Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsBacklog drivesMentorshipDiscussionReassessmentReport
Shortcuts
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment

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

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

Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment instructions

Before opening a reassessment

  1. Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
  2. Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
  3. Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
  4. If there are many similar articles already nominated at GAR, consider delaying the reassessment request. If an editor notices that many similar GARs are open and requests a hold, such requests should generally be granted.

Opening a reassessment

  1. To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
  2. The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment
  3. Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.
Manual opening steps
  1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
  2. Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
  3. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
  4. The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
  5. Transclude the assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste {{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}} at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion.
  6. Notify major contributing editors, including the nominator and the reviewer. Also consider notifying relevant active WikiProjects related to the article. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.

Reassessment process

  1. Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them.
  2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
  3. If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion.
  4. If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.

Closing a reassessment

To close a discussion, use the GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).

  1. GARs typically remain open for at least one week.
  2. Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
  3. If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time.
  4. After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
    • If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.
Manual closing steps
  1. Locate {{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page.
  2. The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
    • If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
      • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
      • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
      • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (example)
    • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this,
      • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
      • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
      • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page, setting currentstatus to DGA (delisted good article). (example)
      • blank the class parameter of the WikiProject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment
      • remove the {{good article}} template from the article page (example)
      • remove the article from the relevant list at good articles (example)
  3. Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)

Disputing a reassessment

  1. A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect. A closure should only be disputed within the first seven days following the close.
  2. Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
  3. If discussing does not resolve concerns, editors should post at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the coordinators.

Articles needing possible reassessment

See also: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sweeps 2023 and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/notices given

The Good articles listed below would benefit from the attention of reviewers as to whether they need to be reassessed. In cases where they do, please open a community reassessment and remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, remove the template from the article talk page.

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

Articles listed for reassessment

Mario Kart: Double Dash

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

On 5 March, Sergecross73 tagged this 2012 GA as needing cleanup, noting on the talk page that the article was "well below GA standards" and contained "unsourced content, trivia, sloppy stuff, etc." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's in terrible shape - a victim of a decade plus of people slow degrading it into a worse status. I originally intended on cleaning it up myself, but I've lost interest and am focusing on other projects now, so that cleanup effort probably won't come from me anymore... Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roll back Why not just roll back the article to the last "GA-quality" version? It was fully-sourced at one point before a lot of cruft was added. The only part relevant to the modern day is a Kotaku listicle. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm open to that if someone wants to present a certain version to revert back to. Not much has happened with this game over the years - it hasn't been re-released, found a cult following, had much in the way of a retrospective commentary, etc. So there's probably not much concern about it being "outdated" if we were to do that. Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was listed as a GA on 2 May 2012, and the adding of unsourced content began less than ten days afterwards. If rollback is needed, it would have to be to the version promoted to GA, which does not satisfy the current criteria (criterion 2b), for example). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gethin Jones

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

This 2008 Good Article relies on self-published sources such as IMDB and has some unsourced bits that have been tagged. Additionally, I think that the subject's post-2012 activities are not as meaningfully covered as the others, which concerns criteria 5b. Spinixster (trout me!) 01:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Golubac Fortress

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

One of the GAs from the 2023 GA Sweeps listing. This 2007 promotion last formally reviewed in 2008 contains some uncited material, but more importantly, as I noted on the article's talk page in March, many of the web sources used are of questionable reliability. Hog Farm Talk 17:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Middlesbrough F.C.

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

GA from 2007, and hasn't been reviewed at all since 2008. Has many citations needed tags as well as other tags as well (I see some better source needed and failed verification tags as well), and some sections need lots of work (e.g. Colors and crest and Player of the Year award winners). JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support delistation of article
48JCL 17:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2008 attacks on Christians in southern Karnataka

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

Lead has no citations. Every here and there you’ll find a citation missing or an issue. Other than that, this would be an OK article, however the lead is too long and there are some issues. This will probably be fixed after this reassessment. Also, there are typos here and there, not only that but the article has been deemed “not neutral” according to the talk page. 48JCL (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@48JcL48: Uninvolved quick note, but per WP:CITELEAD, the lead does not actually need direct citations. It should, however, summarize content that is cited somewhere in the article. Per Template:Citation needed/doc, that template is not supposed to be used on lead sections; {{Citation needed lead}} should be used instead for leads that contain information that's not verified in the body. Aside from that, there's only one thing in the article that's explicitly uncited.
If you could point out (or even fix) the typos, that would also be appreciated. The only major issue I'm seeing here is the neutrality issue. If, indeed, there is "a WP:POV that is sympathetic to and has soft tone to the Hindu "activists" who threatened NLFT with more violence in order to stop conversions/ freedom of religion", as mentioned on the talk page, that could potentially be a major issue. Epicgenius (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well apparently the main issue is the POV. Other than that, I really wish I could delete this stupid reassessment I requested because now I feel as if it is useless. 48JCL (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've shortened the lede to address the lede-too-long tag. That said, I don't think bringing this to GAR was useless, @48JcL48:; judging by the talk page, it's been through a lot of edits since 2012, and ideally needs a volunteer to comb through carefully for neutrality issues that may have crept in after 12 years. Definitely work to be done here. SnowFire (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctioned Suicide

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

This article is poorly written and should not be marked as a "good article".

> Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The page's information is overwhelmingly negative, with almost no positives of the site and numerous criticisms throughout:

- "Although the forum frames itself as a "pro-choice" suicide forum, it has been widely described as "pro-suicide"."

- "has generated widespread scrutiny from news outlets and government officials for the encouragement of suicide by members on the site"

- "banned by the domain name registrar Epik, allegedly for the presence of minors on the site"

- "members' discussions have been characterized as condoning, downplaying, or advocating violence against women"

- "The forum has been widely described as pro-suicide"

- "noted that members have responded to attempts to direct people to hotlines or other supports with antagonism and accusations of being "pro-life""

- "including both detailed discussions of suicide methods and encouragement to commit suicide"

- "the first person in the UK convicted in connection to the site"

- "a male minor who was encouraged on the site to take his own life via the meat preservative sodium nitrite"

- "died by suicide after members of Sanctioned Suicide taunted him and suggested he should film his death"

The site URL was also removed from the article.

