Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:GAR)
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, Iazyges, 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

Good article reassessment

Talk notices given
  1. Treehouse of Horror VI 2024-04-10
  2. Siege of Szigetvár 2024-05-05
  3. Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow 2024-05-07
Find more: 2023 GA Sweeps Project
See also: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sweeps 2023

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

History of the National Hockey League (1992–2017)

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

There is little post-2013 information in the article. There is uncited text, including entire sections. The lead, at 5 paragraphs, is more than what is recommended at WP:LEADLENGTH. Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I shall return from my break momentarily to fix the lack of citations absent throughout the article. Please allow me some time to gather them. I won't be able to help with the lede nor the lack of content in the shootout era. Perhaps another editor would be willing to crack at that. Conyo14 (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to help trim the lede. As for post-2013 - the article notes cup winners and notable outdoor games, as well as some tourneys. I'll add a little blurb on future award winners' debuts, perhaps, but besides that I'm not sure there's much we realistically can add that's not unnecessary bloat. The Kip (contribs) 21:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basil W. Duke

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

There is a lot of uncited text. There are also sources in the "Further reading" section that might be useful as inline citations. Z1720 (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This needs substantial work. The Matthews biography is available through the Wikipedia Library, as is a chapter about him in Kentuckians in Gray. I own copies of Warner and then Welsh's Medical Histories of Confederate Generals if anybody wants to consult those. I'm too busy to rewrite this myself but can help a bit if there is a push to rework this. Pending someone else being interested, this needs to be delisted. I have my hands full with real-life stuff and the GAR for Gettysburg Cyclorama. Hog Farm Talk 22:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tsugaru clan

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

Much of this article is uncited, and the lede is too short to summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nom comments. The unsourced information is too much. Also some issues with MOS:OVERLINK. seefooddiet (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources of Singapore law

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

There is lots of uncited text in the article, and sources that could be used in the article in the "Further reading" section. Much of the article contains examples of the law being implemented, and I think the text would be better served explaining the sources and impact on the law. Z1720 (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buro Happold

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

There is lots of unreferenced text and entries in lists. The lead is also too short, and there is a lot of promotional language throughout the entire article. Z1720 (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more. It needs quite a lot of work. Just a few quick observations:
  • The Projects section contains way too many examples, many of which are unreferenced.
  • The Awards section needs to be chronological and again every entry should be referenced.
  • There's a lot of spammy / promotional content, some of which I have already removed.
  • Lots of acronyms/initialisms used without explanation.
  • I haven't done an accurate count, but based on the first 20 or so it looks like around a third of the references are to the company's own website - see both WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:PRIMARY
10mmsocket (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Simpson (The Simpsons)

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

The article has multiple banner issues and is obviously poorly written. The reception section is also filled with listicles only without that much commentary. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cerro Maravilla murders

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

This 2007 addition has 8 citation needed tags and might also contain questionable/unreliable sources and need cleanup. Spinixster (trout me!) 08:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First Partition of Poland

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

There are a lot of sources listed in the "Further reading" section, and the prose looks like it is underdeveloped. The lede does not summarise the impact/aftermath of the partition, and the Background section needs to be split up. There are other prose problems caused by small, one-or-two line sentences. Z1720 (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by prose being underdeveloped. The article can certainly be expanded, and some references should be replaced by more reliable works (and copyedited). Lead can be expanded easily, and adding some headings to Background shouldn't be hard. Whether the article is more B-class or GA-class is pretty blurry; it would not pass in the current form a GA with an experienced reviewer, but it is relatively complete and reasonably referenced. Still, as our standards improve, it is shifting more towards B-class, yes. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article writes very honestly about the Partitions of Poland it contains a good WP:NOTE, WP:RS is well written, the only thing missing that you can agree with is WP:LEAD which is too short, also the background, but in itself the article deserves to be good. Keep it Czekan pl (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Large chunks are cited to Encyclopædia Britannica, which is not in keeping with current expectations around sourcing. It also does read as oddly short given the topic, in addition to the prose issued mentioned. CMD (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of Poland during the Piast dynasty

