Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsDiscussionReassessmentReport

↓ Skip to table of contents and archives ↓

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 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.

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.

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

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.

• 15:54:20, 20/04/2023: I-35W Mississippi River bridge
  
• 02:20:16, 22/04/2023: Current date for reference

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

Joseph Dart

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

Result pending

Initial comments

As per WP:DCGAR, I am submitting this article for a reassessment so that it can be further scrutinised to avoid the automatic delisting. I originally did the GA review and have made a number of changes recently to reassess citations and explicitly verify that the prose is accurate, correct and not violating copyright (this remains ongoing). I have already replaced some unobtainable book citations, either with those I could verify or alternate online sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:46, February 16, 2023 (UTC) Bungle please ping me when you have finished your cleanup effort, and I will have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC) That's fine, I will (and thanks for signing for me, I wasn't aware the script did not do this automatically!) Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC) Bungle I see you progess has stalled; update? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC) @SandyGeorgia: I have been making some notes on other bits (as I am not one for bit-edits), but also got distracted by an IP editor asking me on my talk page to develop numerous articles! That said, I wasn't aware we were on a specific time limit? You're more than welcome to check over the bits I have already scrutinised though, this doesn't necessarily have to wait until I have assessed the final sentence. If you identify any significant concerns on the earlier parts of the article, that may give pause to the whole thing, but if not, i'm happy to push on still. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC) No concern; just checking :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC) no deadline on this - I'm just checking through open GARs, there's no copyvio I found, so take your time. In terms of text, it seems fine, even if it could be cleaned up a little, It'll be on the verification of the sourcing that is currently there. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC) I'm going to try and get the remainder of the prose done over the next few days (that being, individual verification) so at least then it can be considered as to whether it can remain under the current designation. I am mindful as to the reason these GARs were raised and that we aren't needing to look at a WP:TNT situation or otherwise a total blitz - it's essentially just ensuring the expressed concerns relating to articles by DC in general don't exist. From what I have done so far, nothing alarming is standing out to me and much of what I couldn't verify with the offered sources I could from elsewhere (and the few things I couldn't were of relatively insignificant value anyway). Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC) It's not just about failed verification, and source-to-text integrity with DC content; copyvio of all sources has to be evaluated. Do you have access to Mingus? If not, all of that content needs to be WP:PDEL'd. The first source I checked (Smith p. 215) is closely paraphrased. While it may be public domain, we still have to get it right. Misrepresentation of source: "An example given by one report is of the schooner John B Skinner,". ... one report, unless I am reading the source wrong, is Dart's report, so that is misleading. This is not grammatical: He was the first person to make the application of elevating grain out of transporting ships using mechanical power and has since become the system for unloading freighters throughout the world. And it doesn't seem supported by the source. And, sourcing a statement about since throughout the world to 1879 is just wrong. So far, from what I'm seeing, this is a delist with the same problems as the others, and I haven't even started on copyvio checking other than the first Smith. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC) @SandyGeorgia: You are of course very welcome to offer feedback during and after I have made various amendments. Whether it results in the status being retained or not, it'll still (hopefully) be improved further than beforehand (so either way, the process is beneficial). Mingus source is available as free page previews in google books, which I have been able to view without any special access. I don't think there are serious concerns over close paraphrase of PD sources, and where this is verbatim or close, we can note this appropriately (I think that's a fairly standard process). Of course there are some parts I haven't looked at again yet, and others I plan to take another look at (as you rightly point out, the note on the schooner sentence being attributed to the subject themself is reasonable and should be stated as such). Kindly reserve making an absolute judgement until I have at least made an effort to look at every element, but please don't refrain from helpful suggestions. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC) No problem; ping me when you're ready for a new look. I peeked today because your March 10 post poked my watchlist. It sounded like you were down to prose fine tuning, so I thought it time to check, and wanted to note there is much more than prose fine-tuning still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC) I don't think I am too far out on this now. I have pretty much gone through all the prose and verified the statements, while in large parts, I have entirely rewritten paragraphs and sections. All sources, even those so called "offline", I have been able to access freely and of the 4 book sources, one is PD-old and the other 3 have free pageviews via google books relevant to the pages cited. Others I have removed and replaced with open alternatives. I have worked on trying to re-paraphrase parts too, though many of the sources, particularly from newspapers already predate 1928 and thus would not have copyright restrictions attached (none the less, prose has not been copied verbatim). Earwig checker is pretty much clear, it's only flag being related to the direct quotation of the subject's own reflection, which is quoted and cited accordingly. I think I can still do another read-over and possibly reword and reconsider a handful of parts here and there, but nothing substantial. I did have some concerns that the article was perhaps disproportionally representing the concept for which an article already exists, so I have tried to bring some focus back to the subject. Authorship stands at over 50% myself and 43.7% DC, although this should not be referred to as an indicator, particularly as I think this includes infobox, ref, cats etc for the latter. WWT shows in large parts my own amendments. Hence at this time i'd welcome feedback or expressions on anything that stands out as being particularly problematic, assuming it's not catastrophic. I am broadly hopeful that the article will largely be judged on the merits associated with one being judged "good", without excessive emphasis on its original primary contributor (understanding that the degree of scrutiny expected will no doubt be higher than a typical GAR). At the very least, I hope I have done enough to secure the article's safety from pre-emptive copyvio concern deletion. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC) @SandyGeorgia and Lee Vilenski: Does this now need to posted somewhere so others are aware it should be reassessed? Who ultimately, given the circumstances, will take a lead on that and indeed the ultimate decision? Have these processes already been agreed upon? Bungle (talk • contribs) 11:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC) The way GAR works is that if you are satisfied that the issues brought up that started the GAR are now resolved and that the article still meets the GA criteria, you can close and retain the article at any time. We do now have co-ordinators for this process, of which I am one, so if you are unsure, I can take another look through and see if there is anything additional that requires a look. Realistically, we are looking to be convinced that plagerism (both direct copying from source and close paraphrasing) and that the info being cited is actually based on info in the cited claims (IE Verficiation). Traditionally the GA process has been quite loose on looking these pieces up, but with the claims about DC in tow, we need to make sure that this article meets both of those items before retaining. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC) @Lee Vilenski: Thanks for the quick response. I think given the backdrop of the circumstances resulting in the need to open a GAR in the first place, it would be inappropriate for me to self-close without someone uninvolved also concurring with that outcome. Therefore I think it's best someone takes a look over to make that decision. The vast majority of citations here are all in public domain, so while I have made efforts to remove and not reintroduce any close paraphrasing, if anything of this concern is raised relating to a PD source, it shouldn't be a major concern to address or acknowledge in some way. Bungle (talk • contribs) 13:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