> Illustrated: ... media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

The only media (other than the site logo) is a screenshot of the "Suicide Discussion" page, but the search was filtered to only show "method" threads, which is not representative of the site.

> Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

The page was semi-protected because of edit-warring. Cat or other (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cat or other: I opened the first GAR and continue to agree that the article does not meet the criteria. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 01:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cat or other, you have not notified involved WikiProjects, as required at WP:GAR. Please do so at once.
You appear to have three criticisms of the article: that positive viewpoints are not in equal proportion to negative ones, that the article is not illustrated adequately, and that the page was semi-protected:
  • Do reliable sources give equal prominence to the positives and criticisms of the site? From a quick look at the sources available online, it seems that most take a negative approach. Per WP:BALANCE, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." If the article was written to portray the site's positive aspects as having equal prominence as the negative ones, that would be a distortion of RS and a WP:FALSEBALANCE.
  • The GA criteria note that "the presence of media is not a requirement" for GA status; it also does not require that the media be "representative" of the site, but merely "relevant". If you feel that more representative images could be added, please be bold and add them yourself.
  • I must admit, I don't quite get your last objection. You are saying that because the page is semi-protected to achieve stability, it does not meet the GA criterion requiring stability? Some semi-protected articles are even FAs, like J. K. Rowling. I also don't understand why the removal of the site URL following a Request for Comment is relevant.
The arguments above are not persuading me, and thus I land at Keep. {~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. I've read the article on reliable sources, and the sources used are not reliable. Firstly, a number of the sources make unsubstantiated claims which are repeated in the article. Secondly, many of the sources are out of date, with repeated mentions of former owners, and 5-year old sources (the site was founded 6 years ago). There are not many sources about the website, which explains the negative majority. The article details a large investigation into the former owners, which constitutes undue weight.
2. The sole image is neither representative nor relevant. The paragraph beside the image is a site overview, not a focus on methods in the "Suicide Discussion" board. It is not my responsibility to make the article a good article; rather it is the responsibility of those who marked it as such. Cat or other (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have yet to provide any examples of what you are talking about, Cat or other, or to notify involved WikiProjects as I noted above, which is your responsibility. Which sources are unreliable or out of date? Which claims do you feel are unsubstantiated? Why is the investigation undue weight? Why is an image of the forum irrelevant to an article about the forum, and what image would be an appropriate representation of the "Site overview" section? Have you read WP:BALANCE?
I note that you have no experience in writing articles (unless your account is a WP:CLEANSTART), with only this reverted edit in mainspace, so please take your time to familiarise yourself with the appropriate parts of the Manual of Style. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> You have yet to provide any examples of what you are talking about
The original post contains ten examples, four of which (6, 7, 9, 10) are objectively unsubstantiated.
> Which sources are unreliable or out of date?
The sources making the aforementioned claims (New York Times, BBC, ABC News).
> Why is the investigation undue weight?
The former owners (as stated in the article) resigned in 2021. The article is about the site, not the owners.
> Why is an image of the forum irrelevant to an article about the forum, and what image would be an appropriate representation of the "Site overview" section?
I have already explained this: "The paragraph beside the image is a site overview, not a focus on methods in the "Suicide Discussion" board."
> I note that you have no experience in writing articles (unless your account is a WP:CLEANSTART), with only this reverted edit in mainspace, so please take your time to familiarise yourself with the appropriate parts of the Manual of Style.
Your attitude is condescending, and this point is unreasonable. Cat or other (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will not be taking the time to reply further until you notify WikiProjects, which WP:GAR instructs that you do when opening a nomination and which you have been requested to do twice now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the objects presented as credible. Keep --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article contains misinformation. Sanctioned Suicide does not promote suicide. Its members make strenuous efforts to help people solve their problems, and the site has certainly saved many lives, as is clear from the posts of members themselves. It does, however, recognise that some problems do not have solutions, and so it is pro-choice in the sense that it considers that when an adult person has made a rational, non-impulsive decision to die by suicide, that decision should be respected. All other sites that I know that offer advice to suicidal people discourage suicide in all circumstances, and that is not always the most productive way to interact with someone who is potentially suicidal. It certainly doesn't prevent all suicides. Sanctioned Suicide offers a different approach, and fills a gap. I am not suicidal, but I have been active on Sanctioned Suicide for nearly 4 years, trying to support people who are, and I have seen for myself how much good the site does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:8efd:bee:a01d:8890:420e:616b (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mezhyhirya Monastery

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

The Good Article status no longer seems justified, if it ever was. The article systemically suffers from WP:OR, WP:UNSOURCED claims and claims made by non-WP:RS, failing WP:GACR no. #2. This has been the situation since January 2008, when it was promoted. The DYK with which this article made the Main Page on 1 January 2008 (10 days before achieving GA status), Talk:Mezhyhirya Monastery#Did you know, turns out to be a disproven speculation, a busted myth. This was already known to the DYK nominator, who cited the 17 September 2007 sovremennik.ws post by TatianaZ admitting that excavations in the 1990s never found any library or manuscripts. It's also unclear who believed this (MOS:WEASEL), and why it matters if it has been disproven, or why we should take seriously the hope that one day it might still be proven (TatianaZ saying 'What if [the library of Yaroslav the Wise] is really hidden in one of the dungeons, and is just waiting for the moment when it is finally removed from almost 800 years of imprisonment?' is clearly WP:CRYSTAL). Its entire claim to fame appears to be based on a refuted assumption.

The remainder of sources cited is often still questionable, ranging from newspapers or news sites which do not have the proper scholarly expertise to be making claims about what happened centuries ago, to blog posts, to museums speculating about Andrey's role, to the OKO architectural website (one of the more reliable and neutral sources, but also hardly scholarly). A 19th-century bishop can claim galore, but is not a reliable source. People want to believe lots of things about this former building, and seem to prioritise confirmation bias over reliable sources. But this is Wikipedia.

