Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improvegood articles (GAs) that may no longer meet thegood article criteria and if necessary,delist them. 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 discussionbelow and are concluded according to consensus.
GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that usepeer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normaldispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the good article criteria. Many common problems (including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of theManual of Style) arenot covered by the criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment may be found on thecleanup listing. Delisted good articles may be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delisting.
Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
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
To open a good article reassessment, use theGAR-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 thegood article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the criteria may be speedily closed.
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).
Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.
Manual opening steps
Paste{{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet thegood article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the criteria may be speedily closed.
The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
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. ReplaceArticleName with the name of the article andn 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.
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. ReplaceArticleName with the name of the article andn with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
Reassessment process
Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them. Comments should focus on the article's contents and adherence to the criteria.
The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
Interested editors can indicate their intention to fix the article and give updates on their progress in the GAR. Commentators should periodically check the GAR and give additional comments when necessary.Wikipedia is not compulsory and editors should not insist that commentators, interested editors, or past GAN nominators make the suggested changes, nor should they state that edits should have been completed before the GAR was opened.
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.
If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance ofGAR coordinators at theGAN discussion page. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.
Closing a reassessment
To close a discussion, use theGANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).
GARs typically remain open for at least two weeks (14 days).
Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users orGAR coordinators.
If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meetsgood article criteria, the reassessment may be closed askeep.
If there is no consensus, the reassessment may also be closed as keep.
If the article has been kept, consider awardingthe Good Article Rescue Barnstar to the editor(s) who contributed significantly to bringing it up to standard.
After at least two weeks (14 days), if the article's issues are unresolved, and editors have clearly ceased making good-faith improvements to the article, and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed asdelist.
Manual closing steps
Locate{{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. Replace it with{{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replaceoutcome 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.
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 the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)
Disputing a reassessment
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.
Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
If discussing does not resolve concerns, editors may post at theGAN discussion page and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the GAR coordinators.
GAR Coordinators
The GAR Coordinators—Lee Vilenski,Chipmunkdavis, andTrainsandotherthings—work to organize GAR 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 theGAN discussion page.
The good articles listed below have been flagged for the attention of reviewers for reassessment. If reassessment is appropriate, please open a community reassessment and remove the{{GAR request}} template from the article talk page. For cases where no reassessment is needed, remove the template from the article talk page.User:AnomieBOT/C/Good articles in need of review
2026-02-14 07:32:25: Current date for reference
The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently afeatured article candidate, please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed.
Looks like this could use some work, its not up to standard with recently promoted GA's from WP:PALEO. The species section sticks out as especially egregious.The Morrison Man (talk)22:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of uncited statements, especially in the "2020 census" and "Parks and recreation" sections. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article.Z1720 (talk)23:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I have concluded that it's not possible for the article to retain compliance with the GA criteria when editors come to it and try to add content that is verbose, duplicative, failed verification, and has numerous other issues, as well as trying to work backwards and change the lead instead of letting it summarize the body of the article as it's supposed to. (t ·c)buIdhe01:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Premature Reassessment There is currently an RFC under way that will end in about ten days. By my count ten editors are in favor of making a change to the lead; one editor is in favor, but with a reservation; and one said "Yes and No" but is continuing to work towards consensus. Two editors are opposed to the change.
It appears, therefore, that once we reach consensus on the new lead, it will be an improvement over the previous version in the eyes of a large majority of the editors who have weighed in.
1. The reassessment should not go forward until at least after this RFC is concluded.
2. If the new edit goes through, it means the article will be madebetter than before in the eyes of a large majority of editors. That means that if the article is reassessed and no longer considered good, it must be acknowledged that it was not goodbefore the change occurred. Otherwise this reassessment would make it appear that it was good before the change, and the change made it worse, which would be false in the eyes of the large majority.Slava570 (talk)14:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC is about a single sentence in the lead, not the entire article. whatever your opinion on it, it has little bearing on whether the article currently meets the GA criteria. (t ·c)buIdhe16:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out. I'll work on adding reliable sources where requested. Could you please indicate which passages you feel have tonal issues?Earthh (talk)13:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I gave this a quick read, here are a few tone examples I noticed (not exhaustive):
"The trauma could have caused mental impairment to Van Dormael." the phrasing here is a little odd/speculative- my first thought was: well... did it or didn't it? I would attribute the statement to him for both clarity and tone
"Toto le héros propelled Van Dormael into the international spotlight as both a writer and director." "propelled" sounds a touch promotional to me, I would consider something plainer like"brought him international recognition" (if the source supports it)
"Van Dormael's next film... accomplishes this with the chance meeting" a bit editorial, I would just say what the film depicts
The themes section in my view needs a bit more of a thorough once-over, as it states interpretations as facts and uses evaluative language pretty much throughout. It also kind of reads likeoriginal research because the opinions are not clearly attributed to critics and/or scholars.