SG review

Delist and send to WP:CP.

Struck, no longer in WP:CP territory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• How has the content cited to Baxter been checked (that is a dead link)? The world's largest grain shipping port is begging for verification.

  That can be found in Mingus, page 15, but there are appearances that Mingus may have taken content from Wikipedia.

  And looking back in the article's history we find that exact wording comes from ... ta da ... a non-reliable source. That's a copy-paste and, worse, a claim whose veracity needs to be verified as it has spread via Wikipedia to other publications based on a very poor source.

• Content from Mingus (2021), appears too closely paraphrased and mimics structure, but looking back in the article history, one finds that content originally came from Malloy (2011)) (DC frequently changed citations without altering the text). Who had this content first? DC added text mimicing Mingus in 2021, which was when Mingus was published. Regardless, Wikipedia might move further away from Mingus wording, perhaps by re-using Malloy.

  It appears that Malloy might be a hobbyist blog. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I had intended to review further, but this is bad enough. This article has the usual source-to-text integrity problems found in DC work, copy-paste from non-reliable sources, and that's after looking at only two passages of text from two sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I'll need to analyse your concerns when I have a little more time over the next few days, though i'd note that the baxter source was available up until very recently (certainly within the period of this being edited), while the mingus source is published with an actual publishing company, so under typical circumstances is not expected to be unreliable. The reliance on the sources you point out is minimal at best and much of the content has archive newspapers, or a pre-1927 book in one case. I'll have to look deeper into your concerns but I am not thinking this alone is catastrophic to the point of not being salvageable. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It may not be catastrophic (yet), but it's an indication that the usual DC content and issues persist, and that everything else has to be checked thoroughly, with the usual application of WP:PDEL (I did not go further after finding these two). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: To address this head on may be best I think, especially as I don't think it takes into account the bigger picture.

1. Firstly, the baxter source seems to be online and accessible again (in full, as before) which directly verifies the claim you observe. This book was published in 1980, so while it's totally reasonable for a later book to publish the same fact/statistic, I don't think there is a concern around circular referencing (if that's what you were getting at, but I am unsure, so sorry if that was misinterpreted).
2. Secondly, I don't concur with a concern around close paraphrasing, as I have made efforts to rephrase many elements of this article, even where I didn't necessarily think it was an issue in its former state. There are only so many different ways you can phrase the same thing while ensuring integrity of the original source material, otherwise you risk introducing original elements from personal interpretation. Earwig is not detecting concerns on this article from that perspective and there is very little block text untouched from DC's original contributions. Other elements were added during the last GA review.
3. Thirdly, you express concerns around the Malloy source. The reliance of prose on this source, as I previously noted, is very minimal and most of that text is inconsequential as to whether it's included or not. That said, I do actually accept that [if we consider what represents] a reliable source, I can't say absolutely that I would vouch for it unquestionably. Perhaps the prose that would benefit from an additional, or replacement citation is the 2nd sentence in the Legacy section, and I am happy to revisit that and either replace citations or reconsider the structure of this prose. If that specifically is a concern, then I accept it can be looked at again.

I do observe from another GAR that you openly express your lack of experience when it comes to GA reviews. I actually don't have an issue with this, if you're at least coming in to the discussion with an open mind and not with a mindset that anything DC touched is unrecoverable. A typical GA may have many suggestions for improvements, or expressions of concern that could benefit from being addressed to satisfy a reviewer's criteria for assigning GA, but a quick fail, as it seems you suggested above, is reserved only for the most catastrophic of articles, or those where significant rewriting remains necessary. My focus on wikipedia is, and always has been, content creation and I am looking at this article not strictly as a DC salvage, but as an interesting subject who's achievements and legacy are deserving of a quality article. If you're happy to collaborate in achieving that goal, then that's great. I'd certainly take on board suggestions for further improvement, as very few articles could ever be considered finished. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not helping my frame of mind that you persist in mentioning Earwig, which does not detect DC isues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not suggesting it should be used exclusively to detect copyvio related concerns, but even in a scenario where prose was direct-copied from one source and cited to another, earwig would still be capable of returning the source it came from (admittedly, it's not a perfect solution, but can at least offer an easier interface for assessing concerns around paraphrasing). I really don't have an issue if you express concerns or elements that need further improvement or reassessment, as long as it's fair and proportionate. As I have previously noted, a considerable proportion of source material is historic and so we shouldn't really be in a situation where copyvio is an alarming concern, or at least not to the point of needing to WP:TNT (which is why I took this on, unlike other articles). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Butting in: I've done a single random spot check. Our text says, "They lived on Swan, South Division and Erie Streets successively, when each was in it's heyday." "They had successive residences on Swan Street, South Division Street and Erie Street during their heydey" [edit: struck c/p error]. The source's text says, "They lived on Swan, South Division and Erie Streets successively, when each was in it's heyday." Also, the source is a blog. How is it RS? Victoria (tk) 17:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not. Not only that, this article is plagiarizing a non-RS:

• Article: Within fifteen years of construction, Buffalo had become the world's largest grain shipping port with ten elevators, surpassing cities such as London in England and Rotterdam in Holland.[11]
• Buffalohistory: Less than fifteen years after Joseph Dart's invention of the grain elevator, Buffalo had become the world's largest grain port, surpassing Odessa, Russia; London, England; and Rotterdam, Holland.

