated one) could be presented at the start, followed by a chronological "timeline" subsection.

• @Anonymous: The 'events' section was meant to be broadly chronological, with some slightly thematic groupings within that, but as specific dates have been difficult to pin down due to the conflict as different approach is worth trying. To that end, I've reorganised the section into themes with an updated summary at the start. Richard Nevell (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Richard Nevell, I think the restructuring looks good. I notice that the last image in this section is creating some whitespace in the desktop version of this page. Perhaps an image could be moved to the left. I also notice that the caption describes Israel's destruction as "demolition", which has more deliberate implications than what is said in the text. — Anonymous 23:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Anonymous: You're absolutely right, demolition is more intentional than the broader 'destroyed'. I think that demolition is in line with the source as Ynet describes it as 'toppled' and notes that the unit involved in the event was also involved in the flotilla raid that the monument commemorated. As such, I've adjusted the wording in the body of the article and left the caption as it is. I've shuffled the image up a bit, is it still creating white space? Richard Nevell (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  None that I can see now. — Anonymous 22:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Al Jazeera is cited several times. As I'm sure most editors are aware, its use as a source for Israel-Palestine conflict articles is controversial. I think it can be agreed that its claims should at least be attributed (which they are not currently).

• Four Al Jazeera publications are used as references. They cover:

• The article "A 'cultural genocide': Which of Gaza's heritage sites have been destroyed?" which is used to as a reference to support the statement that some have characterised the destruction as a cultural genocide, and to note the damage to Anthedon, the Ard-al-Moharbeen necropolis, and the Sayed al-Hashim Mosque. The damage to Anthedon and Ard-al-Moharbeen was also supported by other sources, and I have added an additional reference for the Sayed al-Hashim Mosque. The accusation of cultural genocide is controversial, but it is suggested by other sources as well, and there are additional references. Mentioning just Al Jazeera would be disproportionate without mentioning the others, and I'm not sure a list is necessary.
• The airstrike on the Church of Saint Porphyrius. It is one of three sources (the others are Amnesty International and The Art Newspaper).
• The destruction of the Israa University main building. This event was widely covered, and an additional reference to the NYT has been added.
• Reports of IDF soldiers burning a Quran in a Gaza mosque.

• Where additional sources are available, I don't think it is necessary to mention Al Jazeera in the article text. The one instance where I couldn't find an additional source was the report on the burning of the Quran (a previous incident in May had prompted an IDF investigation) so I have clarified that it was Al Jazeera who reported the incident. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Middle East Eye is cited twice. It isn't listed at WP:RS/P, but it isn't exactly known for its neutrality (being possibly funded by Qatar). Its two uses are both backed by better sources anyway, so I think it could just be removed.

• A source can have a political bias and still present factual information, and since other references confirm the information that does not appear to be an issue here. In which case what is to be gained from removing the references? Richard Nevell (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's fine to keep, then. — Anonymous 22:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no consistent usage of US/UK spelling. I see characterized (twice), neighbourhood, defence, defense, and digitise. I also see the expression "First World War", which, while not a spelling per se, is generally more associated with Commonwealth English. Rather shockingly, our article on the Gaza Strip also does not follow a consistent spelling scheme (I had checked in hope that there might be precedence for a particular one).

• The article now consistently uses UK spelling simply because that's what I default to, but I don't have a strong opinion about which should be used. 'Defense' is used in the context of 'Israel Defense Forces' since that is the organisation's official name. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The international response section could be expanded significantly. I have found the following sources, all of which specifically reference cultural destruction (while some are obviously non-neutral, they still represent the reactions of specific groups): [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13].

• Anonymous: The reaction section is now nearly twice as long. What are your thoughts on the organisation and level of detail? Richard Nevell (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks beautiful now. The layout is clear and logical, in my opinion. One very small addition would be adding an ILL for the Iran Public Libraries Foundation ([14]). — Anonymous 23:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot, I've added that link. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking about cultural heritage broadly, the archaeologist Cornelius Holtorf remarked "If heritage is said to contribute to people's identities, the loss of heritage can contribute to people's identities even more." Blatant WP:SYNTH; no connection to Gaza or the Israel-Palestine conflict.