"Both Toto le héros and Le huitième jour...portrayed these characters lovingly, emphasizing their characteristic strengths." - this especially stands out to me on a NPOV level
Concerns about GA criterion 2d (copyright). In particular, there appears to be close paraphrasing throughout the Composition section, including multiple passages that closely follow the wording and structure of the cited reviews (notably Franzini 2023). The reviewed version of this article had a EW score of40.5%, which suggests a further look would have been warranted. Here are a selection of three text overlaps:
−
Source:"Treason,"theopeningtrack,starts with ajangly arrangement ofsynthsbeforecrescendoinginenergy.“Hatemyselffortreason,”sheself-admonishes,beforegoingback to a previous partner for one night.
+
Article:"Treason"opensthealbum with a"jangly arrangement ofsynths"thatgraduallycrescendos,assheadmits"hatemyselffortreason"whilereturning to a previous partner for one night.
−
Source:even on tracks wheresheisn’tnecessarilyinventinganythingnew,playingaroundincontemporary setsofR&Bandtrap,there’s still a spark that makes them hard-to-miss.
+
Article:...even on tracks whereTinasheisexploringcontemporaryR&Bandtrap setswithoutnecessarilyinventinganythingnew,"there's still a spark that makes them hard-to-miss".
−
Source:"Gravity,"too,like"Tightrope," usesits enigmatic vocal performance todiscussindecision:“I've been drowning in my dreamsagain,"shesays,"Ican'tdecideifItrustmyheartortrustmyeyes.”Butits hypnoticend,hercries topullher back down toearth,makesforadreamyfinish.
+
Article:"Gravity" usesan enigmatic vocal performance toreflectonindecision—"I've been drowning in my dreamsagain"—beforeendingina hypnoticplea tobepulled back down toearth.
Why don't you be bold at fixing those as the template states:BB/Ang3l has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further,please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.? You didn't even state the main problem inSongs for You, just saying it needs reassement. Honestly, I started to feel that you're trying to fail the good articles just for your scores of GA February backlog.Camilasdandelions (✉️)23:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge GARs have no bearing on the backlog drive. I'd appreciate it if we could keep this discussion on a mutual basis of good faith, as I am raising this solely because I have a credible concern that the article may not currently meet GA criterion 2d (copyright/close paraphrasing).Zzz plant (talk)23:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as they're all addressed. EW states over 40% just because{{Quote box}} exists.
I am listing this for reassessment because I am concerned this article was not fully evaluated against the GACR. The nomination was passed within an hour after just one minor wording tweak. It does not mention source spot-checking or broader assessment of coverage, prose, neutrality, or possible copyright/over-quotation issues. I think particularly with this article, the extent of direct quotation should have at least been mentioned. Additionally, the GA review progress box template notes that it should not be used without further commentary. This is not intended as criticism of either the nominator or reviewer, as both were clearly acting in good faith. I'm hoping a reassessment can confirm whether the article meets the GACR.Zzz plant (talk)18:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:@Zzz plant: This is one of my old, bad GA reviews done when I kind of just started doing them (I have now proudly made better ones, e.g.Planetary (Go!)). Anyway, here's a table for howSongs for You compares against the GA criteria (will update later):
Hi RedShellMomentum, thank you - I really appreciate you engaging with this in good faith and doing a full criteria-based reassessment. I think everyone changes how they approach GA reviews over time so I completely understand the feeling, and your recent review looks really nice and thorough. Thanks again for jumping in here,Zzz plant (talk)00:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance withthe layout style guideline.
Later.