I think our work here is done; it just doesn't seem like Bungle is addressing the issues as they are raised, and the walls of text are tiring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Victoriaearle: That isn't the article's text. However, I already noted above that much prose attributed to this source is inconsequential. We can remove the line entirely if necessary, but it's not verbatim, despite your claim.

@SandyGeorgia: That statistic is from the 1980 baxter source, page 2. I feel you are willing this article to fail, which is the complete opposite of what we, as volunteer contributors, should be striving to achieve. I have acknowledged that various parts can be revisited and even accept your concerns on the Malloy source in point 3. May I suggest, with respect, that perhaps just take a step back and return with a different mindset. I am disappointed you discount my response to you as a "wall of text". I am simply trying to acknowledge everything you expressed. I think, best pause here for a bit, reconvene in a few days perhaps. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, made a copy/paste error, fixed in in this edit. Victoria (tk) 19:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I've said a couple of times that you can ping me when the article is ready for a new review. And yet it still uses non-RS; and to the best of my knowledge, RS are required on all Wikipedia articles. Feel free to ping me again to re-evaluate when the article is clean of copyvio and uses RS. (I can't help but notice that in all the time one spends attempting to clean a DC article, an editor could write five new GAs, but it's your time to spend :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I just ask that we don't lose sight of why we're here, and I accept this article is not free of fault (despite continued efforts). I will, whether you agree or not, consider your views (I thought my bullet-pointed response, where I even express intentions to make further amendments, was the best way to demonstrate that, but clearly not). So, while I was surprised to see that you didn't think I was acknowledging your opinion, I still hope the ultimate aim of building an encyclopedia remains the collective objective (FWIW, yes, I can hear you, and I see the efforts you have gone to, and continue to do, with the whole WP:DCGAR situation, I just opted to put my efforts into trying to address a tiny part of it). Aside, I think I badly worded part of point 3, and can see how it sounds unlike what I meant, so i'll fix that now! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Five days after my last entry here, I have removed the non-RS because, more importantly, WP:ELNO. Also, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I was going to note this citation as part of a wider analysis, when I updated the GAR. You may observe I appended a better citation to the end of the sentence, however the source in question shows the stone marker and thus, the only thing this was verifying is that - there shouldn't be the usual WP:RS concerns as that citation wasn't being used to cite prose. I think sometimes, we can use common sense when deciding if a citation is useful or a concern or not. I hadn't actually updated the GAR yet to flag this (it can be removed, as it adds very little), however like always, ongoing feedback is welcome. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully you noticed my edit summary and comment above? Per WP:ELNO, we should never link to a website that hosts copyright violations. This overrules any other logic, regardless of what it was citing. You also shouldn't write the citation to a different source when you're actually citing buffaloah.com. If you have the actual original citation, (re SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT), that's another matter ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

PS, WP:ELNEVER is the correct link (my apologies for the confusion). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't me who originally added it, so admittedly, I wasn't actually aware of the latter part of your statement (different source) or the copyvio nature of the source? This is largely academic though as it's insignificant to the wider article and you saved me having to flag it as a query, your view of which I am not opposing (I was just offering you my train of thought). This is why I found a better citation for where he is buried, as I wasn't fully convinced the buffalonoah source was great (so I guess we somewhat agree on that). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

But if you can find the LaChiusa (original) source, you could use it ... anyway, sounds like it is resolved now.