• Addressed below. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• An investigation by CNN using satellite imagery identified sixteen cemeteries in Gaza that had been damaged as a result of the conflict. The Israel Defence Force used bulldozers to level cemeteries and dig up bodies. In some cases, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had set up fortified positions on top of burial grounds. I highly suspect that this chunk originally consisted of only the first and third sentences, with the second inserted later, as it does not link to the Israel Defense Forces (it also misnames it) or provide the abbreviation IDF, both of which are done in the next sentence (which also gets the name right). While technically supported by the source, the wording of the second sentence is needlessly shocking and without context.

• I have merged sentences two and three as they are the ways in which the cemeteries were damaged – 'desecration' is the term used by the source and perhaps should be used here rather than 'damaged' which I what I used initially in the article. I do not agree that including the information is needlessly shocking, since the context is the sentence that immediately precedes the information. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In 2025 the World Monuments Fund included Gaza' historic fabric in their list of 25 historic places under threat. Insufficient information and context here. It should be mentioned that this is the World Monument Fund's official biennial Watch List and that it is specifically Gaza's "historic urban fabric" under threat. (Also I somehow fully missed the obvious grammatical error until rereading my assessment.)

• Additional context added. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also found a source discussing the connection between cultural destruction and "urbicide" ([15]) and another with very recent summaries of destruction post-ceasefire ([16]). Both seem valuable, particularly the second. Anyway, I would say that is essentially my complete assessment for the time being. — Anonymous 22:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonymous: I've added the Euro-Med Monitor source to the article. Where do we stand with what remains to be done? Richard Nevell (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting recent opinion piece with some useful links. Very happy to pick up a spot-check of sources at a suitable point. KJP1 (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A tricky one to integrate, but I've had a go. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to read through the article, and for pointing to additional sources. Responses are likely to be on one issue at a time.

One thought at this stage is with the organisation of the 'Events' section chronological would be my first preference, but in some cases the date at which destruction happened is not documented. We may have a case of a report being made likely some weeks or months after the event. In some instances where the chronology has been unclear I have grouped similar sites, eg. libraries. This may not be the best way of going about it, so I'll reconsider the structure of that section. Richard Nevell (talk) 12:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonymous: I think this falls within the typical remit of a background section: providing information to help the reader understand the topic. The challenge is in what constitutes sufficient context. I agree that Holtorf's statement was not about Gaza's heritage specifically, so I have moved it from the section 'Cultural heritage in Gaza to the following section, 'Destruction of cultural heritage'. I appreciate that is unlikely to address your core concern but the location of the content is significant.

The background section begins with an explanation of what cultural heritage includes. The source does not mention the 2023-25 war in Gaza as it was published in 2014 and does not mention Gaza, Palestine, or war. That should not be a problem because it provides useful context. The reader may have some understanding of cultural heritage, but we should not assume that and they may bring their own assumptions about what heritage is which could exclude some aspects.

Then follows a summary of some types of heritage in Gaza. The third paragraph links this to identity; this is not synthesis as multiple sources used elsewhere in the article make the link between heritage and identity.[17][18][19][20]

With the subsection on destruction, the why and legal framework are relevant and link to points later in the article. The Hague Convention is mentioned by UNESCO in the context of the conflict as obligations of state parties not to endanger heritage sites. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@An anonymous username, not my real name: The ping in my last post definitely failed, so here's this post. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that seems fair. Were you able to find any information specifically mentioning Gaza's cultural heritage being harmed in previous wars? — Anonymous 23:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 2008 and 2014 wars both led to damage to Gaza's cultural heritage (I'll look for additional/alternative sources). Moshe Dayan's removal of artefacts from Deir al-Balah in the 20th century has been described as looting, though I may focus on the recent past. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a brief note about previous conflicts. There is more that could be added, including the Second Intifada, but I think that's enough for now. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article looks great now. While my original rationale for bringing it here might have been weak, I think it can be agreed that there were certainly some significant issues that have since been remedied. This discussion has remained relatively narrow, so I don't think closing it now would be especially controversial, but I'd first like to check if @KJP1: is still interested in spot checking sources as they previously indicated. — Anonymous 23:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very happy to do so. Will pick it up in the next 48 hours. KJP1 (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has definitely benefitted from a fresh look. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Source 1 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
• Source 2 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
• Source 3 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
• Source 4 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
• Source 5 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
• Source 6 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
• Source 7 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
• Source 8 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
• Source 9 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
• Source 10 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
• Source 11 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content. Not a point that requires any action, but this is more of a footnote than a reference. Personally, I like to separate them, but as this is the only one, I can see why it's not.
• Source 12 - an offline book source so I can't check the content but the ISBN takes me to the right place on Worldcat.
• Source 13 - this is a paywalled WP article. Would it benefit from the "Paid subscription required", {url-access=subscription} icon?
• Source 14 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
• Source 15 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content. I see this also appears under Further reading, but in Arabic. I'm assuming that accounts for the double listing?
• Source 17 - the original is now giving me a 404 error, but the archived copy is fine. Corrected a typo in the title.
• Source 23 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
• Source 30 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content. For some reason the preceding bluelink, Casualties of the Gaza war, won't give me a preview when I hover over it. Can't work out why.
• Source 38 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
• Source 44 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
• Source 57 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
• Source 60 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, video (which plays fine) supports content.
• Source 68 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
• Source 77 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
• Source 88 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
• Source 93 - another offline book source so I can't check the content but the ISBN takes me to the right place on Worldcat.
• Source 99 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content. I had to download the full document to get to the content as the link only takes me to the abstract. I don't know whether the PDF can be directly linked?
• Source 102 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
• Source 119 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
• Source 124 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.