I've already removed a lot of rubbish, especially stuff related to the Mezhyhirya Residence and the WP:COATRACK on Andrey Bogolyubsky / Virgin of Vladimir, which would probably have made it fail WP:GACR no. #3, and possibly no. #4 due to the heavy focus on the political controversy of Yanukovych owning the Residence. But there is still a lot to do. In terms of being well-written and neutral (no. #1 and no. #4), the article should stop basking in "mysteries" and being allegedly "destroyed" many times, yet rebuilt every time, as if that must mean it is somehow a supernatural miracle that should be attributed to the building's religious status. I'm sure that such speculation appeals to a rather narrow audience of devout Eastern Orthodox Christians, but not "to an appropriately broad audience", and may well be WP:POV.

I think the article does not immediately WP:GAFAIL, but it needs serious work to keep its status. I've already done what I can, but I believe other editors should take a look as well. Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This is the first time I've initiated a GAR, I hope I've done it appropriately. The tone of my rationale may be somewhat negative, due to frustrations encountered while trying to improve the article, but I think all editors involved have made an honest effort to write an interesting article. It passed the GA criteria all those years ago, but the criteria seem to have gotten stricter as Wikipedia has professionalised its standards and practices over the years. There is still a possibility that with some serious improvements it can keep its GA status. I just don't feel comfortable overhauling the article all on my own; I think it needs a broader review from the community. NLeeuw (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale being negative hits the spot on the mark.. I think it is accurate to state that the GA criteria is updated every now and then and has become stricter. If anyone is up to the task of updating original sources and content, that would be most welcome!
However, it is important to note that the history behind the monastery and the exact facts referenced in the article with the original sources provided will not become more available as time goes on. If anything, it will become more difficult to find such sources, since history in Ukraine is constantly being erased due to war, destruction, and constant conquest. Don't ask me - just look at the history (and present-day) itself!
I admit, this article was written a long time ago - and there may have been archaeological expeditions and new books that have come out to date that will become most useful in expanding this article with regards to the monastery itself. I'd like to say that there is more information out there that we can reflect in this article, but I could be mistaken.
BTW, props to removing the paragraphs about the Mezhyhirya Residence - to my knowledge, that Wiki article was not around at the time of this article's writing. § DDima 02:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DDima Thank you for responding. I think my criticism may have been a bit too harsh, sorry about that. You're right that most text about the Mezhyhirya Residence was added only after you published the article, although you did mention at the end that there was a controversy about it. What seems to have happened is that, as the scandal unfolded over the course of 2008 and onwards, other Wikipedians added more and more off-topic information to it. Finally in December 2013 a separate article about the Residence was written, and text about the Residence in this article hadn't yet been transferred to that separate article yet. I can't blame you for that.
I should also clarify that indeed, in this time of war and destruction inside Ukraine, there are risks of sources and artefacts being lost or looted, as has unfortunately happened to several museums and heritage sites in occupied or frontline areas. It's important to cherish and protect what there still is, and documenting this on Wikipedia is one way to do it. I've been doing that myself, mostly in the area of (hand)written documents rather than architecture. It is, in fact, because I was planning to translate Mezhyhirya Chronicle from ukwiki to enwiki (which I have now completed), that I ran into this article about the Mezhyhirya Monastery, and saw a lot of problems with it.
If I could be of help in improving it, I would gladly do so. (I think the Cossack period should be its focus, and not speculations about its legendary founding during Kievan Rus'). Unfortunately, I can find only 2 English-language books on Google Books about it, both of which say very little. Google Scholar also has very few results in English. I'm slowly learning Ukrainian, but I can't really read a PDF article yet (because translation machines like DeepL or Google Translate can't help me read it), like I Antchyshkin, Запорізька Січ та грамота патріарха Йоакима (2015). Науковий щорічник «Історія релігій в Україні». So I'm afraid I won't be much help content-wise. This is one of the reasons why I said I just don't feel comfortable overhauling the article all on my own; I think it needs a broader review from the community. I'm pretty sure there are enough reliable sources in Ukrainian to improve this article, so that it is worthy of keeping its GA status. But for that, we will need Wikipedians who can read advanced Ukrainian, and I cannot do that myself. But I could aid in improving the style, grammar, structure etc. So perhaps we could work together, or ask others to assist? Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw and DDima: do either of you intend to continue improving this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not for the foreseeable future. As I said above, I think I have done enough already, and that it is up to others to give their reassessment of the article, and make some improvements where needed. NLeeuw (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I think the obscurity of the topic means that the chances of others improving the article is very low, so if DDima does not intend to improve the article, it will likely be delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Schnauzer

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending
Article relies on a self-published source for several claims Traumnovelle (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The American Kennel Club is recognized as the most influential purebred dog registry, and both acknowledges the work by Catherine Brown and publishes the breed standard, which should make them the foremost experts on Giant Schnauzers. I don't see why these sources should be singled out as self-published when they are likely the best sources available and only self-published by means of being self-hosted, but definitely not user-generated or published through a vanity press or some such. Also, you should notify WikiProject Dogs of this reassessment by using the following template: {{subst:GARMessage/''Giant Schnauzer''/''1''}} Reconrabbit 17:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged the wrong part. Obviously the American Kennel Club are fine to use for the breed standard and registration figures per WP:ABOUTSELF, when it comes to stuff like history they shouldn't be used in a good article. Fanciers do not always accurately represent the history of a breed.
>I don't see why these sources should be singled out as self-published when they are likely the best sources available and only self-published by means of being self-hosted, but definitely not user-generated or published through a vanity press or some such
They're not WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject which is an obvious issue in regards to many claims.
>Also, you should notify WikiProject Dogs
There's notification via the article alert which automatically lists articles undergoing a GAR. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I will admit that my area of knowledge is more in rabbit breeds, so my question here is - who else is going to document the history of a breed than a fancier group? I will do a search for independent sources on this topic but I fear they will not be as comprehensive or will be drawing from the same documents.
On the notification - I forgot about article alerts. Some reviewers like AirshipJungleman will still post notifications on the talk page. Reconrabbit 13:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cynologists, there are independent people writing about the history of dog breeds - they may rely on fanciers for information but they are hopefully critical of it, compare information with historical evidence, and go through a publishing and review process. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Traumnovelle, the GAR instructions require notifications to be sent to involved WikiProjects and major contributors. As noted in the instructions, {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ is an easy notification method. Article alerts are not considered sufficient. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Traumnovelle notified WP:Dogs, I added a notification to WP:Germany. On content, the Temperament section could use a bit of copyediting, it reads very disjointedly. Is it suspicious of strangers or accepting of novel people! CMD (talk) 07:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout 3