I have not checked for close paraphrasing or need to attribute on any of the public domain sources; has someone done that, and what remains to be done here ? (I admit to being confused by your work pace :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I am dipping in and out of this, as exclusively focussing on this article would be a little exhausting, given the extent of how much is being scrutinised. As for your other question, I am not aware anyone has expressed that they have cross-checked anything else specifically, although I don't know who else is watching/following this either. Besides the directly quoted material, which is minimal, nothing else is verbatim, though I am mindful that the definition of what is considered "close paraphrase" can differ. We don't want to use Template:PD-old-text excessively, but I need to consider if it's necessary on any. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

So it sounds like you are slowly chipping away at checking that aspect ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I think perhaps, in order to get the SandyGeorgia GAR seal of approval (which I think, without intentionally bigging you up too much, carries weight), it may benefit from an additional prose assessment against the (mostly PD sources) to determine if it's the best paraphrasing choice, or if PD attribution is required on any. I don't think we have any clear issues around WP:V at least. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know who else is watching (hopefully someone who knows GA standards), but my interest is in seeing this move along so it can be off my To-Do list :)

To that end, I picked two sources (only) to spotcheck: citations 8 and 9 in this version, as they were each cited several times.

With 8, it is entirely possible that I am just having too much difficulty trying to decipher the newspaper.com clipping, but I could not see where the source verified most of the text, and I did remove some info that was borderline trivia. I thought it was perhaps the wrong citation?

With 9:

• source: In the year 1861, Mr. Ovingtoin withdrew, and the business has since been conducted under the firm name of Dart & Bro.
• article: Ovington withdrew in 1861, after which the business was known as Dart & Bro.
• source: Up to within a week the deceased had enjoyed very good health and had retained in a marked' degree the Vigor and the power of his mental faculties. He spent the greater part of the past year in visiting friends and relatives in the East ...
• article: Up to a week prior to his death, he had been described as being in "very good health" and had spent most of the year visiting friends in the east of the country.

Not so dreadful I would tag it for copyright issues, but less than optimal-- a pd-old-text would solve it, but it seems like more review is needed. I'm not the one to review for prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is, unless it's verbatim or practically so, then if it's a public domain source, additionally specified PD-attribution is usually deemed unnecessary? I guess this is very much a point of view issue as to whether it's too closely paraphrased. You could say "Ovington pulled out.." and "Within the week prior.." but it's all fairly trivial stuff.

As for the verification, well, the matter surrounding the Buffalo History Museum et al seems fairly clear to me on the citation offered (2nd column, quarter way down), however I concur that the aspect of being financed is not conveyed in that article, yet, through what feels like a thorough biographical research on this individual, I was sure I had read something that concurred with that, so i'll try and find it.

I don't know if you ever partake in FAC discussions, but if not, I think you'd do very well, for sure, in picking out imperfections and source-to-prose integrity. I mean, this article could be FAC quality if it gets through GAR(!) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time deciphering where the tongue-in-cheek part starts ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I am going to have another run-through of this at the weekend, as I can't easily put my eyes on an article supporting Dart financing construction. What I can see is this implied numerous times, but my concern is that citations implying this and the article stating it as so is into WP:OR territory. The amendment to the prose is reasonable enough to moot that. This is afterall a GAR and that means there is no absolutely expectation of featured-quality prose. I will none the less reassess over the weekend, but I think the article should, soon, be judged against the typical GA criteria and the core concerns raised through WP:DCGAR. I reaffirm my hope this can retain a GA allocation, and even if not, is considerably improved. I extend acknowledgement to SandyGeoriga for continued perseverance and identifying matters of concern. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Albert Einstein