2b.reliable sources arecited inline. All content thatcould reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
Album cover is obviously relevant to the topic. I'd say the same thing for the Hitmaka since the image caption says he was an executive producer for Tinashe's (scrapped) mixtape, and the background section talks about it. Passes
As I detailedhere, this is an incredibly short article at just over 1,700 character of text that is inadequately sourced. The sources present are 1.) a small town historical society's brief web article 2.) a short Maine Geological Survey slideshow 3.) a decently moderated but still user-generated trail finder website 4.) a self-published book and 5.) a brochure. The subject is not encyclopedically covered in this article and the sources do not live up to the GA standard. Both the nominator and reviewer are relatively new and unexperienced editors, so this strikes me far less as a policy issue and far more as an earnest mistake in how to perform a review. Best, ~Pbritti (talk)06:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns. I recognize this is a very short article, but I thought it met the bare minimum of the GA criteria. I did give it a thorough review and made several improvements, although I missed that the book was self-published. I disagree that Maine Trail Finder is user-generated. This a very narrow subject area (it’s a boulder in the woods), so I thought that the article’s coverage was sufficiently broad. The sources seemed reliable and supported what was written, minus two claims I removed.I2Overcometalk14:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all,
First off, I apologize for my ineptitude in regards to my DYK nomination; as I'm sure you picked up, I have no idea what I'm doing half the time, but I am trying hard to learn. In regards to the short length of the article, as I2Overcome said, the article is "very short, but there doesn't appear to be much else to say about this topic". In regards to my inadequate sourcing, I had thought sources from both a Historical Society and State Wide Geologic Survey would suffice, but I greatly appreciate your input. Regardless, I have since reached out to said Historical Society asking for addition sources, and they should get back to me in the upcoming 48 hours. Thank you very much for putting up with my inexperience.Alces Alces Americana (talk)14:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You should give yourself more credit; it was a good effort, and there was nothing specifically wrong with the DYK nomination other than a disagreement over whether the GA criteria were met.I2Overcometalk15:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The DYK nomiantion is fine, but this is not GA material or article. It is not"Broad in its coverage",you said it yourself "it’s a boulder in the woods", unless it becomes part of scientific studies or envelopment in other areas, it is not more than a stub/start article.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk)16:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret "broad in its coverage" as meaning the article covers the main aspects of the topic, which this article does. There’s no requirement that the topic of the article be the subject of scientific studies (although it has been the subject of geological study).I2Overcometalk16:31, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage here is insufficient to meet the broadness requirement. There are a small number of details regarding the folklore elements related to this rock, but they are rather weakly sourced. As such, we have very little cultural discussion of the rock. Glancing at recent news coverage, there is certainly cultural interest in the rock. However, I would encourage the consultation of larger databases like JSTOR or newspaper archives to locate additional mentions of the rock. ~Pbritti (talk)16:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t ask for a second opinion because I didn’t believe it was necessary. Clearly I was wrong. I’ve never reviewed an article this short before but I thought the coverage was broad enough for a very narrow topic area.I2Overcometalk17:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm supportive of reassessment and think Pbritti has raised valid points. However, GA status in most cases is based on the opinions of two editors, and even experienced reviewers apply the GACR differently (broadness especially, in my experience). I don't think a reassessment means you did anything wrong- you meaningfully engaged with the article in your review (i.e. not just "looks fine, passing now"). Others may reasonably disagree with the outcome, but I hope no one involved feels too discouraged. This is a very natural part of the peer review process.Zzz plant (talk)15:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for saying that, Zzz plant. If my start of this reassessment was interpreted as "you're bad at Wikipedia" by anyone, let me clarify: no, a GAR means nothing other than one or more editors have concern about just the GA status of a single article. That you even bothered to write a decently well researched article on this subject is a sign that you are a benefit to the project,Alces Alces Americana. If you ever want a pair of eyes to assist you, please feel more than welcome to ask me. Best, ~Pbritti (talk)16:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree about the list in the Arab Revolt section - it is, specifically, a list of the occasions when TEL *personally* participated in combat. It would be clumsy in prose. Is there an argument for replacing it with a single short paragraph saying that TEL participated in conflict X times between the dates Y and Z, with a bunch of citations?
I also disagree on the Awards and Commemorations, that one seems reasonable.
As for popular culture, there is a regular flow of incoming junk, most of which gets removed by @Dormskirk or me. Is there a good discussion somewhere of how to make judgements on what to leave in/put out? I think quite a bit of this would be useful to a person who'd just read 7PW or some other reason has become a TEL aficionado and is looking for other stuff to read. I'd be happy to see it pruned but there needs to be a principled basis.Tim Bray (talk)19:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The list in the Arab Revolt section seems to fall underWP:NOTSTATS. If there's nothing individually notable about the entries in that list, then it can be summarized. I would recommend something likeLawrence's most important contributions to the Arab Revolt were in the area of strategy and liaison with British Armed Forces, but he also participated personally in several military engagements between 1917 and 1918. Among these were X, Y, and Z", with those being the few examples that there's more to say about than just "he was in it". For instance, thea failed attack on the Yarmuk bridges, blew up a train on the railway between Dera'a and Amman, suffering several wounds in the explosion and ensuing combat anda region southeast of the Dead Sea, with Arab regulars under the command of Jafar Pasha al-Askari... parts I think could stay.
The "Awards" section still looks messy with a bunch of one-sentence paragraphs. That should be combined into a pargraph or two to flow better. We generally try to avoid one-sentence paragraphs here.
As for the "in popular culture" segment, please readWP:TRIVIA andWP:NOTTVTROPES. "In popular culture" sections are not meant to be a catch-all for every time the person was name-dropped or referenced in fiction. This should be trimmed to the most noteworthy examples about which there is much to say, and if there really is aregular flow of incoming junk, most of which gets removed, then that also means it fails the "stability" criterion ofWP:WIAGA.Ten Pound Hammer •(What did I screw up now?)19:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with the GAR nominator re. the list/single paragraphs format. While it's acceptable in, for example, thePublished works section, which is a list, I don't think it's necessarily the best format for the opening paragraph ofArab Revolt,Awards and commemorations orIn popular culture. I think all three could work recast as prose. But I also agree withUser:TimBray that some kind of criteria for inclusion/deletion in relation to the last would be useful. For me, it is something like: (a) Does the artefact (film/book/tv series etc.) tell us something of importance about Lawrence and/or (b) is the artefact culturally importantand is Lawrence central to it? On this basis, I would include Lean'sLawrence of Arabia on both (a) and (b), but I would excise Ridley Scott'sPrometheus andAlien Covenant, on the basis that they don't meet (a) or the second part of (b). I appreciate this is subjective, but I don't think we'll find anything objective.