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

Article has degraded since its original review in 2010. Concerns about unsourced content have been expressed on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the un-sourced stuff, but I will read the whole article in a moment and maybe I will find more errors such as lack of sourcing or poor encyclopaedic content because yesterday I joined wikipedia and read the rules and instructions all the. Koncerz777 (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a few not to tighten up already with the beginning missing a better sentence completion or missing something:
The tribe of the Polans (Polanie, lit. "people of the fields") in what is now Greater Poland gave rise to a tribal predecessor of the Polish state in the early part of the 10th century, with the Polans settling in the flatlands around the emerging strongholds of Giecz, Poznań, Gniezno and Ostrów Lednicki. Accelerated rebuilding of old tribal fortified settlements, construction of massive new ones and territorial expansion took place during the period c. 920–950. The Polish state developed from these tribal roots in the second half of the centuryhere. Here there is a need to clarify for what reason it ceased to be a tribal state, because it is true that in the middle of this century it ceased to be but it had many factors that would be worth taking into account. According to the 12th-century chronicler Gallus Anonymus, the Polans were ruled at this time by the Piast dynasty. In existing sources from the 10th century, Piast ruler Mieszko I was first mentioned by Widukind of Corvey in his Res gestae saxonicae, a chronicle of events in Germany. Widukind reported that Mieszko's forces were twice defeated in 963 by the Veleti tribes acting in cooperation with the Saxon exile Wichmann the Younger. Under Mieszko's rule (c. 960 to 992), his tribal state accepted Christianity and became the Polish state. When? Koncerz777 (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please also compare with the last reviewed version linked at the top. Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

65th Infantry Regiment (United States)

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

This article has lots of uncited sentences, a "Further reading" section that should be examined for sources that can be used as inline citations, and a lead that should be reformatted. Z1720 (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adder

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

There is uncited text throughout the article, some of which have been labelled with "citation needed" since 2020. There is also an extensive "Further reading" section that should be examined for inclusion as inline citations or removed from the list. Z1720 (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Central Atlas Tamazight

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

Many uncited statements, including almost the entire "Geographic distribution" section, many sources used in the bibloography are not used as inline citations, and there are many one or two sentence paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried going back to the originally reviewed version? Or removing the uncited sources? Or citing them? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maunus: The promoted version from 2009 also has uncited sections, since GA standards were lower back then. I do not have enough knowledge of the subject to evaluate what should be cited and what should be removed: if undertook a search for sources, it would take me hours (or even long) for me to properly evaluate, cite, and rewrite the information when necessary. This would take me away from other projects that I would like to work on. If another editor would like to improve this article, I am happy to re-review. Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2009 version of the article was written by multiple topic experts, several of which were actual linguists working with the language professionally. Those experts however, did not sign up to be on permanent call for removing accumulated junk or for updating the article to conform to whichever standards would come to be implemented some time i the future. You may think that this kind of drive-by reassessment and delisting somehow improves Wikipedia, but in fact it does not. Only doing the actual work does.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maunus: I thank anyone who has worked on this article in the past or presently. However, this article does not have to have GA status. If editors are not "doing the actual work" to maintain the article, then, in my opinion, we should delist the article so that readers know that this article does not meet the GA criteria anymore. If editors do improve the article to address my concerns, then I think Wikipedia has been improved. Z1720 (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zirconium

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

There are many uncited statements, and an orange banner indicating that the lede is too short, which I agree with. Z1720 (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just fix it instead? Johnjbarton (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the intro and added refs for each citation needed. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnjbarton: I do not have the expertise, nor the desire, to find sources, evaluate their usefulness, add prose, and ensure that the article has returned to fulfilling the GA criteria. If others are interested, they are welcome to improve the article and ping me when it is ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Z1720 Thanks for the reply, but I'm puzzled. On the one hand you're uninterested and lack expertise, but on the other you are evaluating and judging. Seems like an odd combination. Are you on some kind of assignment?
    In any case I'll try to fix citations needed if they arise in the future. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnjbarton: An editor does not need to be an expert on the topic to review articles, nor to bring up concerns about uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Z1720 Oh I agree completely. But still I'm puzzled. You are making a lot of work for other people. Is that work justified? If you came along and said "I'm curious about Zirconium, but the article has these issues:..." or "I read that Zirconium has 8 oxidation states but the claim is uncited and I don't understand it", then I would be motivated to improve the article. But "I'm uninterested" makes me think I should just ignore this altogether.
    And sorry, I'm not trying to pick on you. I just see these Good article things once in while and I'm curious about the process. If I announced a particular article has issues I am pretty sure the response from other editors would be "Well, fix it". Johnjbarton (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnjbarton: An article does not have to have GA status. I do not care if this particular article has that status, but I care about maintaining the GA standards. When editors are improving articles, some will look at GAs to use as examples on what to do. If an editor looks an article which has fallen before the standards, they might incorporate bad habits into their article which would take reviewers longer to fix.
When an editor says "Just fix it" they are stating to the reviewer "Go dedicate hours of your time, away from articles that you want to work on to fix up this article that the original GA nominator did not want to fix up themselves." This is why I get defensive when I read this comment. If someone wants to fix up the article, that's great! I'm happy to conduct a re-review once the article meets the criteria again. But I will not be the one who devotes hours of work to improve this article because I have other articles I want to work on instead. Z1720 (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 Ok thank you for this information. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also trying to correct unreferenced statements. There are still some in Applications, Compounds and Production... working on it. Reconrabbit 17:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still working on this - apologies for the delay this weekend but I am away from the library that gives me access to a lot of sources I need for these fixes. Reconrabbit 23:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mary McLeod Bethune