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

Result pending

It looks like there's some uncited text and other problems including

• If one end of a wormhole was positively charged, the other end would be negatively charged. These properties led Einstein to believe that pairs of particles and antiparticles could be described in this way.
• Later, after the death of his second wife Elsa, Einstein was briefly in a relationship with Margarita Konenkova. Konenkova was a Russian spy who was married to the Russian sculptor Sergei Konenkov (who created the bronze bust of Einstein at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton).[67][68][failed verification]*the Einstein-Cartan theory section
• The equations of motion section
• The Adiabatic principle and action-angle variables section
• In "Über die Entwicklung unserer Anschauungen über das Wesen und die Konstitution der Strahlung" ("The Development of our Views on the Composition and Essence of Radiation"), on the quantization of light, and in an earlier 1909 paper, Einstein showed that Max Planck's energy quanta must have well-defined momenta and act in some respects as independent, point-like particles. This paper introduced the photon concept (although the name photon was introduced later by Gilbert N. Lewis in 1926) and inspired the notion of wave–particle duality in quantum mechanics. Einstein saw this wave–particle duality in radiation as concrete evidence for his conviction that physics needed a new, unified foundation.
• The matter waves section
• Although he was lauded for this work, his efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. Notably, Einstein's unification project did not accommodate the strong and weak nuclear forces, neither of which was well understood until many years after his death. Although mainstream physics long ignored Einstein's approaches to unification, Einstein's work has motivated modern quests for a theory of everything, in particular string theory, where geometrical fields emerge in a unified quantum-mechanical setting.
• The other investigations section
• Einstein suggested to Erwin Schrödinger that he might be able to reproduce the statistics of a Bose–Einstein gas by considering a box. Then to each possible quantum motion of a particle in a box associate an independent harmonic oscillator. Quantizing these oscillators, each level will have an integer occupation number, which will be the number of particles in it.
• Many popular quotations are often misattributed to him.[example needed]

and possibly more. Though some of these could have been general referenced and I missed it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems rather odd to open this without editing the article yourself or raising any issues on the article talkpage first. --JBL (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

 This review was put on hold for two months to relieve pressure on topic editors at GAR. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

On a first reading, none of the uncited statements look atrocious. Various standard textbooks/histories/biographies should cover them, I think. XOR'easter (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

---

James Hood Wright

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

Result pending

This is a WP:DCGAR, although the nominator at GAN was not DC, rather Cleveland Todd, who is also blocked. I have two hours in to this article, have found one of all the usual (copy-paste, too close paraphrasing, content not supported by sources, "first" trivia, etc), and have no will to continue. I may have gotten all copyvio, but have not checked all the PD sources for paraphrasing. I doubt the article is still broad in its coverage, and I don't know what remains to be done to keep the article at GA standard. Trainsandotherthings have you any interest? Else, @WP:GAR coordinators: as to where this goes next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to notify relevant WikiProjects and then Delist if no one picks it up. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Definitely needs work. Looked at the odd sentence "Wright was a director of the Edison Electric Illuminating Company", and from the sources available there's a date of starting and a reason for selection, neither of which are included. Agree with Lee it should be notified as needing a thorough checking. CMD (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Details are left out as a result of my DCGAR scrub. I will figure out how to notify WPs next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

WP notifications done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

No objection to the scrub to be clear, mostly agreeing with your broadness comment above. CMD (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, my vote would be delist and stubify the whole thing like we do to most Doug articles. I don't really have the time or energy to work on this (and biographies don't usually interest me), I just started an FAC and that's going to keep me busy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I am reluctant to stubbify content that is sourced to public domain, because that's a different copyright animal. But I am just weary of reading through so much poor content, and every one of those blooming news clippings needs to be read. I would not be the least bit unhappy if someone else took a deeper knife to it than I have :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I can't really shirk a Philadelphia-area railroad magnate, if he is such a thing. I admit my preference in such cases would be to rewrite from the ground up. Can I get a day or three to see what kind of modern sourcing might be available? Mackensen (talk) 11:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

How about two and a quarter, plus change? CMD (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Mackensen, awesome, take all the time you need from my end! Ping me when ready for a new look; you will find usable stuff in that which I had to scrub if you can locate sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Like SandyGeorgia, I've spent a few hours on this. I've consulted a mix of academic sources that deal with the late 19th century banking scene (focusing on Drexel and Morgan), and a few sources dealing with the railroads that Wright was associated with through his position as a partner in Drexel, Morgan & Co. Wright is notable, definitely, though the apparent lack of even a biographical sketch, let along a full biography, is troublesome. I don't think the article is salvageable. It's rife with sourcing issues and practically plagiarized from The National Cyclopaedia and the obituary notices in the New York Times and Delaware Gazette and State Journal. The overuse of contemporary 19th-century newspaper accounts in general is a significant problem; as anyone who has ever written an obituary knows, relying on a brief obituary for claims of someone's accomplishments over a century later isn't acceptable.