I checked this [21] version, looking at 30 sources, just under 25% of the total. A few minor issues noted above but everything checks out in terms of accuracy. Let me know if there's anything further needed from me. It's a great article, depressing though the subject matter is. KJP1 (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking through.

Source 13 - I think it's worth indicating that a subscription is required, so I've added that in

Source 15 - My initial thinking was that linking to the Arabic version of the report in further reading made it more accessible, but with more items now in that section I'm unsure it's needed.

Source 99 - I've now linked directly to the PDF. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous username, not my real name - I completed the spot check two weeks ago. Are we now done here? KJP1 (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1, it would certainly appear so. — Anonymous 18:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonymous, in that case, if it's not too presumptuous for me to suggest, is now the point at which to follow the 'Manual closing steps' listed at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment? Richard Nevell (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Citation issues seem to be resolved. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article has several uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Unresolved citation needed tags have been present since September 2024. Z1720 (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going to close this as I don't think the issues have been addressed. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to leave this GAR open for a bit longer? I'm currently trying to address the issues brought up as they seem fixable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Is it a requirement that citations <like> <these> be expanded? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding of the GA criteria and past practices, a link to the source allows an editor to verify the information, thus is good enough for GA status. A full citation is not required for GA. Z1720 (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for the clarification. I’ll run a few more spot checks but I believe that all the issues that you’ve raised have been addressed. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I believe that all of the issues have been addressed. Do you still see some issues regarding the article? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. My citation concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: citation issues seem to have been resolved. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:10, 27 March 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, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources, sources used in wrong sections, and lots of unsourced statements. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Beside the MOS:PLOT, I don't see unsourced statements. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 07:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I was told that MOS:PLOT doesn't apply however since it is not the main subject of the article. So, I've added sources to that section (and the unreliable source was already removed). However, the "sources used in wrong sections" part sounds questionable to me since...well, why can't it be used in other sections? ~ Tails Wx 12:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist for now. There are still sources being used in the wrong places. For example, Apple Music should not be used to assign a genre for the song. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Taking a quick skim through the article, I am surprised at how little detail there is about the Background of the song's creation. There's also not much information about the song's composition (other than its lyrics). Are there sources that describe this information? Z1720 (talk) 14:28, 6 March 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) 13:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst it past GA review in 2013, the article has not been updated to reflect organization history since 2014. There's a few uncited statements and number of staff is not verified. Also article says it's based in San Francisco, when this says Chicago. https://www.iabc.com/about/contact. Also although an organization, it would benefit for example with a photo of its activities or leaders to meet GA criterion 6. LibStar (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did some cleanup of spammy, trivial, and/or uncited content. It would be great to have some history covering the 2013-2025, but I didn't find anything we could cite for this at-a-glance. CorporateM (Talk) 00:27, 12 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) 13:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled by your nomination, as I see only one CN tag in the article, and I will fix that cite. If you could be so kind as to note the other "entire paragraphs" or problematic sections where WP:POPE does not apply, I will take a look at those and see what can be done. Montanabw^(talk) 05:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC) Follow up Spotted a couple area where a cite could be added, so I did. Flag anything else you really think must be addressed. I hope we are done here. Montanabw^(talk) 07:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Montanabw: I have added citation needed tags to the places that need citations. Per WP:POPE, that is an essay, which "...contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors" and "has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." (per the box at the top of the page). Meanwhile, the GA criteria 2b states that the content of good articles must be cited no later than at the end of the paragraph. The prose there I added cn tags needs to be cited. Z1720 (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Montanabw that the article is adequately sourced and still meets the spirit of WP:GA?; IMO, a one-sentence "paragraph" does not require a citation. The only fixes I see needed are a couple to citation templates. Miniapolis 16:43, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Miniapolis: WP:GA? 2b states, "All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);" Yes, that one sentence paragraph needs a citation. Z1720 (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. I disagree. Miniapolis 15:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not adequately sourced, I've had to remove the Environmental Literacy Council, which is an obviously AI generated website masquerading as a long defunct organisation [22]

