Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 82

This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← (Page 81)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 83) →

It's All Over Now, Baby Blue

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

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several uncited statements. There are lots of one-sentence paragraphs which were not in the article when this passed GAN. Is all of this information notable Can all of this information be merged together into multi-sentence paragraphs? IMDB is used as a source, which is considered unreliable. Can another source be found to replace these? Z1720 (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we not just roll it back to an older version or trim out the unsourced/poorly sourced stuff? It doesn't strike me as insurmountable personally, especially considering I doubt there's many recent/new developments to be retained in a song like this... Sergecross73 msg me 02:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The GA version from 2010 also used IMDB as a source, so that would need to be resolved. The uncited stuff could be trimmed out, but some of it might be necessary in the article for it to be complete: I'll let subject-matter experts decide that. Z1720 (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The unsourced one-line statements can mostly if not entirely be excised. The IMDB source seems to be limited to soundtracks, which can almost certainly be sourced elsewhere (e.g., the movie credits) and if not those are not essential to the article. Rlendog (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if its at full FA/MOS-level acceptance, but generally speaking, the music WikiProjects don't even require sources for track listing unless they're unreleased or particularly contentious for some reason. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to work on the article. I think rolling it back risks losing some useful info such as the 2015 release. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few small changes and tagged where some more are needed. Please feel free to add other tags. I'll try to maintain NPOV despite seeing Dylan give three amazing live performances of the song at the Royal Albert Hall this month! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BennyOnTheLoose, do you intend to continue work on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29 Yes, I hope it won't need too much effort now. Feel free to ping me after about another week. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's probably back to GA standard now, but please tag any further issues. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts Z1720? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry for the late response: I have been busy in real life. My concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Joseph Franklin Rutherford

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article cites too many primary sources to be a GA. This inevitably leads to some synthesis. By my count, 96 of the cited references are to the group's own publications. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clannad (video game)

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

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited paragraphs throughout the article; most of these do not fall under WP:PLOTCITE. Z1720 (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't see any issue with it, to be frank, the plot summary is clearly citing the work itself even if it doesn't have inline citations. All I see that might be an issue is a sentence or two that isn't cited, and can be removed in less than a minute. Delisting things the moment that some random person adds original research sets a very bad precedent. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: I agree that most of the uncited text falls under PLOTCITE. I marked other places that need citations with a "citation needed" tag. This include two entire paragraphs. Would you be willing to fill in the missing citations? Z1720 (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't the music listings also simply cite the work itself? charcoal feather (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to use one of the existing citations to source the marked claims in Gameplay, though removing some things that weren't mentioned in the source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, I think you misunderstand the purpose of GAR. If someone has added in a minor amount of WP:OR or uncited content, you remove the darn stuff if you can't find anything on the first two pages from a Google search. Again, not sure why removing poorly sourced or uncited content is such a terribly difficult thing to do. Barnt Toust 23:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a sentence of inference and an entire paragraph about some themes that was unsourced. Isn't that dandy? Barnt Toust 00:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BarntToust: The point of GAR is to review the article in comparison to the good article criteria. If others wish to address the concerns, then I encourage them to do so. It is a lot of work and time for one editor to maintain all 40,648 good articles to ensure that uncited information in the article is not OR. This article had entire paragraphs of uncited information: if I am checking for OR, I check much more than Google to ensure information is correct (such as newspaper databases in WP:LIBRARY or sources listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources) for each sentence of information. I am glad subject-matter experts can complete this process more quickly than I can. I encourage those who can quickly complete this task to review all good articles to ensure uncited information is either cited or removed. Z1720 (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720, it is not by any means difficult to look at an article, see where there is no citation or a {{Citation needed}} tag, and remove the offending content. Google test for info using keywords found the content in those uncited paragraphs, and if the bare minimum is done for due diligence, then the unsourced stuff goes bye-bye. Trying to look for sources to support existing unsourced content is the rough equivalent of Writing Wikipedia articles backward, and nobody should be doing that. Barnt Toust 00:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
now, if someone looks at a bunch of content about, say, music in a game and it's all unsourced, it's better to remove the stuff and someone can do proper research about the music. Barnt Toust 00:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BarntToust: In the past, I have been pinged, similar to how I have been pinged above, for removing unsourced information from a good article without looking for sources. I am not willing to be wiki-yelled at for removing information from a good article without effectively looking for sources first. Z1720 (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 Hey, removing unsourced content is what is objectively in the right, and getting wiki-yelled at needs to be met with a harsh reprimand of "if you care so much, wiki-yeller, then you may look for sources yourself. the content is in the revision before I removed it, and if it can be cited, it may be restored". There's nothing better than being objectively right about policy. Barnt Toust 00:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BarntToust: WP:being right isn't enough. Z1720 (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720, so sadly as it is, such as it is. Editors tend to have attachment issues to problematic content. If only Jimbo Wales would decree all uncited content to be removed... Barnt Toust 01:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the unsourced content has been removed now. Barnt Toust 00:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Citation concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Battle of Thermopylae