I'm willing to write a new article to replace this one, though I'd feel more comfortable having actually read those academic sources, just to feel more comfortable with late 19th century banking. I usually work with the operational side of railroading. Who around here is our amateur expert in this area? Mackensen (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

While we have their attention, maybe the @WP:GAR coordinators: would work with Mike Christie to get a list of any other GAs submitted by Cleveland Todd, as I suspect there is more of same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

hmmmm ... I just looked at Cleveland Todd's user page, and all of those indicated at the top seem to be ... DCGARs. And yet I can't send them to WP:CP because, since the work is split between DC and CT, they aren't written by one CCI editor. So they all need individual examination and excoriation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Mackensen, just to clarify, are you still willing to rewrite the entire article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 Yes, but it's going to be a while. I've started by reading Strouse's biography of Morgan, just to get a feel for the setting and other players. Mackensen (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Notes

References

Hog Farm, as I don't do images, might you look at whether this image needs to be deleted? That does appear to be the GWB in the background, and it is unclear where DC got the 1890 date, so this image might not be public domain and might need to be deleted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Discospinster reverted Aheimm with a note that "source says 1890", but I see no source at File:Wright house 1890.jpg and this looks typical for DC image and content issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

And it seems the the Museum of the City of New York says 1932 ... obviously, as the GWB is in the background. Surprise (not): it looks like DC made up the date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Another DC-ism; the image says "unknown author" when the Museum of the City of New York does identify an author. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

So, given that honesty issue, how do we know File:Wright mausoleum.jpg is own work -- why is there no camera metadata listed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I find that one concerning as well: unusual dimensions, tilted camera, no metadata. It's easily replaceable regardless. Mackensen (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The mausoleum image is fishy but might be hard to track down. For the house, there's a small chance it's public domain, but I cannot find any information to support that possibility, so I've listed it at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wright house 1890.jpg, where it will either be deleted in 7 days or six months unless someone can find convincing information to support that outside chance. Hog Farm _Talk 19:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Quick attempt to find the mausoleum image online failed. And it is possible to upload images without exif, which I've done before when I don't want to include the location an image was taken in the file stuff. So I don't think we can prove that one either way. Hog Farm _Talk 20:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks HF! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Here is the hospital. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't speak images, so don't know if this one is OK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

License history indicates that it was released under CC-BY-SA 2.0 in 2012, so it seems to be fine to me. Hog Farm _Talk 20:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Aquaporin

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

Result pending

GA from 2017 interestingly enough. there's refimprove tags for NPA motif and ar/R selectivity filter sections, there's also some uncited areas and some other tags like who?, original research, and clarification needed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Keep: I've looked over the paper and there's actually very little wrong with it. It is richly cited, and the basic facts are covered (I see) by many of the research papers cited, some of which are review articles summarizing much earlier research. The tags were mostly very minor (fixed now); there were a couple of uncited chunks which I've removed. I've also stripped out an unnecessary image and expanded one or two citations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I've also reached out to a few academics on the topic who might be able to provide some feedback and ideas for general improvement (either directly here, or via emailing me). I realise external comments aren't standard for the GAR process, but I thought I'd see if it could be a useful addition to the editors who frequent WP:MolBio. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 03:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  

---

Doctor Who (series 2)

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

Result pending

Another GA from 2017. This has two problems. First, there's citation issues as the music and filming sections have no sources. Second, this also seems to fail broadness because there's absolutely nothing in the critical reception section. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Are these the only two issues? If so, I can begin working on rectifying these issues. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed Music and filming sources. Working on cast source and critical reception. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed Cast sources. Critical reception remaining. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

C Still working on it, sorry for the delay. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Tree That Owns Itself