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

There's like a lot of issues in the gameplay section. It was written a little bit awfully (for now) and has sourcing issues, and some of it is possibly unsourced. It also needs to be trimmed down. Meanwhile, there are also citation errors, no authors at the citation, and unreliable sources like ref 22. The retail version sub-section is written like a list instead of prose. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 12:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on the good article reassessment for Fallout: New Vegas right now, and after that's done I intend on getting to this article. Outside of the gameplay section, it seems to be in much better shape than the Fallout: New Vegas was, so it shouldn't be too bad. But in case I don't get to this article in time, I agree with Greenish Pickle!, this article does not meet the GA requirements as is. Famous Hobo (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad in Islam

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

To meet the GA criteria an article needs to 1. Well-written 2. Verifiable with no original research 3. Broad in its coverage 4. Neutral 5. Stable 6. Illustrated. 6: There are a few images, many have no relevance to the topic however. It lacks actual depictions of Muhammad in Islam, except for one. 5: The article seems to be stable, but seems to be in need of a general overhaul. 4: because of the points following now. Similar to the article Ali, the article reads more like a history lesson about Muhammad synthetized from Muslim sources, not to be about Muhammad in Islam. Neutrality cannot be established this way. 3. There is one section to refer to one scripture (Quran), one about the alledged history, then his proclaimed roles, and a section about miracles without any exploration on how they are received, it is simply calimed he did it. This is not much, it only appears so because almost every paragraph is given its own section. 2. Not only is the choice of section without any guidance from a secondary source, many inline citations are referring to primary sources, such as the Ahmadiyya community and not historical sources. Next, there are not even sufficient inline citations at all. Large portions of text stay completely unsourced. 1: Most of the article is actually Original Research. Therefore, I suggest to reassess the GA status and move it to at least C status, since the article has several serious issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VenusFeuerFalle (talk • contribs) April 16, 2024 (UTC)

I do see a few sentences missing citations, which is certainly an issue. Could you give some examples of sources you believe are not acceptable for a GA-level article? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
VenusFeuerFalle have you seen the above question? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope I didn't. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can compare to what a reliable source is here WP:RELY. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and compare them to stuff like "Muhammad Shafi Usmani (1986). Tafsir Maariful Quran. Vol. 8. English Translation by Ahmed Khalil Aziz. "Al-Suyuti, Al-Khasais-ul-Kubra", and various QUran citations. Furthermore, the sources used rather point at WP:SYN. Please do not forget about all the other points and serious issues the article has. Also note, that the improvement sin the Miraj section are recent additions and would need a new review. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Improvements in the article while the GAR is in progress are not only allowed but actively encouraged. The ideal outcome at GAR is that articles are improved to the point delisting is no longer necessary. I do ask that you keep in mind what may be incredibly obvious to you may not be so to me, I have only some basic knowledge of Islam (maybe more than the average American, but nowhere near the point I'd call myself well versed - I can at least tell you why the Sunni-Shia split is a thing). If I understand you correctly, you are saying the article is heavily reliant on the Quran itself for sourcing, which would be an issue due to WP:PRIMARY (especially inappropriate interpretation/synthesis of what's written in the Quran since it's a primary source) and our general expectation that articles rely mostly on secondary sources? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I came off as preassueming, I just thought my list was sufficient, especialyl due to the layout. I feel like the entire structure of the article reads like, Users cherry picked whatever sources they see fit. Furthermore, there is no historical critical analysis of Muslim sources (except for the Miraj section I improved a few days ago) and there is significant lack of hagiographic depictions of Muhammad.
I do try to work on the article while the reassessment is happening though. But yes, I think the lack of incline citations and reliance on primary sources should suffice to put it on a B rating, the lack of verification of structure would put it on a C- Ranking (in my opinion). If I could proof the lack of coverage, I would have made the additions already, but there is also a substantial lack of Muslim depiction of Muhammad as not a historical person but a holy person as well. I will try to update the article as much as possible. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the lead has been written on its own, without reference to the article it is meant to cover. There is not much relation other than that both have a biography, however the body biography seems to be at least to some extent contextualised in the context of the topic (Muhammad in Islam) whereas the lead is just a plain biography. I suspect the lead should be completely rewritten. The Gallery similarly seems entirely disconnected from the topic at hand. The In the Quran section needs secondary sources, as touched on above. The Biography section is better in this respect, although it does cite a Tafsir to explain what the Tafsir itself says.
I do agree that the article needs restructuring. While some parts of the biography do direclty explain context, in other areas it strays into a plain biography that is slightly off-topic. The biographical organisation may not be the best way to handle this either, as it is overbroad and overlaps with later sections. "Legacy" seems similarly overbroad, with sections like that it is not clear why for example the Muhammad's Night Journey and Ascension section is on its own. I don't have access to the sources, but for example it seems that items such as his example as a role model (Morality and Sunnah) could form a section apart from items such as his various religious religious roles (Final prophet, Muhammad as intercessor, Muhammad and the Quran). CMD (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input, since I am currently working on improing the article, I want to consider your suggestions. The main issue I have with the biography is that they are structured around a biography written by someone else, and thus original research. I tried to trim down the biography as much as possible and substitute with secondary sources elaborating on Muhammad's biography whenever possible. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion

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

An ongoing discussion at WT:GAN (link here) questions whether this article is overreliant on primary/non-independent sources, leading to issues with WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:BALASP, all part of the GA criteria.