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

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

Result: Closing as keep to allow Matarisvan to work on the topic in the order they want. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has several uncited statements, including the entire "Thespian monument" section. Z1720 (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, I was planning to work on this one and all the other articles in the Second Persian invasion of Greece topic. I was just about to ping the GAR process to ask for 6-8 months of time for rewriting all these articles like I did with the article on Plataea. My plan was to start with Mycale (easiest), and do Thermopylae (toughest) at the end, but this GAR being opened now could reverse that. Could a pause be put on this GAR, or perhaps could it be closed till I am done with the rewrites? Tagging @AirshipJungleman29 and @UndercoverClassicist for their views. Matarisvan (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: I'm fine with this being paused, and potentially put on hold and removed from the GAR list while edits are ongoing. Z1720 (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

American automobile industry in the 1950s

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

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

Result: Two votes of keep constitute a keep vote 750 h+ 14:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text in the article, including some tagged with "citation needed" since March 2023 and a very large paragraph. History.com is used as a source, which is considered unreliable on Wikipedia (WP:RSPHISTORY), while "Auto Universum" and "supercars.net" might not be considered reliable. Z1720 (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to assist soon. 750 h+ 03:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly which sentences are being called into question? It's hard to address if you aren't specific, particularly in a reassessment of a GA. For instance: "Like many similar cars of the time it was not operational, except for the electrical components such as the motorized trunk and front hood, although some of its innovations appeared later in the Lincoln Premiere.{{r|supercars}}" all that is being cited is the fact that many of the features of the concept car Mercury XM-800 were non-functional, which is very common with a concept car (being a non-production model created for "looks" and promotion only). I wouldn't find it so controversial or contentious of a claim that would require more robust citations. 14.1.92.115 (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC) (aka, dennis)[reply]
If the issue is whether the Premiere later had these features, <ref name="flory2008">{{cite book|last=Flory Jr.|first=J. "Kelly"|title=American Cars, 1946-1959 Every Model Every Year|year=2008|publisher=McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers|isbn=978-0-7864-3229-5}}</ref> is in the Premier article establishing that. 14.1.92.115 (talk) 05:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added "citation needed" tags to the places that need citations. Some of these instances include entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: seeming as the article saw significant vandalism over the 11 years as a GA, i restored the only bad section, "Innovations", back to its 2013 condition, albeit with changes to make it GA worthy. What do you think 750 h+ 16:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@750h+: I added some cn tags. There are some cite errors that should be resolved. " "The 1950s". The History Channel." is not a reliable source and should be replaced or its information removed. Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: fixed. 750 h+ 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's one more cite error at the bottom of the references, but other than that I think all of my concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Dennis Brown logged out, btw (wikibreak, but saw the notice for this on my talk page). I've commented out the "history" ref for now. While it might now pass WP:RS, I'm not sure that makes it completely useless for trivial citations. I would say after the clean up, it is worth keeping the GA. It has seen a lot of less than stellar editing over the years, but I try to be careful to not look like I WP:own it when policing it. Thanks, 750h+, for the clean up. 14.1.92.115 (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

USS Texas (BB-35)