In addition to that other sources are not even close to meeting RS, such as: [23], blog from a commercial site; [24], ditto; [25], a dead link to a forum.

This was all from a very brief spot check.

I'm not going to review the GAR as I am involved but I'd fail an article using sources like these. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I’m going through this article for each tag, and some of the stuff is a little bit ridiculous. Montanabw^(talk) 01:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC):[reply]

1. You tagged “Therefore, it is critically important for horses to have access to a fresh, clean, and adequate supply of water.” as requiring a citation. That is a logical conclusion from the evidence in the proceeding sentences. It does not need to be sourced. Please see WP:POPE.I removed tag.
2. You tagged, “ There are numerous commercially prepared vitamin and mineral supplements on the market, many tailored to horses with specialized needs.” that is an introductory comment, and I don’t know how on God’s green earth we cite what you can find by clicking on any website that sells supplements and you will find hundreds. Again WP:POPE. Removed tag.
3. Made minor rewording and added new source to tag about horses eating grain. Was also kind of an obvious explanation of terminology, but whatever, I choose my battles.
4. The Foxden Equine and [Oakford sources are commercial sites, but both are from nutrition companies with expertise in equine nutrition and written as educational content, neither pages is selling a product and they meets the verifiability criteria of WP:RS. I see nothing in the GA criteria that makes these sources unsuitable.
5. I’m restoring the environmental literacy council citation for now, because I don’t see what is “obviously AI generated” about it – I am open to your evidence, but as far as I can tell the content is accurate.
6. the AUSPET source is acceptable in the archived link. The original source was cited to the University of Illinois. Linkrot sucks, but I think this one’s OK now
7. I added some sources to the unsourced paragraphs, and yes some more of them are from commercial horsefeed manufacturers. These again are reliable sources even if they are for-profit cites, there is often some excellent educational material provided. Again I see nothing in the GA criteria that says a for-profit site does notWP:RS]]. .