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

This article contains a 5-paragraph bloated lede, numerous uncited sentences and paragraphs, and short, one sentence paragraphs in a very long "Legacy and honours" section. Z1720 (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article has lots of deficiencies. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has seen a flurry of activity since this GAR was opened. Could you provide additional feedback following recent edits? ZsinjTalk 11:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to keep working on this article to address the issues raised. Other editors are active and making improvements. I welcome further feedback, review, or support at the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zsinj and Firefangledfeathers: Since reviewer time is limited, please post below when the article fulfils the GA criteria and someone will conduct a more in-depth review. Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up icon Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kowloon Walled City

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

several unresolved cn tags. ltbdl (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think I could get this done. What is your expected timeline? Matarisvan (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@matarisvan: don't have one. maybe 3 months. ltbdl (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Matarisvan do you still intend to work on this? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I will be able to get this done if your timeline is in the same ballpark as @Ltbdl, since I'm currently working on 2 FA rewrites and 2 A class rewrites. Matarisvan (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that the Ludlum and Gibson quotations in the "Literature" section, as non-free content, probably do not meet the standards in MOS:QUOTE and WP:NFCCEG. I would recommend removing these. The Leung Ping-kwan quotation definately does not meet these standards and I will remove that myself. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not sure I can help with the cn tags, but I do own a copy of Girard's City of Darkness (2011 printing of the 1993 edition) and can look through that if needed. —Kusma (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gettysburg Cyclorama

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

Numerous uncited passages (including a section with an orange "citations needed" banner since 2019) and a lede that is too short to summarise all important aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this. Hog Farm Talk 19:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "Benedit Buckeye" section as unsourced and undue detail. If I can get ahold of "The Gettysburg Cyclorama: The Turning Point of the Civil War on Canvas." the rest of this should be doable (it definitely needs further work), if I can't, I'll probably need to let this one go. Hog Farm Talk 01:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think I could get this back to GA level. What is your expected timeline? I've done some preliminary work on the 10th CAB article, but currently am on a work trip so can't do anything more on both articles till the 23rd. Is that alright? Matarisvan (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan: - I'm in process of this (I should be able to access the necessary book now). Do you have any objections if I try to take care of this myself, since I was involved at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Battle of Gettysburg/1 as well? Hog Farm Talk 23:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any objections. Looking forward to your rewrite of this article. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still intending to work on this - I've had to take a pause due to internet issues and real-life business, but hopefully I can resume work this weekend. Hog Farm Talk 02:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last of the uncited content is done. I still need to redo the lead and do some source-text integrity checking. Hog Farm Talk 22:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Campbell

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

Numerous uncited passages, bloated lede, reliance on block quotes, and unused sources in the "Further reading" section. Z1720 (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is to trim the lede by at least one paragraph and reincorporate into another section, cut down some of the block quotes and change them into regular prose, and look into some of the works found in the Further Reading section to determine if any of the unsourced claims can be found there. I was able to find a Los Angeles Times reference for one of the unsourced claims and I might be able to assist further with the article. Are you available or willing to clean up the article? If so, can you provide a timeframe? Dobbyelf62 (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dobbyelf62: I am happy to provide a review after the article is fixed up, but I am not willing to clean up the article myself. Z1720 (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: That's fine. While I might not be able to heavily overhaul the article, I am willing to make various improvements. I have made a couple of changes in the interim, including the addition of references and the elimination of a few block quotes in favor of prose, but I'm hoping that I did not remove any necessary context in doing so.

Could you provide more specific examples on some of your grievances with the article? You mentioned that the lede is too lengthy, but are there any particular paragraphs that are worth trimming or removing? Which ones are absolutely necessary for the article and should be retained? I can address some of these requests once I have additional context, but I will also exercise some discretion when making these changes. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dobbyelf62: According to WP:LEADLENGTH, it is suggested that an article of this length should be two to three paragraphs. Typically, the lede is a summary of the most important aspects of the article. I don't have enough knowledge of the prose to know what should be cut from the lede, and I don't have the time or desire to obtain that knowledge. Z1720 (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dobbyelf62: do you still intend to work on this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I am unfortunately away from my computer and will not be able to make extensive edits until the end of the month. My apologies for the inconvenience. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 15:20, 17 July 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=1225482527"