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just like the Texas herself, I believe that it's time to bring this neglected 17 year-old GA to dry dock for repairs. There are several issues (article version):

1b. The service history section is well-organized, but the museum section has several sub-sections with three short paragraphs mixed in with much longer sub-sections. Both could also use years in parentheticals in the subheadings.
2b. Some claims are cited to unreliable sources, such as YouTube videos (e.g., ref 71). There's also a valid {{failed verification}} tag from Nov. 2012 and three valid citation needed tags (oldest Jan. 2023). Additionally, all but one of the nine footnotes (ref group A) lack inline citations.
2c. There are at least 18 portions of text that solely cite primary sources (see all 18 references tagged with {{third-party inline}} as of Sept. 2012)
3a. The article lacks relevant detail in that the 2022 dry docking section hasn't been updated since April 2024.
3b. The article goes into unnecessary detail in that it relies on primary sources.

Note: the above is modified from my request for MILHIST A-Class reappraisal. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military History, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GAR coordinators: Per this discussion with the MILHIST coordinators, can this be placed on hold pending A-Class reappraisal? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I wasn't involved in the Coord discussion, I don't think there's any conflict of interest, so granted. Unless I'm just blind, there's no place to amend this on the template itself, but it should be considered on hold pending the A-Class work. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a notice at the top of the article talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an issue on waiting to close this until the A class reassessment is closed either. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the A-class reassessment page. If A-Class is retained, this GAR can probably be withdrawn. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How active is Operation Majestic Titan, which would seem/have seemed to be interested in polishing this article up? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan where does this polishing-job stand? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to post this at the A-class page? voorts (talk/contributions) 03:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No? That would be the job of the MILHIST coords, if anyone. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, going a little slow but should be done in a month. Matarisvan (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matarisvan do you still intend to work on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, I don't think I will be able to work on this rewrite. I've gotten stuck with the rewrite of the Persian invasion of Greece articles, and cannot find the time. Matarisvan (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Forbes Field

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of uncited prose, including entire paragraphs. The "Gallery: 1910s Panorama" and "Gallery: other illustrations" should probably be removed for WP:NOTGALLERY and their images redistributed in the article or removed. Many short one- or two-sentence paragraphs should probably be merged for readability, particularly in the "Baseball" section. Z1720 (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly removed the images and moved the seating capacity chart out of its own section. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist uncited paragraphs remain. Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mark Kellogg (reporter)

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

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is quite short, with several sources listed in the "Further reading" section. I am not sure that all major aspects of this biography are covered in this article. The lead is also quite short and does not cover all major aspects of the article, and there are uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do, but this is in pretty rough shape. At least the Hatch book is on Internet Archive. Hog Farm _Talk 03:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barnard is also on Internet Archive; I'm making some progress but the sources significantly disagree with each other regarding a number of aspects of Kellogg's life. Hog Farm _Talk 05:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: - How does this article look now? I've incorported the Saum source from the further reading, and have relied very heavily on the Barnard source, which is the single most detailed and thoroughly researched work on Kellogg from what I can tell. I've replaced the unreliable web references, everything is cited, and the lead has been expanded. It is also more comprehensive thanks to the Barnard source, with the ProseSize tool measuring it at 4317 bytes and 721 words when this GAR was opened, and 12kb and 1,953 words now. Hog Farm _Talk 03:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 03:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess to make it clearer, I support keeping GA status for this one as well. Hog Farm _Talk 03:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The updates to the article are very good and I support retaining GA status.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Haile Selassie