I remain open to further discussion on this topic, but I am also concerned that you are being excessively fussy for the GA criteria – the commercial site information is reliable and I am careful not to use sites that say “buy this cause it’s the best.” I do not see evidence that the sites you claim are AI generated or either AI generated or inaccurate. Montanabw^(talk) 01:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Montanabw: In a reply above, I posted that WP:POPE is an essay and cannot be used as an argument for a statement to not be cited. If editors would like to change this, it can be proposed for a promotion to guideline at WP:VILLAGEPUMP. If the information is so obvious that it does not need to be cited, then in my opinion it does not need to be stated in the article. If it needs to be in the article to help with understanding, it needs a citation. Z1720 (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Environmental Literacy Council' website contains an obviously AI generated logo: [26] in addition to the text being clearly LLM generated. The actual Environmental Literacy Council hasn't existed since 2008. [27] Traumnovelle (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle: The "AI source" at issue has been removed and replaced with another high quality source, so that issue is moot. Please review WP:Compare criteria Good v. Featured article which describes the different quality level of sources between a GA article and an FA article.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 2b. says: 'reliable sources are cited inline.' The sources in question (blogs from commercial websites, a forum) are not reliable sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went through all the citations, combined some duplicates, cleaned some up, found archived links where current links were not found, and found some current links for a few. At least now all the citations have a working link, except for The Horse magazine which is a print magazine and their online has always been subscription only.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Every one of those {{citation needed}} tags were placed on sentences or paragraphs that didn't have citations in the 2009 GA Reassessment, which passed. The article has been pretty stable since back then, and now the article is even better because of my and Montanabw's work to clear your recent cn tags. Each of those now have citations, and there are no remaining {{citation needed}} tags. This seems to have been the only reason for you nominating this article to GAR, but the sourcing has now been handled and could have been handled with just {{citation needed}} tags without a full blown formal procedure to reevaluate the rest of an article which hasn't changed in well over 10 years. We're not aiming for a featured article, and a GAR for an article this length would take a lot of editor's hours... on both sides of a GAR. Do you agree that the issues you initially saw are now handled? Will you withdraw your nomination?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My citation concerns have been resolved. @Grorp: GA standards were raised in regards to citations: while a GA article in 2009 did not require citations at the end of every paragraph, the 2025 criteria does. I removed some unnecessary, uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 12:03, 21 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) 13:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some uncited statements, and a Trivia section that needs to be integrated into the rest of the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not see anything wrong here. I guess I contest the assessment with no real points being made. The demotion request is based on a few sentences in a trivia section?Moxy🍁 00:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: The good article criteria 2b states: "All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)" There is lots of uncited text in the article, including a citation needed tag from November 2016. Z1720 (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've Source the one tag....but can you help out and at least tag what you think needs sourcing..you're basically asking us to Source every sentence because this is the most vague thing I've ever heard. Moxy🍁 01:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think this looks fixable - although the archived kronoskaf source looks like some wiki variant and I don't know that we'd consider britishbattles.com a RS anymore. When I saw this go to GAR, I was hopeful that I'd be able to help, but I own very little source material about the French & Indian War and it looks like my local libraries don't have a whole lot either. Hog Farm _Talk 01:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide many sources I just don't know for what as every paragraph has sources? ^[1]Moxy🍁 01:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moxy. I cleaned up the cites, with the exception of one problem. Aside from the order of battle which needs better cites, an editor (I can't figure out who) added cites to MacLeod in the first section. Now there is a book by MacLeod in the further reading section, but I cannot tell if they used the French or English versions for the cite. I do not have that book, so I am hoping you might. Thanks. Llammakey (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy and Llammakey: It looks like most of the citation concerns have been resolved: I have only added one citation needed tag to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

order of battle ---- some differences?^[2][3] Moxy🍁 17:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Info^[4] Moxy🍁 17:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Moxy! I will incorporate this stuff. Llammakey (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All done and replaced all citations using Britishbattles.com. I hope this helps the review. Llammakey (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - herodote.net should be replaced with a better source when one can be found but that involves only a very small part of the article and the rest seems to be in good enough shape. Hog Farm _talk 22:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Seems to be consensus to keep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited paragraphs, some of which have been tagged with "citation needed" since September 2020. Z1720 (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thanks, I was actually taking a look at this earlier before you nominated for GAR. I think it's unlikely that we are going to find the exact references used for many of these statements, for example:

The search and rescue (SAR) operation was code-named Operation Persistence and was launched immediately by Joint Rescue Coordination Centre Halifax (JRCC Halifax), which tasked the Air Command, Maritime Command and Land Force Command of the Canadian Forces (CF), Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) and Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary (CCGA) resources.

I can find quite a few sources for Operation Persistence, but they each reference different agencies, some of which aren't even listed above. I think some re-wording and copy-writing is appropriate for cases like these. FozzieHey (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I've managed to cite Swissair Flight 111 § Safety recommendations and a sentence of Swissair Flight 111 § Search and recovery operation. I've managed to find a few other sources for the "Post-crash response" that I'll add to later. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviationwikiflight: The aircraft details are excessive, tending towards WP:CRUFT, in my opinion. Here is the key paragraph, with my suggested edits.

The aircraft involved was a seven-year-old McDonnell Douglas MD-11, with serial number 48448, and registered as HB-IWF. It was manufactured by McDonnell Douglas in 1991,[3]: 21  and Swissair was its only operator. It bore the title of Vaud, in honor of the Swiss canton of the same name. Until 1992, the aircraft bore the title Schaffhausen, after the canton of Schaffhausen and the town of the same name.