If it would help, I'll have a go at a redraft over the weekend, and then interested parties, I knowUser:Dormskirk will have views as well, can see what they think. If it's not seen as an improvement, it can easily be rolled back.KJP1 (talk)14:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And indeed it is. Thanks! (Still not convinced the bulgy paragraphs full of military engagements are really an improvement on the former list, but no biggie.)Tim Bray (talk)01:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Update
I have now had a go, in line with the above except in relation to theIn popular culture section. Here,User:Nikkimaria pointed me toMOS:IPC and I have used that as the inclusion/exclusion criteria. In brief:
Arab Revolt introduction - bullets to prose / everything has been maintained except the specific dates of the engagements. These could be included but might make it a bit too wordy.
Awards and commemorations - seven short para.s combined into three. A number of bluelinks added. Nothing removed, except bits of extraneous detail.
In popular culture - this is somewhat more dramatic, and I have tried to summarise everything in detailed edit summaries. Bullets have been converted to prose. Quite a lot has been removed, on the basis ofMOS:IPC. Of that which remains, I have attempted to demonstrate relevance toMOS:IPC through bluelinks, extra citations and some explanatory text.
I would be very appreciative if people could take a look and let me know, firstly if they are content, and secondly whether it is sufficient to address the GAR concerns. I've not touched theExternal links section, nor the, equally lengthy,Further reading section.KJP1 (talk)13:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks really good. The only thing I'd do is move the list of published works to just before the refs, as it feels odd to start again with lengthy text sections after the list of works. But as far as GAR is concerned, the article's in excellent shape.Chiswick Chap (talk)15:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Largest issue with the page is that it contains large uncited portions some of which have had cn tags since 2022.May also have some neutrality issues in referring to Muhammad Ahmad as "the Mahdi", an Islamic figure said to appear in the end times to rid the world of evil, just because Ahmad claimed to be the Mahdi does not mean that the page should refer to him as such.DervotNum4 (talk)19:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The article relies upon quotes and block quotes, which should be summarised more effectively.Z1720 (talk)19:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article should be reassessed because I'm concerned it doesn't meet Criterion 3a (broadness). Mainly because the plot synopsis seems extremely sparse, at less than 100 words. It functions more as a "teaser" or premise rather than a full overview of the narrative. PerMOS:FILMPLOT, the section should provide "an overview of the main events" and is generally "between 400 and 700 words."Zzz plant (talk)16:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Of the three main sections, Development looks okay, but the fancruft seems to have gradually built up in Appearances and Reception has extremely dense and lengthy quotations packed into massive block paragraphs. I also see three maintenance templates.— An anonymous username,not my real name22:03, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Boneless Pizza! Yes, I did receive the notification, thank you. Sadly I've watched as slowly the article fell into disrepair due to fancruft and edit warning. I couldprobably make some edits to the problem areas that would salvage it to a certain degree, but I'm not 100% committed to taking on this project.Changedforbetter (talk)17:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite dissapointing. I'm not sure about this,but I think I can lend you a hand by expanding the reception if you're committed to resolve GAR issues. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔)19:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Couple issues listed at the talk page. The last paragraph of "Further Appearances" has no reference, the "Reception" section is all over the place with not a lot of reviews. Additionally, should the infobox have every single song featured in the episode when none of those songs are notable? (Kind of a shame the article is the way it is, this is one of my favorite episodes of the show...)Gommeh📖🎮19:10, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fossil record. The article states that there is no fossil record. There is a candidate macrofossil (Eopuntia douglasii), but this has also been identified as cyperaceous.There is also a putativeCretaceous cactus, but this is chronologically implausible (Cactaceae is by consensus a young family).