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

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses lots of long block quotes: these create copyright concerns and make the text very long. I suggest that these are summarised, reduced, or removed. The article is over 11,000 words and contains too much detail: WP:TOOBIG recommends that articles of this size are spun out to other articles and the prose reduced. I think summarising the block quotes will help with this, as well as removing other material. The article also contains uncited prose. Z1720 (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the quotes in this article provide no substantive contribution to it, and seem to be included only for aesthetic reasons. You could argue that this article also uses too many images for the same reason. Removing some of these would be for the best. As for prose issues, I've been working on cleaning up the worst of it (the Personal life section). genderBiohazard (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GenderBiohazard: I see that you started working on the block quotes. Are you planning to continue working on this? Z1720 (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but any help is appreciated. genderBiohazard (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TOOBIG helps ensure articles stay within WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, but in this case (and for many other biographies) it's not clear what the sub-articles might be. The existing main articles do point to obvious places to be cut (eg. the Collective security and the League of Nations, 1936 subsection is a lot for one speech and has some prose issues, and the background in Wollo famine could be condensed), but in general I would not delist a slightly longer biography with no sub-articles just for size reasons. The various bits of unsourced text is more of an issue. CMD (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the article is rather long but not absurdly so, and the material is very evenly distributed among the biographical sections, and almost all properly cited too. I'm accustomed to hiving off lists and bibliographies and so on into subsidiary articles, but there's really nothing here that would make sense to split out. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it was between 9,000 to 10,000 words, I probably wouldn't be too bothered (and a copyedit would probably reduce that word count). However, at over 11,000 words I think some information should be removed. I think some places that subject-specific editors might want to summarise information more effectively throughout the article. Some specific areas I would target are the lead (to get it down to four paragraphs, and ensure that all the information in the lead is also in the article body), "1960s", "Rastafari messiah", and "Personal life". The "Gallery" at the end of the article should also probably be removed and images redistributed in the article, per WP:NOTGALLERY. Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly mustn't delist an article because an editor finds it uncomfortable. The shared criteria do not specify any exact length, and major subjects can have longer articles, that's just how it is. I've copy-edited the lead, Collective security, 1960s, Rastafari messiah, and Personal life. I've removed the terminal gallery; there seem to be plenty of images already in the text. The text is down to 10,700 words. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 I am inclined to agree to keeping. Thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed the speech section, removing the peacock language in the process, and also removed the league of nations claim which was not supported by the source. I can't find a source for the French Somaliland trip I can access, but I'm pretty sure it's in the NY Times archives. CMD (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added cn tags to places that need citations. Except for the first paragraph in "Name", the citations are for a sentence or phrase which should be quicker fixes. As for length: 1a says that "the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience." If an article is WP:TOOBIG, then I have doubts that it is concise, but since that itself is not enough to be against WIAGA, I added places where I felt the phrasing was not concise, like the lead "1960s", "Rastafari messiah", and "Personal life". I'm not too fond of the connotation that I recommend delisting because I find something uncomfortable, as I try to ensure my comments are based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not my own feelings. If others think the TOOBIG editing guideline needs to be modified, they are happy to propose changes in the appropriate venue. Z1720 (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GAR coordinators: discussion has stalled, a close would be appreciated. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a suitable consensus to delist here. Happy to close as keep unless anyone has any last minute cases to not do so. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England

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

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

Result: There is established consensus to keep this article. All issues have been addressed. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 16:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited text, including many entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might take on this, but it won't be quick. Much of the uncited stuff is pretty WP:SKYISBLUE, like this para:

All the medieval buildings that are now cathedrals of England were Roman Catholic in origin, as they predate the Reformation. All these buildings now serve the Church of England as a result of the change to the official religion of the country, which occurred in 1534 during the reign of Henry VIII.

Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In its current form, as well as the amount of unsourced commentary, the article lacks focus on its title, particularly the rambling historical background. Maybe it could instead be re-structured around common features in English cathedral buildings with contrasting examples of each feature. Clearly a lot of work has gone into the article which needs to be kept somehow but, over time, it seems to have drifted away from its initial aim. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's one way of doing it, perhaps not the best. But it doesn't really have a bearing here. Johnbod (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of what we'd need to do to keep it meeting the criteria. Currently, in my view, it has problems in 2b (inline sources) and 3b (staying focused). --Northernhenge (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "we", are you intending to do anything yourself? Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant “we” collectively – I’m happy to help as part of a group but it’s not a subject I know anything about really. I agree with your previous comment! --Northernhenge (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod and Northernhenge: can you provide an approximate timeframe for your work on this article? No rush. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won’t be directly involved. It’s not my subject and, as Johnbod said, my idea was “not the best. But it doesn't really have a bearing here”. I’m happy to leave it to the experts, but can help with length, phrasing, reference formatting etc where appropriate. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've made a start, but I'm not making promises. This is a very busy time of year for me (until c. 10th January), but I'll see what I can squeeze in. Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I'm finished. Re "Maybe it could instead be re-structured around common features in English cathedral buildings with contrasting examples of each feature" - that seems to me to pretty much how it is structured. A number of generalizing sections followed by concise individual entries. If anything there are too many longish lists of ones with feature A, followed by a list with feature B. Fortunately I have 2 strong book sources, one taking the generalizing approach, and the other with several pages on each example. The basic material was good, & I haven't needed to change much, in fact mostly just adding touches. I'm very confident this meets GA requirements. Johnbod (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice work Johnbod. The "Famous features of the cathedrals" section is a little unorthodox in its organisation, but it's essentially a list, so I don't think MOS:OVERSECTION applies. I think this is good enough to Keep. Thoughts Z1720? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the list should be in this article, but if others think its fine then I'm fine with it as well. I added some citation needed tags in places that I think need a source to verify the information. This would need to be resolved before I would recommend a keep. Z1720 (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may need to be patient. I'm not sure we need the bit on Sherborne Abbey, which hasn't been a cathedral since 1075 & isn't otherwise mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for this GAR to remain open and to wait a long time for concerns to be addressed. If the Sherborne Abbey information isn't needed, I'd support removing it. Z1720 (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no view on Sherborne Abbey, but as a general point I imagine an article called "Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England" could legitimately discuss centres that were cathedrals in medieval days, assuming that wouldn't add an enormous number of them. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with the citation needed tags. I've updated the external links, though WP:LINKFARM did briefly cross my mind. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many thanks. Johnbod (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Northernhenge: There was one sentence that needed a citation, which I indicated in the article with a cn tag. Z1720 (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What, where?? Johnbod (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the bit about "Winchester, St. Albans and Peterborough" having short towers. I took it out. You put it back! --Northernhenge (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was the aircraft carrier (not in fact "hangar") bit he/you didn't like. It is certainly true that they are long, with short towers, and that's a part of the Pevsner etc analysis of the English cathedral style. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So could you source it to Pevsner? I don’t have a copy. --Northernhenge (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve drawn a blank on finding a reliable source for this. Having failed to do that, I tried claude.ai which confirms that: "St Albans Cathedral has one of the shorter towers among English cathedrals - it would fit between Winchester (150 ft) and Peterborough (156 ft) in our earlier ranking of shortest towers. However, despite its relatively modest tower height, its length makes it one of England's longest cathedrals, even longer than Winchester Cathedral (558 ft)", so there may be something published “out there” but otherwise investigating the significance of this would be original research. I propose deleting the sentence again, but I’ll leave it alone myself. It’s not worth an edit war just to see an article stay in GA. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Boron

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

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

Result: While there are some needed citations, the article generally meets GA criteria. I assume a silent consensus has been reached since the last comment was a week ago. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 13:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited text, including an entire section. Z1720 (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When I checked I found two sections, #Boranes and #Organoboron chemistry without sources. However, both have "Main" or "See also" which is a place where there are probably a few sources. I think a post to WT:Chemistry is appropriate, plus perhaps a little tagging to make it clearer what the concerns are. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ldm1954, an article with GA status is required to have all the sources in the article. Otherwise, you could have an entirely unsourced article with lots of "Main" or "see also" links and none of the article's content actually verified. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I posted to WT:Chemistry (the right Project, it seems they were not notified on the talk page), and it looks like @Plantsurfer, Preimage, and Smokefoot: are making edits. I will defer to them to respond to any concerns @Z1720 and @AirshipJungleman29 have. I have only done a few GA (both sides), they are not as bad as applying for tenure, but there are similarities. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954: Thanks for doing that. Feel free to ping me when this is ready for another review, or if there are any questions. Z1720 (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smokefoot, thanks for your excellent work improving this article. Some uncited material remains; do you intend to take care of that? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Noctilucent cloud