1. Serial number; as I have recently explained on my Talk page, the link to registration takes you specifically to a full article on aircraft registrations. In contrast, the link to serial number takes you to bank notes, firearms, smartphones, and military aircraft serials, none of which apply to this Swissair MD-11. WP:AIRMOS, and specifically WP:REGISTRATION make it clear that the preference is for the registration wherever possible, not both forms of identification.
2. Name; it barely matters that this aircraft was named Vaud; it certainly does not matter that it bore a different name before that. These aircraft fleet names are mere decoration, and not in the same league as "The Spirit of St Louis" or "Enola Gay".
3. Age; I am sure that the remaining words could be straightened out to bring seven-years-old and 1991 together in a concise manner, but that is just fine-tuning.

Hope this helps. WendlingCrusader (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the name of the aircraft, whilst I agree it is not the most relevant addition to the article, the name Vaud is included in the infobox. I've shortened the original phrase from It bore the title of Vaud, in honor of the Swiss canton of the same name to It bore the title of Vaud.^[1] (previously uncited). If not, I've addressed your points. The section now reads as:

The aircraft involved, manufactured in 1991, was a seven-year-old McDonnell Douglas MD-11 and registered as HB-IWF. The aircraft was powered by three Pratt & Whitney PW4462 turbofan engines and the aircraft had logged 36,041 airframe hours before the accident. It bore the title of Vaud. The cabin was configured with 241 passenger seats. First and business class seats were equipped with in-seat in-flight entertainment (IFE) systems from Interactive Flight Technologies. [...]

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most excellent! (And yes, I reluctantly accept that Wikipedia quotes these fleet names in every case, but I'm not sure that was the original intention when the Infobox fields were set up; however it's way too late to argue that point) WendlingCrusader (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FozzieHey, Aviationwikiflight, and WendlingCrusader: It looks like the entire article is now cited – are there any objections to closing this as keep? If anyone is looking to improve this further and needs access to Swiss sources, let me know and I'll get them for you. Toadspike [Talk] 08:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but I have just noticed that three time zones are referenced, two of them very similar in presentation, hence easily confused. As with most/all air crashes, UTC is provided as a datum. After that, we come to the real problem.

1. Firstly we have 20:18 EDT (00:18 UTC), local time at JFK at take-off.
2. The main text refers to ADT, which is a variation of AST, neither of which are particularly well-known. Indeed, the United States National Hurricane Center's official advisories typically report AST and UTC when tracking storms in the Caribbean that threaten the U.S., but acknowledge that this may confuse the mainland public not familiar with the time zone designation.

Meanwhile the article on the Atlantic Time Zone states that various Canadian provinces have differing legal or official positions, but generally observe AST in practice, so there is that to consider.

I came across a similar problem with a recent event, Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243, which took off in one time-zone, was (allegedly) hit my a missile in a second time zone, but then flew on to crash land in a third time zone. That was a bit of a nightmare too! In that case, once the edit-warring had settled down, in addition to the abbreviations AZT, MSK and AQTT, the names of each of the time zones were added in full, together with a separate table that listed everything together under one specific time zone.

The guidance on time zones MOS:TIMEZONE mentions the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor as another classic example, with events encompassing the exact timing of the declaration of war (in Washington D.C.) versus the actual timing of the events in Hawaii. Perhaps you should consider how that article deals with the differences, in terms of the events in Washington being ranked incidental to the main action in Hawaii.

In this respect, I would identify the timing of the take off in New York as 20:18 (New York local time), linking it to EDT but avoiding using that specific acronym because of its similarity to ADT. The addition of UTC provides the necessary continuity.

(further apologies for rambling on at length)