Pinging discussion participants @JoelleJay, Hawkeye7, Asilvering, Trainsandotherthings, Thebiguglyalien, Chipmunkdavis, TompaDompa, and David Fuchs: the GA nominator/reviewer will be notified on their talk pages. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't done more than a quick skim, but I have WP:OR concerns about some sections, particularly the parts talking about the meaning of the names of various angels. References should be checked to make sure they actually support conclusions about Evangelion and aren't WP:SYNTHy. Brief bits giving background would be fine (eg, "In the Catholic tradition, Gabriel is the angel who..."), but whole paragraphs appear to lean on sources that aren't about eva at all, which is an issue. -- asilvering (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support delisting due to the excessive citation to non-independent and primary sources for the bulk of the background on individual angels. The amount of detail on each angel is simply not BALASP if it hasn't been discussed by secondary sources independent of NGE. The fact that a significant majority of the sources, especially the ones in the angels' sections, are offline and in Japanese is also a problem when there is no indication the reviewer actually spot-checked any of them. JoelleJay (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot understand the points of the previous users. @JoelleJay: Since the series is Japanese it's pretty obvious that some sources are in its "mothertongue". The sources are not unreliable or impossible to check: an user who knows Japanese can read them and find the original material. If a user does not know the language it's not a limit of the source. Non-English sources are allowed. Also, almost all the material mentioned in this article can be easily find in many scans and downloads online: e.g., the whole Evangelion Chronicle. I can link all of them, if you want. @Asilvering: What sources you are talking about? I know that there are many notes and it's impossible to list them all, but can you list some of them? Regarding the names of the Angels: yes, the sources are about Evangelion and its Angels. Like Evangelion Chronicle, the Red Cross Book, or the Evangelion Encyclopedia, for example. These are not sources that are discussing the religious angels alone. There's no OR in this: everything is sourced and the sources themselves discuss in detail about the symbolisms and connection behind the names.
I can give you evidence of this. There's no synthesis. The sources are clear and explicit, as per WP:SYNTH. These are just two examples I also mentioned on it.wiki: "なお、シャムシエルはユダヤ、キリスト教の神話や伝承における天使の名で、「神の力強き息子」と称される第4天の支配者。 エデンの園を守護する天使の王子でもあり、モーゼを連れて天国を案内したとされる。 「光輝の書」によれば365の軍団を率いるとされており、また、「エノク書」においては「昼」を司る天使とされ、堕天使のひとりにも数えられている ". "Incidentally, Shamsiel is the name of an angel from Judeo-Christian mythology, he's the head of the Fourth Sky and it's known as 'the powerful son of God'. He's also the prince of the angels who guard the Eden Garden, and a legend says that he guided Moses in the Sky. According to the Zohar, he guides 365 legions, and in the Book of Enoch he's the angel in charge of controlling the 'day' and it's listed among the fallen angels" (Evangelion Chronicle, vol. 10). Obviously I didn't mention all of this religious role: it would be too-long, too-detailed, and I briefly mentioned just the important part alone, like with other Angels. "かの天使の時間帯といえる日中に侵攻し、初号機を圧倒したものの、日没間近の夕暮れ刻に斌減されたのは皮肉といえるだろう". "Interestingly, Shamshel invasion happens during the day, which is the period of time of the angel [Note: of the original angel, obviously], fighting against Eva-01, but ends during sunset, at the dusk." (EC, vol. 7). Oguro on Style.fm - he personally knows Gainax members and was in charge of editing the Red Cross Book - says, after explicitly mentioning angel symbolism : "例えば、海中から登場したサキエルは「水」の天使と同じ名であるし、昼間に現れたシャムシェルは「昼」の天使と同じ名だ". "Sachiel, for example, appears from the sea and he has the name of the angel of water, while Samsiel, who appears during the day, has the name of the angel of the day". So, the first issue (WP:OR) can easily be dismissed.
Regarding WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE, as IIRC other users agreed during the JoelleJay doubts mouths ago, we are talking about a character article, so it's pretty obvious and allowed to describe the characters also using sources like Evangelion Chronicle. Many other sources like Napier talk about the Angels, their battles and so on in detail, but we should mention the most reliable source: and Evangelion Chronicle or the official Death and Rebirth pamphlet it's more reliable than an academic. But many, and I mean many parts of the article are about their creation, the storyboards, the original scenario, academic analysis, reception, and so on. So I can not understand the point of this reassesment page. It's obviously wrong.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TeenAngels1234, my read of JoelleJay's comment is not that it's a problem per se that there are offline, Japanese-language sources, but that there is no evidence in the initial GA review that the reviewer checked any of those sources. It would be really helpful (both to allay concerns, and for the sake of readers) if you could link those sources that can be found online. -- asilvering (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sure, I can give you everything! Just wait a few hours; the material is huge and I have to list all the links. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that these sources discuss the symbolism. However, at the very least anything produced by Gainax (like the Red Cross Book), Kadokawa, or their affiliates is neither secondary nor independent and so should not be a source for such wide swathes of the article. We need commentary by people completely uninvolved in NGE in any way to demonstrate that particular minor details are important enough for inclusion.
Looking at citations for the first few angels:
Adam: Source 43, 55, 59: Kadokawa Red XN. 44, 51: Cannarsi Red XN. 45: Porori ?. 46-48, 52: EC Red XN? 49: NGE Red XN. 50, 58: Horn Red XN. 53: Poggio Red XN. 36, 3: Gainax Red XN. 54, 56: Fujie & Foster ?. 57: Marc MacWilliams' blog ?.
Lilith: 60, 64: Poggio Red XN. 61-63, 73, 75: Kadokawa Red XN. 65: Porori ?. 66, 68: Ogoru? Red XN? 49: NGE Red XN. 67: EC Red XN? 36: Gainax Red XN. 69: Yoshiyuki Sadamoto interview Red XN. 70: Sanenari ?. 71: Dynit Red XN. 72: Khara Red XN. 74: Cinefacts Green tickY.
Sachiel: 76, 77, 80, 82, 38, 84, 89, 95, 99, 102: EC Red XN? 78, 79, 83, 86, 87, 91, 92, 32: Kadokawa Red XN. 81: Porori ?. 85, 90, 93: Cannarsi Red XN. 88: Platinum Booklet Red XN. 94: Davidson (1967) Red XN. 96, 97: Fujie ?. 98: Poggio Red XN. 100: ? 101: Oguro? Red XN. 103: Khara Red XN.
Shamshel: 104, 106: Porori ?. 105, 109, 111, 114, 119, 124, 126: Kadokawa Red XN. 107, 110, 115, 116, 120, 121: EC Red XN? 108, 117: Poggio Red XN. 3: Gainax Red XN. 112, 118: Cannarsi Red XN. 113: PB Red XN. 122: Davidson (1967) Red XN. 123: Oguro? Red XN. 125: Khara Red XN. 127, 128: Dynit Red XN.
That is just way too much material cited to people/commercial products with a vested financial interest in promoting NGE. JoelleJay (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know that they're used in basically plot and production sections as for AM guidelines, right? TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will also point out that the notability guidelines do not affect article content (WP:NNC). We need to present content in a neutral way, and we need to ensure that we are not giving undue weight to a particular viewpoint or doing original research, but that does not preclude using non-neutral sources or making reference to minor details. In other words, whether or not particular minor details are important enough for inclusion is an editorial decision, not one we have firm policy about including or excluding. For a GA, we need to show that the article is sufficiently broad and that it does not go into excessive detail, but this is a quality of the writing and not related to whether sources are independent or not. We also need to ensure that the sources are reliable and the content is verifiable. If we have evidence that any of these sources are not reliable, we should not be using them, but not being fully independent doesn't mean they aren't reliable. -- asilvering (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is WP:PROPORTION: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Primary and/or non-independent sources can be used for WP:Verification, but they do not establish WP:Weight of viewpoints or aspects—just as they do not establish WP:Notability of topics. TompaDompa (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROPORTION says, as you quoted, "reliable, published material". It does not demand that this material is fully independent. We certainly don't want to base an entire article on primary sources, because that would be WP:OR. And of course we don't want to use biased sources without correcting for WP:NPOV. If there are WP:OR or WP:NPOV concerns, we should clear those up. Likewise, if it goes into excessive detail or fan pov that is not relevant for a general encyclopedia, we should trim those sections (and move any well-researched content to a fan wiki).