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

Result pending

GA from 2006. Main problem is the lack of citations in many areas that have tagged with citation needed tags. Also has some page needed and full citation needed tags. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

With much sadness for such an interesting article, delist. This would need major work to maintain GA status. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Red Auerbach

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

Result pending

GA from 2007. There's some uncited material and the legacy section is a mess. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Pointing out this edit among other unreferenced additions. Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Battle of Baia

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

Result pending

With multiple CN tags and most of the sourcing before from the 1400s, I don't see how this meets the sourcing requirement of the modern GA standards. Primary author was indeffed in '07 for "Racism, hatespeech" so I don't think we're going to get any help from that front. Hog Farm _Talk 21:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Delist. Poor and ancient sources plus missing citations do not a GA make. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• Delist: The article is quite biased. It does not present the Hungarian viewpoint only the Romanian one. Many times it also rewritten "decisive Moldavian victory", which is nonsense, because it is not "a decisive victory" when the Hungarian army move back home after the battle, morover the king was wounded, the Moldavian army did not pursuit the Hungarian one, and when Matthias was in Transylvania he got begging letter from Stephen according to contemporary sources, and Stephen became his vassal. At least 6 contemporary Hungarian sources (what I know) from the court of King Matthias claim that the battle was Hungarian victory and the attacker Moldavians were killed and fleed (I presented quotes from original sources in the talk page above). Hungarian historiopraphy claim many things depend on historians: it was Hungarian victory, Stephen's propaganda boosted with "victory of Moldavians", it was a draw, etc, none of them presented in the article. It is also biased that the article use image from a Hungarian chronicle which say it was Hungarian victory, which means using image from the book is ok but using the content is not ok, strange. OrionNimrod (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  

---

Reckless (Bryan Adams album)

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

Result pending

An old 2011 GA that is in drastic need of improving, from unreliable sources, poor prose, inconsistent sources, etc. It might be salvageable. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Onion dome

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

Result pending

An older GA that contains significant uncited text, including material such as " It has been posited that onion domes first appeared in Russia" and material attributed to specific writers that certainly need direct citations. Hog Farm _Talk 14:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• Delist, it's very far from GA, with a dozen of maintenance templates. Artem.G (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
  

---

Gene Robinson

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

Result pending

GA from 2007. Has been tagged for needing additional citations and for possibly using unreliable sources. Also, the article might need some updates. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Newport News, Virginia

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

Result pending

GA from 2008. There's quite of unsourced material including the neighborhoods section having no sources while the article also needs quite a lot of updates. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

---

February 2009 North American storm complex

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

Result pending

This mostly has to do with updating refs and removing dead ones, but there are also WAY too many sections with too many paragraph breaks. There are also points where it is overly detailed. ChessEric 21:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You'll have to bear with me on this as it may take some time to get things up to par. I wrote this almost 14 years ago when I was in a phase of including minute details so it hasn't aged well. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

LOL! It's alright. We all aren't that good in the beginning and I for one, as you've seen with my recent tornado summaries, have trouble with being too detail-oriented. ChessEric 12:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Pennsylvania Railroad 4876

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

Result pending

2011 GA, with a drive-by pass for a review. Two citation needed tags for large portions of paragraphs lacking citations, and an additional paragraph also lacking sourcing. I've identified two more recent news articles that discuss the locomotive in detail which are not cited and should be considered [1] [2]. Overall, I think this article is salvageable, but it does need some work. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Peggy Rockman Napaljarri

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

Result pending

It has been 13 years since this article was listed as GA. It does not meet criterion 6 in particular. It also may not be current, and does not reflect her career since 2010. LibStar (talk) 06:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

---

David L. Cook

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

Result pending

Very bad sourcing from both a GA and BLP perspective. Neither of the sources in the death rumors section actually mentions rumors of Cook's death, there's uncited material, and large chunks of the article related to Cook's business dealings are sourced to primary sources from those organizations. Needs substantial work. Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

---

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