WendlingCrusader (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think if we clarify what each time zone is relative to UTC (UTC-4 and UTC-3) we can expect the readers to do some of the math in their heads, rather than listing everything in two or three time zones. Only the first use and most important points need side-by-side conversions. In this article, that means nearly everything should be ADT alone, and after the first ADT time we don't need to put the letters "ADT" after each time. Toadspike [Talk] 21:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I took an in-depth look at the references in a couple of small sections of this article, and made some small adjustments. I did leave a {{citation needed}} tag on the statement about the in-flight system being the first of its kind installed on the aircraft, since the attached source stated that the accident aircraft was the eighth MD-11 from Swissair alone that had the system installed, and doesn't include any sweeping statements about it being one-of-a-kind. That statement is probably safe to just remove if a citation isn't found for it. While I only looked at a couple sections, the spot check left me with the overall impression that the references are pretty accurately represented in the article, and don't leave me with any criteria 2b worries. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:34, 26 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) 12:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am willing to try and fix concerns --Iztwoz (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say "wow" to all the work you've put in to this, @Iztwoz: You've definitely changed this for the better. I've tweaked a few things from the veterinarian's standpoint. Thanks for your dedication on this page. Getwood (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Getwood --Iztwoz (talk) 08:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Getwood and Iztwoz: thank you for all your work on the article. Do you feel that it now meets the GA criteria? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say so --Iztwoz (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think there may be minor tweaks going forward, but none that are fixing anything broken. Getwood (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Kept. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited information in the article, including several very large paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point to which exact portions need to be sourced? There was some uncited content added to the analysis section back in 2020, which seems to be the only major (uncited) additions to the article since the GA promotion. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Drovethrughosts: I have added citation needed tags. Some of the information in the Background section is in-universe, which might be better placed in the "Plot" section. Z1720 (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Z1720, while I am unsure the explanation of the writer and director is Analysis (it is a description of intentions), but the tags appear resolved. CMD (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the "Background" section needs a major trim to remove unnecessary information, and there are some short paragraphs that could be better formatted, but overall this is fine enough to keep. Z1720 (talk) 00:11, 29 March 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) 16:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including entire sections. Z1720 (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify that, there are exactly two (rather small) sections that have no refs. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihonjoe: The GA criteria states, "All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph." I see lots of places that don't have citations. Would you like me to add citation needed templates to those places? Z1720 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there are statements you think need a citation, then yes, you should mark every one of them. It's impossible to know which ones are potentially problematic otherwise. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihonjoe: Citation needed tags have been added. The "Twin cities" section also needs expansion. Z1720 (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've added a bunch. I'll let someone else work on it for a bit. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I believe all of the "citation needed" items have been sourced now. I removed one sentence that I couldn't source from the end of the "Anime and manga" section:

In contrast to K-Pop, J-Pop is less popular in Germany and is mainly listened to by anime fans.

I've tried every which way of finding a source, and can't find anything outside of discussion forums (which aren't considered reliable sources). Any other items needing sources? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also removed the following from the same paragraph as I can't find a source:

Several hundred anime films and series have been dubbed into German and, since the 2010s, have increasingly been marketed with German subtitles on video-on-demand services.

Anyone who can find a source can add it back. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I've added refs for the additional tags. There are no others at this time. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihonjoe: Citation concerns have been resolved. I am a little concerned about the length, at 10,000 words. If possible, can some of this information be spun out or the block quotes summarised? This would help the article comply with the concise requirement of 1a. I think just a once-over readthrough with a focus of summarising overly detailed information should fulfil this requirement. Z1720 (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with the length and detail in the article. Would you mind taking a stab at it, or making a note here of sections you think are overly verbose? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:21, 6 March 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) 16:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second half of the third paragraph of the lead is not mentioned in the body. There is no explanation as to why this drug was withdrawn in the United States.

There are also several sections of the body which are not cited. Steelkamp (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelkamp Did you mention these issues on the talkpage, as is suggested on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment? IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is only a suggestion after all. Steelkamp (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. The second half of the third paragraph does not need to be mentioned in the body as it is cited in the lead. I do not believe this is against any of the GA criteria, please let me know which GA criteria that violates.
2. I don't believe that the lack of explanation is a violation of any GA criteria. However it could easily be added to the history.
3. I'll take a go at finding citations for the unsourced parts. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   I'd say the lack of explanation fails the broad in its coverage criteria. It leaves the reader with questions that aren't answered by the article. The good article criteria also mentions Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, which means the lack of explanation in the body and only the lead is an issue under the criteria as well. Steelkamp (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry, where in WP:MOSLEAD does it say that all text in the lead must be in the body, I'm having a hard time finding that. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 06:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   @Steelkamp I have fixed all the issues that were against GA criteria. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 06:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Per WP:CREATELEAD, There should not be anything in the lead that does not refer to specific content in the [body of the] article. Hence, I have added a Legal status section that now supports the second half of the third paragraph in the lead. Boghog (talk) 08:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you boghog for adding that, as I belive that all of the nominators issues are addressed now. However for future cases, the GA criteria do not require this, it is just preferred, as WP:MOSLEAD does not require this. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 15:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but I believe this is Steelkamp's interpretation of Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article., in that the opposite is also true. Reconrabbit 14:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]