But it is not a problem as such that these sources aren't fully, unimpeachably independent, unless it is causing one of those problems. JoelleJay is absolutely right to raise the concern: there are many non-independent sources, therefore it is much more likely that there are OR/NPOV/UNDUE concerns than if the article was entirely based on secondary, academic/critic sources. But the fact that many sources are not fully independent is not in itself the problem. Saying that we must follow the weight of independent, secondary sources would result in worse and less informative articles in many cases. If you think, for example, of an article on a novel: if we followed only independent sources, it is highly unlikely that we would be able to write a full, even plot summary without error. It is very unusual for academic and critical sources to write out the entire plot. In particular, they often don't give the ending! A plot summary is one of the most useful things we can have in an article on a novel, and it would be silly to not have one, or to have one that is biased towards coverage trends in secondary sources. At the same time, I'm sure anyone who has spent any time looking at novel articles on wikipedia has seen one with a plot that is way, way too long, and gets far too into the details, or one that offers the editor's own opinion on the plot. That is the problem. -- asilvering (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that for plot summaries it's fine to use primary and/or non-independent sources. However when it comes to any analysis of the plot, such as symbolism, we ought to be weighing the relative importance of particular information based on its coverage in secondary independent sources. This is reflected in NOT: To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. JoelleJay (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't know that it is actually true that It is very unusual for academic and critical sources to write out the entire plot. I have written several articles on works of fiction where I have been able to source the entire plot synopsis to independent secondary sources. But even if we grant that, it is still not a particularly good example as plot summaries are basically a carve-out from the general rule that independent secondary sources are preferred. At any rate, we do indeed need to follow the weight of independent secondary (and perhaps tertiary) sources when writing articles; if primary and/or non-independent sources give much more weight to aspect A than aspect B whereas independent secondary sources give much more weight to aspect B than aspect A, we go by the latter in assessing WP:Due weight. These need not necessarily be the sources that are cited—hypothetically, one could cite non-ideal but reliable sources in the article in a way that perfectly reflects the overall literature—but when challenged, one must nevertheless be able to demonstrate that the article's contents accurately and representatively reflect the overall literature on the topic. Which I suppose is kind of the same thing as saying that it's not a problem unless it causes a problem, but in this case the adherence to WP:PROPORTION (among others) has been challenged and it really is up to the ones advocating for keeping this listed as a WP:Good article to show that it reflects the appropriate literature where the article does not cite it. TompaDompa (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that I don't think it has been properly challenged here. The possibility of a problem has been raised, but not the problem itself. The editor who brought the article to GA believes this is the appropriate weight and using the appropriate literature, and has said as much. There's nowhere for this discussion to go from here unless someone in favour of de-listing it can give that editor something to refine or dispute. -- asilvering (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that I support delisting due to the excessive citation to non-independent and primary sources for the bulk of the background on individual angels. The amount of detail on each angel is simply not BALASP if it hasn't been discussed by secondary sources independent of NGE. and We need commentary by people completely uninvolved in NGE in any way to demonstrate that particular minor details are important enough for inclusion. constitutes a proper challenge to WP:BALASP, but I suppose we could agree to disagree there. The same point was raised months ago on the talk page: Material that has only been discussed by people close to the topic does not reflect the material's real-world importance to the topic as reported in independent publications. It presents an issue with NPOV as it leads to us emphasizing certain aspects of the topic solely because media exists by the creators of those aspects (who are of course going to promote them and provide lots of details) rather than because those aspects have been highlighted as significant by independent publications. The solution, if one believes that this does in fact reflect the weight in the appropriate literature accurately, is straightforward: point to that literature and demonstrate how this is true. If it is indeed the case that this reflects the weight in the appropriate literature accurately, a lot of time and effort could have been saved by simply citing that literature in the first place. As we do not solely use sources for WP:Verification but also for establishing WP:Weight, I would suggest that our best practices include citing sources that demonstrate weight even if they are not necessary for verification (typically because verification is covered by other sources). That's what I do in cases like this—or rather, I do it the other way around: I supplement the sources that establish weight with the ones that provide additional verification. TompaDompa (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem here is that the point seems to be missed. Secondary indipendent-sources are there. And dipendent sources are used in plot sections, like the description of the Angels and their role, and in production: explaining the meaning behing the name of the Angels and their inspiration is production, and it requires interviews from the staff and so on. I don't need Dani Cavallaro to say that Sachiel is named after the angel of the water but the original source - assuming the reliable original source is here, and fortunately that's the case. In Analyisis section, on the other hand, you can easily find how almost all the sources are indipendent: Azuma is indipendent, and so are Ortega, Napier, Cavallaro and so on. The literature is here. I can easily add a source for almost every statement about Angels role and their inspiration, but doing so is not required for GA articles, AM guidelies and common sense. We are still talking about plot and production, guys. It's the accuse that needs to explain where's the problem and show besides any reasonable doubt that this article is not worthy of the GA status - and in this case, we have to start reassessments for almost fictional character, from anime to videogames, from Tolkien to NGE itself. But that's not the case and is clearly a delusion. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessary to cite interviews directly; it is, in principle, perfectly possible to cite some other source that says "in an interview, person X said Y". More generally, information from primary and/or non-independent sources (even if those might be the most authoritative ones on the facts) can be filtered through non-primary independent sources that exercise editorial judgment about the relative WP:Weight of different WP:Aspects—and in fact, this very article is an example thereof, being non-primary and independent (assuming of course that there is no conflict of interest) even if it is not a WP:Reliable source as WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. TompaDompa (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? It's obviously better to cite the original interview where a person said a thing than a secondary source saying it was said. It is not more helpful to our readers to cite a more distant source, not to mention that doing so runs the risk of ending up in a game of broken-telephone, which is already a significant problem both in academia and on wikipedia.