An absence of macrofossils is not especially surprising, but I would expect there to be a fossil pollen record, and indeed there are some papers reporting fossil Cactaceae pollen.Lavateraguy (talk)12:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Citations. I've dealt with the two "citation needed" templates by adding citations (and in one case slightly revising the text). I've also restored consistent citation style: the article uses CS2, including no terminal period/full stop on short footnotes.Peter coxhead (talk)07:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article's prose seems unfocused and off-topic. The information in "Timeline" and "Other people related to the case" sections should be moved to other parts of the article and expanded so the article reads more like a narrative and less like a list. The "Comparisions to other deaths" section should connect to this event more effectively. "References in pop culture" should be written as prose instead of a bulleted list. There are also unreferenced statements in the article.Z1720 (talk)04:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is the state the page was in when it was listed as a GA. I think sections like "Possibly related events" and "Comparisons to other deaths" are weak and need to be rewritten, but it is salvageable. Are there any other ways to phrase "References in pop culture"? It feels like a crass way to talk about a man who was murdered. Maybe "Cultural depictions", "Cultural references" or something like that?aesurias(ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk)04:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
From a quick look, it appears that the article structure has changed since I took it to FAC 14(!) years ago. I chose to put the international bits chronologically in the main body, as I thought it helped the narrative flow. They've since been broken out into their own section, losing referencing in the process. I should be able to repair a lot of it from referring to old revisions.Oldelpaso (talk)22:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend restoring the article to itsA-class state which is fully referenced and cited. Since then, a number of editors have "edited" the article, in some instances removing large sections, including the citations. CheersMisterBee1966 (talk)08:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is uncited text in the article, especially at the end of the "Acts of the Apostles" section. While some of this might be covered underMOS:PLOT, I also see analysis in those paragraphs which will require citations. The article relies on large blocks of quotations, which is against Wikipedia'ssummary style. The "Bible references" seems like a list of random quotes without explanation, which should be removed perWP:INDISCRIMINATE and potential moved to Wikiquote.Z1720 (talk)20:53, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Got rid of the quotes and am working on moving it to Wikiquote. I might be able to help out a little bit more, but don't count on it as I'm kind of busy IRL.❤HistoryTheorist❤03:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous unsourced statements, outdated information that needs correction or expansion, some poor quality sourcing, and proseline abound.Generalissima (talk) (it/she)07:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this and agree that the proseline and sourcing was a problem. I've just gone through the article and removed the proseline, along with some irrelevant details (for example, there were entire paragraphs dedicated to unrelated topics such as the contractors' other work and a 9/11 lawsuit). In the process of doing so, I've removed some of the more unreliable Twitter sources as well. –Epicgenius (talk)13:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The article is also quite large and I think several sections can be summarised more effectively.Z1720 (talk)01:11, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs (especially in the "North American" subsection of the "Dietary" section).Z1720 (talk)03:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnjbarton: I have added some additional citation needed templates. The "Supplementation" section needs to be formatted more effectively, with paragraphs being merged together.Z1720 (talk)03:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The "International Championship results" section has an orange "more sources needed" banner from 2019 because there are no inline citations in that section. That section also mentions competitions she has participated in, but her competitive biography section stops at 2004 and the "Rollkur" section mentioned 2010: this article probably needs to be updated with more recent information of her biography.Z1720 (talk)15:55, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The source of the "International Championship results" section was in the External links section so I added a citation to the top of that section. ▶ I am Grorp ◀20:20, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]The competitive biography section DOES NOTstop at 2004 but already mentions the 2012 olympics, the 2006 WEG results, the 2009 World Cup, and the 2009 European championship results. Each of those ARE the most recent results in those categories for this competitor. I added a single sentence to include the most recent, 2015, reining result. Her"all results" on the FEI website shows her last competition was in 2015, so I don't think there is any more updating that needs to be included.As for the rollkur section, the controversy WAS in 2007-2010 and there doesn't appear to be any update re Anky. Apparently Anky was a prominent dressage rider at the time the whole rollkur controversy erupted in the sport, which caused her to be tangled up in it. FEI banned rollkur in 2010 and has since been focused on general horse-welfare standards rather than Anky specifically, and though rollkur still sparks debate, Anky is no longer any prominent figure in it.I find the article well-written, well-sourced, broad, neutral, stable, and illustrated. Having debunked each of the three of the nominator's reasons for a good article review, I'm not sure there's any point in continuing it. ▶ I am Grorp ◀20:49, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Grorp: Thank you for addressing these comments. A GAR is to assess the article against the GA criteria and make improvements. There isn't anything to "debunk" and no rush to come to a conclusion as either keep or delist. I found some post-2016 sources with information that might need to be added to the article:
Are you interested in taking a look and seeing if these should be added to the article, or if there's anything else to add?Z1720 (talk)21:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not the most important thing, but I am a bit confused by the order of sections. Isn't personal life not more suitable for later in the article, and shouldnt Rollkur be before the large table?