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

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

Result: Established consensus for keep. All issues resolved. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 15:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited text throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. Citation needed tags in the article since 2021. Z1720 (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I've removed uncited info. How's it look now? I say keep. E_F⁵ 13:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after a quick skim, all issues seem to have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

United States constitutional criminal procedure

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the content seems like a good contribution to free & shareable media. It seems competently written and is probably a great start for developing a GA-class article. Unfortunately there is a gigantic blocking issue here that means it really can't be a Wikipedia GA article as is: WP:PRIMARY, massive overdependence on primary sources, failing GA2b, referenced to reliable sources. Maybe this is the style for an article in a legal review journal, but it's not Wikipedia GA-class referencing style. Of the 179 references, 3 of them are to secondary sources, and 176 are to case law or the Constitution directly. Now, having case law citations "on the side" is fine and useful (whether integrated into citations like "Secondary source p. X, citing Devouard v Wales", or in a separate references group), but there needs to be sources to, say, the kind of textbooks law students in the US read. Citing case law directly is even worse than articles that are heavily reliant on, say, Herodotus; at least with classical-era writers, what they wrote is all we have to work with at times and clearly relevant even when wrong. But there are tens of thousands of modern case law decisions handed down, many of which are ignored as far as precedent, and others that are outright overturned. And others where the dissent is considered more controlling and cited! Citing these can potentially be very misleading. We need a secondary source to mediate which cases are considered relevant. If we're lucky, maybe the article doesn't have to change that much, but someone really does need to go check it against modern high-quality secondary sources and add in references to the secondary sources.

As a secondary concern... and this one is less pressing.. GA3A, broad in coverage. The references mostly peter out after 2012 or so. My understanding is that there has been some changes since due to the Roberts Court (e.g. weakening the exclusionary rule, which seems not to be discussed at all currently). Further, this article appears to be heavily set in the contemporary of ~2012. Maybe a new spinoff article needs to be created on "Evolution of United States constitutional criminal procedure" or the like, but the history of US law is relevant, too. What was procedure like in 1783-1955? That seems completely unexplored currently. So we need both updates on 2012-2024, and possibly some more acknowledgement of historical criminal procedure (even if this might be spun out into a new article). SnowFire (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Unless someone is willing to address these problems, I think this article is far from meeting the current criteria. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 07:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Melbourne Airport

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has several uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The "History" section does not give much information after 2006, which is surprising considering that many airports were affected by COVID-19 lockdowns. Z1720 (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

1997–98 Manchester United F.C. season

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entire "Transfers" section is uncited. While some players in the chart are cited, most are not. There are also some uncited statements elsewhere in the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tristan da Cunha

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

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

Result: Significant uncited material remains. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a large amount of uncited text, including entire sections such as "Religion" Z1720 (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temper (film)

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains many uncited sentences, included entire paragraphs, failing GA criterion 2b). Some of the sources may also not be reliable. @We are the Great, Rotideypoc41352, and CNMall41: pinging those who previously commented on the talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for inviting me. I initially started the reassessment because a large chunk of sources cited such as IndiaGlitz, 123Telugu, Oneindia.com, and International Business Times, were unreliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES. The Times of India’s reliability is under question, but that’s for another day. RangersRus, after taking my suggestions, removed all the citations that were unreliable. Benison did opine that the article’s GA status could survive if we found more reliable sources, but this has not happened yet. Additionally, many Tollywood movie articles on Wikipedia rated GA have sources that are unreliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES, which I have removed in some of them such as Srimanthudu, 1: Nenokkadine, and Attarintiki Daredi. These articles mostly use International Business Times as citations for Box Office sections, which is deemed unreliable per WP:IBTIMES. I believe most of them were rated GA at the time when the reliability of these sources I mentioned were not challenged. We are the Great (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the {{cn}} situations are handled either by being deleted or replaced with better refs, this article can retain GA status. Does Veera Narayana have time or interest? I have neither. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think anyone would have the time to do this since I have not seen much activity on this article ever since RangersRus removed the unreliable sources. We are the Great (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait and see whether others join in the discussion. Otherwise, if nobody does, then the article could be delisted. We are the Great (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, i was the contributor for this and many other Telugu film GA articles in the past. We are the Great here was right in assuming that i worked on these GAs when the abovementioned sites' reliability was not challenged. And i am thankful that Kailash took the time to respond to this when i was away, and i must admit he echoes my sentiments too. If you think this article, or any other GA/FA/FL i have ever contributed towards, does not meet up the criteria anymore, please delist them. You dont have to reach out to me for this, and i assume this message here would stand valid for all of those. After all, despite all the hours i passionately put into these articles, i own nothing and i am mature enough to understand the gravity of the situation. Thanks for intimating me. Hope you all have a happy holiday season. Cheers! Veera Narayana 06:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States)