TeenAngels1234, it might help for you to add citations to the independent sources alongside the closer, non-independent sources you already have. It seems to me that that will satisfy the weighting concerns, and/or point out areas that are less often discussed and could stand to be removed. -- asilvering (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it is more helpful to our readers to cite more distant sources in lieu of citing the material directly from the horse's mouth, so to speak, is orthogonal to the question at hand here: is including this material WP:DUE in the first place? That's what we need the non-primary and independent sources to ascertain. As I said above, we can cite both kinds of sources at the same time to satisfy WP:Verification concerns (by using the most authoritative sources on the facts of the matter) as well as WP:Weight concerns (by using the sources that best demonstrate the relative weight afforded to various aspects by the overall literature on the topic). In general, citing interviews directly is neither necessary (it is possible, even if perhaps not ideal, to cite more distant sources—and in some cases we have no other choice if the interviews are not available to us) nor sufficient (because the interviews do not in themselves establish weight). TompaDompa (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then! I'll mention them if it can help to resolve the doubs of the other side. I'm always willing to improve the NGE articles but, please, just wait few days. I will try to do so as soon as possible, but unfortunately I'm extremely busy in these days. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are some secondary independent sources. The problem is that they are not being used for large swathes of the article, and consequently those sections suffer a degree of indiscriminateness in their detail that needs to be reined in. Too much of the symbolism and interpretative background of the angels is cited to primary media directly from people involved in its production, and this falls afoul of policy: Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source. JoelleJay (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure that these are analyitic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claims? TeenAngels1234 (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic about "so-and-so said that the angels represented blah blah". This is a guideline about not doing original research and not inserting an editor's own opinion into the article. -- asilvering (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well as one other example, we have a whole section written in-universe, sourced in large part to non-independent and/or primary sources or not at all, that makes patently absurd claims like Angels are organic beings whose atomic structure has both particle and wave nature, and therefore characterized by the wave-particle duality of light. (not sourced) and The Angels' genetic makeup has a 99.89% affinity with that of humans. (not sourced in this section; it is sourced in another section where the claim is limited to one angel The arrangement and coordinates of the fourth Angel signals correspond 99.89% to those in the human gene pool. and is attributed to Ritsuko Akagi, a fictional character) and Their names and attacks have been prophesied in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ancient documents in the possession of a secret organization called Seele in wikivoice. These are unattributed, likely UNDUE details that egregiously mischaracterize real things. How much of the rest of this 150kb article contains similarly inappropriate and misleading material? JoelleJay (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarify, just because the note is not immediately after the sentence it doesn't mean the sentence it's unsourced. If you read the sources mentioned in the paragraph, every single sentence is sourced. These are not controversial statements about the NGE lore - surprisingly, since in NGE almost everything is controversial - , but at least having the bare minimum knowledge of the sources and reading them before writing here would be helpful and appropriate. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably reacquaint yourself with WP:PSTS; authorized/official books and the like are primary sources, and a) don't count for notability, and b) aren't what the majority of any article text should be based on. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly aware of that guide, thanks. The article is not based on primary sources, altgough like in every GA of fictional characters I used them as for guidelines. PS are of course necessary, allowed and used with common sense. In no way we have to mention Mechademia while discussing Anno inspirations, but I mentioned Anno interviews on their creations instead. And, again, the fact is thar this article is not based on PS: Mechademia is mentioned various times, together with Cavallaro, Napier, CBR, Anime News Network, Cannarsi - no one of these people are involved in NGE production - and so on. Since more than a third of this article - a reasonable portion, like almost every GA about fictional character- is about their production, development, inspiration, it's perfectly fine and allowed. This is perfecrly in line with Anime and Manga guidelines.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cannarsi was directly involved in producing the Italian version of NGE, he is not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being involved in the Italian dub doesn't mean being involved in the NGE production, but OK, that's not the point and Cannarsi is not the focus of this. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it appears that these authorized/official books are not all primary sources, but are secondary sources (just not independent ones). They don't count for notability, but they are the most authoritative source. -- asilvering (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we consider "indipendent" every source which is not directly made by NGE staff and people involved in its production or promotion, like A&M guidelines and If I can add common sense say, Oguro commentary is indipendent too. He edited the RCB, which can be listed as a dipendent source, but his commentary is something he wrote as a fan. Same for Poggio, Cannarsi and most importantly Evangelion Chronicle: they are edited and published by DeAgostini Japan and Sony Magazines, but not Gainax - they just allowed its publication. Porori is not a Gainax member and is not involved in NGE, so even the The Essential issues are indipendent. My suggestion is that the user who proposed this nomination is not so much into the sources and did not check them before starting this reassessment. This was also discussed with other users before, so it seems they didn't even read the TP. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those (or at least most of those) are still "not independent" for the purposes of notability. But you don't need to worry about notability and I'm not sure why Fuchs brought it up. The topic is very evidently notable. -- asilvering (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I'm genuinely confused too. Thanks. BTW, regarding the secondary sources and materials used: I think almost everything can be found here. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the excessive number of images that are not directly related makes this article arguably fail criteria 6b. Do we really need an image of a double chromosome in this article? I doubt it. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I always considered that image fitting because of its link to the sceen depicting Shamshiel analysis in the fifth episode, but if you think it's not relevant/pertinent we can easily remove it. Are there other images that you think are not relevant? TeenAngels1234 (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These images are egregious. We do not need two Dirac-related images just because, according to non-independent non-physicist sources, one episode apparently attempts to explain a characteristic of one angel as being maintained using an inverted AT Field, within which extends a number-imaginary space,[284] a parallel dimension named Dirac Sea. Not least because it legitimizes an amateurish misrepresentation of the Dirac sea (since when is this purely theoretical model a "parallel dimension"?). JoelleJay (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Dirac sea of the series is a parrallel dimension, not Dirac theoretical original model. It's literally written in the article. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Okay, done, Quicole. I deleted basically all the images not directly depicting the Angels. Not sure about Sachiel's cosplay. They usually are not inserted in articles on en.wiki, but it can be helpful for a reader to actually see the Angel's design without a screenshot under copyright. But as you prefer. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northallerton