There is also very little biography outside of her competitive career, which makes me wonder if it meets criteria 3. There is a 2005 biography and autobiography, which might give more information. There are also some sources about what she has been doing after her own competitive career. And there is more information about her children following her footsteps.Dajasj (talk)08:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's a "does not cite any sources" orange banner at the top of the "Mount Hope Estate Craft Brands" section, which I agree with. This should be resolved for the article to retain its GA status.Z1720 (talk)14:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this section, introduced in 2018, is an issue and I felt like it contained too much specific detail in an article which isn't actually dedicated to this brewing company. I removed much of it, leaving a sufficient bare-bones which still needs citing. I'd sooner think we'd remove the section entirely if it's either that or the article's GA status, if adaquate sourcing isn't available.Bungle(talk •contribs)18:31, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken a look a few times at any suitable sources for the other bits, but haven't found any I am happy satisfy the criteria. If I can't, and nobody else shows up to assist, i'd suggest either removing the parts identified without a citation or replacing with something else noted in the sources I found. I'll take another look over the weekend, if it seems there won't be anyone else!Bungle(talk •contribs)09:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I looked and found the paragraphs about the music performed in church services not cited. What can we do? Same problem as at Bach's time: there was no press coverage of his cantatas except the one that he performed when he assumed the post (and it only said it was good, without details). There has been no press coverage for musical groups doing church work in Idstein, not even for the choir jubilee. It still happened, there are images. What do you think about splitting the details of church music in a separate article, like splitting the recordings offBWV 1? - Happy Wikipedia jubilee! --Gerda Arendt (talk)06:26, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In a first step, I looked at the section Chorale concerts. It comes with an introduction whichsummarizes information that is referenced in the table below, to highlight certain aspects, such as period instruments and ecumenical collaboration. This summary had no references, like a lead has no references, but I copied now the individual references to the summary. --Gerda Arendt (talk)09:04, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the LLM allegations tie more to the rewrites, particularly the lead, rather than the main content which seems to me adequately cited except for some additions since the article got awarded GA. I might devote a bit of time to rework this article, comparing withGA version (written in 2012) and updating accordingly.--ZKang123 (talk·contribs)14:09, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
one thing that sticks out to me are the citations to primary sources, such as laws, constitutions, court cases, the singapore democratic party, and a parliamentary debate(!!), which should probably be replaced with secondary sources. specifically, references 2-3, 6-8, 11, 13-18, 21, 23-32, 34-36, 39-46, 50, 53-60, 72-73, and 77 are primary sources. (this citation style is hard to work through.)ltbdl (destroy)07:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The government sources are the most authoritative and accurate sources in this context. I do agree that some of the sources could be replaced by secondary sources, should such sources exist, but I think the usage of primary sources here is okay.Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!)13:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this should be delisted over a few citation needed tags. I'm considering keeping this, on the condition that the sentences that are tagged with{{cn}} are either removed or have a reliable source added to them. What does everyone else think?
I've taken a look and improved upon the points raised. I have left the Amazon citations (and added a few more) in the "Home media" section, since theWikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources article states that,While Amazon itself is a reliable source for basic information about a work (such as release date, ISBN, etc.), it is unnecessary to cite Amazon when the work itself may serve as a source for that information. Let me know if anything else needs to be improved upon.Mr Sitcom (talk)00:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr Sitcom: Between your edits and a couple more tweaks I made just now, I think this is close to being kept. I still feel the "home release" section should be cited to something other than Amazon if another source can be found.Ten Pound Hammer •(What did I screw up now?)18:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Plot has several lines of dialogue in it that I don't think are necessary.
"Cultural references" section had a{{trivia}} tag from July 2024. I personally think this section is fine, but could see the argument for removing it or integrating the info elsewhere.
More strongly though, I think the "reception" section is a train wreck. It's a cavalcade of random listicles and rankings on arbitrary best-of lists with no rhyme or reason for what was chosen and why.
I also feel the article is overly reliant on DVD commentary and other primary sources relative to the secondary sources.
Z1720 raised similar issues on the talk page in November 2025 and these went unaddressed.
It looks like the last GA sweeps from 2007 and 2009 barely skimmed the surface on what the article evenhad, and fancruft has since bloated it up.
@JHD0919: I added a citation needed tag to the article, and I think several one-sentence paragraphs in the "Critical reception" section need to be merged together.Z1720 (talk)15:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are uncited statements throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. While some are not necessary perWP:CALC, other text should be cited if it makes a definitive statement that are not calculations. There are lots of sources listed in the "Bibliography" that are not used as inline citations and in the "Further reading" section. Does this article cover all major aspects of the topic? Some sections are too long and make it difficult to navigate (especially on mobile) such as "Historical context", "Precession of the Moon's orbit", "Proposition 43; Problem 30" and "Modern derivation". These should be summarised more effectively or split up using additional headers.Z1720 (talk)15:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the "Further reading" items really belonged in the "Bibliography", because they were cited in the text. After sorting out that kind of thing, all the "Bibliography" items are actually used. "Further reading" is down to 4 entries, which seems reasonable.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)10:44, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am still working on this, as I find the time. I was concerned that the article underplayed the difference between Newtonian geometrical notation/language and the way physics calculations are done now, but this was easier to address than I originally anticipated.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)23:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is much improved since the first time I looked at it. It's still too long but that seems to be par for the course on Good Articles.