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

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

Result: A GAR cannot decide to merge, but it can decide to delist. Hog Farm, a proper merge discussion should be started. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 2012 and 2016, significant amounts of the article's content [were removed Buckshot06 (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)], mainly by Buckshot06. There is a discussion supporting the removal of this content at Talk:1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States)#Lot of content removed after GAN review, but the article's honors section (which is unsourced) is a series of tables that still assumes that the removed content is relevant to the article subject. This relevance of this content needs sorted out and finalized whether or not this belongs. Much of what remains in the article is sourced to Global Security, which is no longer considered to be reliable. In fact, as almost all of the remaining content is more about the division as a whole than this subunit, I'm not even convinced that this warrants a separate article - even with the content removed since promotion included, as that is focused on the HQ unit of the 7th Division. Hog Farm _Talk 20:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 7th Infantry Division (United States). No prejudice to recreation if substantial details of the actions of the 1st Brigade are added and reliably sourced. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Buckshot06. Separate brigades that are part of a division are rarely notable on their own, and this is no exception. Intothat darkness 13:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The case for a merge seems strong, though theoretically I suppose the article could be remade if coverage that treats it separately comes to light, as is the case for several British brigades. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (song)

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several uncited statements throughout the article. Also, I think this song, its lyrics, and the album it is part of has been the subject of academic analysis, but other than the structure there is very little analysis. Z1720 (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist – no surprise here. The article is incredibly dated and as you said is no longer broad in its coverage (literally zero reception). And the way the references are laid out... woof. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Anuel AA

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

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

Result: Massive amounts of uncited material. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited prose, including almost everything in the "Career" section post-2019. Some "citation needed" tags have been in the article since March 2023. Z1720 (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

National Register of Historic Places

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous uncited statements throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. The "History" section doesn't seem to have any information post-1996. Z1720 (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fantastic Four in film

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

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

Result: Although stability is not a criterion for delisting per WP:GAR, sourcing is. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains numerous uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. I am also concerned that this article might be mostly Wikipedia:Fancruft, with real-world information about its development or various studio rights underdeveloped. Z1720 (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support this only for the reason that a new film and possibly film series about the Fantastic Four is coming out and this page will very fast become a magnet for multiple edits. Criteria #5 requires the article to be stable, which it will fail. Gonnym (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: It might be good to reevaluate when that happens but for now I think we should evaluate the article as it is today. Z1720 (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the edit history? 50 edits since September 26, maybe 4 have an edit summary. The article is in no way stable, again a criteria for GA. Gonnym (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Khandoba

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

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

Result: Uncited material has been removed, while the note on GA criterion 3a is relevant for the broadness issue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. The "Khandoba's actual visit and temples:" section is a list without context. What is this, and why is it important? The lead is quite short, and doesn't address all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Z1720 for pointing it out. Over time, various users have added uncited text in the article. Will cleanup Have removed the uncited section "Khandoba's actual visit and temples:", which seemed as a random list of temples. However, most of the article is still cited.

Will rewrite the lead. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Z1720, have cleaned up the uncited text. About the lead, IMHO it covers major aspects. However, welcome to hear suggestions about which sections need to be covered in more detail. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Redtigerxyz: The lead looks a lot better with the expanded text. I added two "citation needed" tags: these need to be resolved. There's also a lot of sources listed in "Further reading": does the article address the main aspects of the subject, or can these sources be used to add information on a major aspect? Z1720 (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redtigerxyz do you intend to continue improving the article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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