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

This 2008 GA promotion has become out of date in many sections. The demographics section is still dependent on the 2001 census, and other out-of-date content is present as well, such as It was due to close in spring 2008, as the building which opened in 1877 is not up to modern standards. However, the move has been delayed due to lack of space at the Friarage sourced to an article from 2008, or housing prices also from 2008. In addition, uncited text has crept in over the years, including material such as Hambleton Seals Water Polo are a newly formed team which aims to attract local children to a quite small, yet fun sport. that is not in an encyclopedic tone. Hog Farm Talk 02:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This GAR had originally been closed as delist by Real4jyy, who seems to have not checked the article history, where there is evidence of significant improvement. As Real4jyy is only online once a week, it appears, I have reopened this GAR. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Esemgee, Ed1964, Keith D, and Finlay McWalter: are any of you able to cite the few remaining citation needed tags? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition to the remaining citation issues, would it be possible to update the demographics information to use the 2021 census instead of the 2001 census? The statistical information at the beginning of the economy section is also quite dated. Hog Farm Talk 02:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Esemgee, Ed1964, Keith D, Finlay McWalter, and Hog Farm: Regarding the census; is it necessary for the whole comparison statistics table to remain? This is not cited and is far too detailed IMHO. I am in favour of removing it, if you are...? Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer that we source the data better (that is, see if we can get a verifiable stable link instead of the what we have for ref [58]). I don't think the table is excessive, but I wouldn't be opposed to it being in a collapsed box - it is dull, but encyclopedias often contain dull things. I'm trying to see if we can massage the ONS query system (perhaps with one of their "custom data set" options) to source the data we have. And hopefully address Hog Farm's concerns about using such old data. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 21:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to see it kept and sourced, as the information about long-term population trends is useful for the reader. Hog Farm Talk 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per above I would try to keep the information but update to the 2011 census for now, until ONS publish the full set of 2021 stats, unless we can easily get to the information on 2021 without using the citypopulation site. If this is a stumbling block to retaining GA status then reduce to minimum and fill in later when info is available. Keith D (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with 2011 for now - that's certainly an improvement over using the old 2001 stats. Hog Farm Talk 18:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have found most of the missing cites - there are still a couple to complete. I will look at the census data. The joy of all things (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The joy of all things, Keith D, and Finlay McWalter: is anyone able to resolve those remaining cn tags? If not, I'll probably comment the relevant parts out and close this GAR with a keep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 I cannot find a reference for the Subsidence Inversion comment in the climate section, so that is probably a non-starter. The claim is right as fog does linger here for ages, but that is WP:OR. The paper relating to the cite in the sports section about the Northallerton Stallions ceased printing in 2009. I will look in the library on Wednesday when I am in Northallerton, but I might be able to get a replacement cite. The population section needs a good look at, though. The joy of all things (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There does not seem to be an archive of the Northallerton and Bedale Times from the 21st century. Northallerton library only has a microfiched copy until 1994. I will hunt for an alternative cite for citation #76. The joy of all things (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment&oldid=1215882178"