To me the biggest issue is that the article obscures the central reason Newton invested so much time and energy in this arcane result. He was not trying to address the orbit of the Moon, a task he failed at anyway. His core motivation was to show that the inverse-square law for gravity had to be correct because the planets have zero observed precession. This proof of the inverse-square law is the reason we call it Newtonian gravity.Johnjbarton (talk)03:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The "Overview" section is not clearly defined. Is this supposed to be a lead for the article? Information about the planning process? I think this information should be moved to other places in the article and cited. There are other uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and the entire "Murals" section.Z1720 (talk)15:36, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Years after promotion, a user weirdly duplicated the history section, then it'd turned into this weird overview section. I'm not sure what the goal was. It looks like maybe it was an attempt to make a better lead? I'll try to clean it up and update the article. --TorsodogTalk16:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)\[reply]
There are uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. There is a "Updates needed" orange banner at the top of the "Depot" section from May 2023, which needs to be resolved.Z1720 (talk)15:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea for a reassessment to bring it to peoples attention. I had this article at GA quality a few years ago and then a user by the name of NotOrrio decided to bring it up to FA article status, reorganised everything and added banners everywhere and then promptly abandoned his efforts 1 week later leaving the article far from GA status.HoHo3143 (talk)05:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While this article was the subject of major edits, I still see a 'needs expansion' template, and also some end of paragraphs without citations. This may be delisted if these haven't been addressed within a couple weeks. I was surprised to see a couple year old GA to be nominated for GAR, normally, those have been a GA fpr at least 10 years.JuniperChill (talk)17:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The "needs expansion" tag is overzealous tagging: it mentions some things thatcould be added if someone wants to try and promote the article to FA. I think the depots section is adequately informative for a GA, so I've removed the tag.Cremastra (talk·contribs)17:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Given this was listed as GA only a couple of years ago, could it not be reverted to the diff when it was listed and then updated for the changes to the city circle?TarnishedPathtalk09:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take this one on. Doesn't look to be too bad. In addition to resolving the unbalanced banner, I'll also go through and do some light copyediting, as well as update and replace dead refs.Famous Hobo (talk)02:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will clean this up, but I'm frankly surprised that the article passed in the way it was in the first place. The[citation needed] tags are due to the absence of the once-citedMetal Experience, which the original reviewer should have flagged as unreliable. I can trim those spots because I'm not optimistic that suitable sources exist for a band as obscure in most of the world as Kalmah.mftpdanoops20:41, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some progress. Unfortunately, I'm not finding much in the way of surviving sourcing for this album. Like I said, Kalmah is obscure to the English-speaking world, and simply removing material attached to these tags will not be enough for every instance they appear. I've reduced the number of[citation needed] tags from nine to five by carefully selecting what could feasibly be pruned, but in my opinion not every one of them can be without compromising the GA coverage of the article. I'm gonna keep looking, but I'm not optimistic.mftpdanoops13:37, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, this thing. Thank you for reminding me. I'll look at it tonight, I found one English source that could be of help; perhaps there are Finnish sources that we haven't tapped.mftpdanoops19:36, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I creep closer. The first section is going to be the most difficult to fix. I was only able to find one suitable English-language source, but perhaps there are more Finnish-language sources to try.mftpdanoops17:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. Some of these have been tagged with "citation needed" templates from 2021 or 2019, and there's even a citation needed template in a reference (which I have never seen before) added in 2016.Z1720 (talk)19:55, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 taking account of the citation needed templates, I see no entire paragraphs without citations; is there anything else you've identified that is not satisfying the GA criteria? I'll look to clean this up; please give me a week. Regards,Goldsztajn (talk)22:47, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn: I placed a citation needed template in the article. The uncited paragraphs are the second paragraph of "Causes of the strike", last paragraph of "Dynamiting the Strong mine", and the third and fifth paragraphs of "Impact of the strike". I would also suggest expanding the lead to cover all major aspects of the topic.Z1720 (talk)23:35, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. There are many short, one-sentence paragraphs in the article that should be merged together.Z1720 (talk)19:20, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TompaDompa I added a "citation needed" template, and "The Daily Caller" isn't considered a reliable source so it should probably be replaced. I also think the lead still needs to be expanded and the latter parts of "Variants" formatted more effectively.Z1720 (talk)02:49, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't have access to the sources that the author used to write this article, so all I could do was a bit of cleanup and removing the irrelevant, unsourced trivia that crept in over the years.Reaper Eternal (talk)21:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to help with this, but I have reduced capacity for content work over the next month. Could I please ask for this to be left open slightly longer if needed?Toadspike[Talk]11:42, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike: Absolutely. In a couple weeks an editor might ping you here to get an update (so that we know work is ongoing). If you make progress, you can also note it here.Z1720 (talk)13:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is quite large and has a "too long" yellow banner at the top from September 2025. When I skimmed through the article, I found lots of places that had too much detail, not fulfillingthe GA criteria 3b which says the article "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail." I think much of the prose could be summarised more effectively and/or have information moved tospun out articles, especially in the "History" section.Z1720 (talk)16:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thissource goes into more detail on the difference between Yila (Ila) and Yelü (Yerud). They are different names for the same clan but adopted at different times. I would keep both of them.Qiushufang (talk)01:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting for the record that while there have been no further comments here indicating interest in addressing the issues raised above, I have refrained from closing the discussion as a fair amount of editing has been undertaken byQiushufang in the meantime. For clarity as to whether this could be closed or should remain open:Qiushufang, is it your intention to resolve the issues raised above during the course of thisWP:GAR?TompaDompa (talk)00:41, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning on putting info from the pre-dynastic history section into the Khitan people page to decrease article length. Not sure when I'll get to it though, as an article of primary interest to me, I'll be editing it on and off for a long time, but I got a bit side tracked.Qiushufang (talk)02:36, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing a fair amount of uncited material still on the article. For clarity as to whether this could be closed or should remain open:Sir Joseph, is it your intention to do further work on this article during the course of thisWP:GAR?TompaDompa (talk)19:53, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Joseph: I have added citation needed templates in various places in the article. Unreliable sources are used in the article and should be replaced or removed like Peta.org,https://judaism.stackexchange.com/, and uses of Chabad.org will need to be evaluated to ensure that the statements verified from this source are equated to the particular Jewish denomination or verified by sources that are more reliable to the whole Jewish population. I also think some of the smaller paragraphs throughout the article can be merged together.Z1720 (talk)01:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so at this point several of those sections have been cited. Now, there are just a few uncited areas remaining; a few lines or graphs from the early history, and some covering the unit's actions after the 2010 GAN. My thought is to cut the parts of the early history with no references. I am not seeing easy book sources that could help fill the gap on the 2010s deployments. —Ed!(talk)02:30, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, most of the remaining uncited content is from the "21st Century" section, including a few sentences here and there and the two large graphs about the 2010 and 2013 deployments. Seems like some of it is original research, but also old enough there should be some sources. Any ideas for where it could be cited? —Ed!(talk)02:13, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ed!: Sorry, I'm not understanding your question above. Is this question asking where there are uncited statements in the article, where to find new sources, or something else?Z1720 (talk)16:23, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's a call for sources; I think we've largely contained the uncited info to one section but I'm struggling to find where the additions are being sourced from. —Ed!(talk)22:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added some citations and cut the last things I couldn't find sources for. Let me know if anything else needs doing. —Ed!(talk)23:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ed!: I have added a couple of citation needed tags to the article. GlobalSecurity is used as a reference several times in the article, but it seems to be blacklisted onWP:RSP and will need to be replaced.Z1720 (talk)00:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This top-importance Medicine article was listed in 2013, and has not been kept up-to-date. Opening the GAR in the hope of finding someone who would like to give the article a once-over
In contrast toWP:MEDDATE, the article's median source year is 2011
The economics section is US-focussed, and ends in 2010
The 2007 NICE guidelines are cited, even though the2024 guidelines are out
I’m willing to take this on if I can have some time to wrap up my studies and the Coeliac disease article (studies wrap up in 2 weeks and i’m hoping the CD article will wrap up around them as well)IntentionallyDense(Contribs)05:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so this seems to be quite a big project. This is not something I will reasonably be able to do in under a month but I'm going to chip away at it. I'm going to start by removing some information that is not mentioned in recent sources and go from there. Seeing as this is a huge article I don't think it needs tons of info added moreso just some reshuffling of existing info and updating.IntentionallyDense(Contribs)18:52, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Guideline updates
GINA guidelines: The scope of the 2011 and 2025 GINA guidelines closely match. In most cases, citations to the 2011 guideline can be replaced with citations to the 2025 guideline, provided that the accompanying text is updated to reflect current recommendations.
NICE / SIGN guidelines: The scopes of SIGN 101 and SIGN 158 closely match, whereas NICE NG245 has a narrower focus. As a result, citations to SIGN 101 can generally be replaced with SIGN 158, but not with NG245.
NHLBI guidelines: The scope of the 2020 NHLBI focused update is substantially narrower than that of the 2007 NHLBI/NAEPP guidelines (EPR-3). The 2007 guideline therefore remains generally valid except where its recommendations have been superseded by the 2020 focused update. Consequently, most citations to the 2007 guideline cannot be replaced by the 2020 update.
It's being worked on, still left to do are the following:
Rework lead. Ideally no citations as especially with the rp template, they clutter things
Update associated conditions. Includes removing exact percentages as they aren't that helpful to readers IMO and they get outdated easily
Classification. Trim the second para and the asthma exacerbation subheading (overly technical at times) Condense the 3 subtypes remaining into above paragraphs. Add a bit more info on symptom control and severity
Causes. Currently working on this in a sandboxUser:IntentionallyDense/Asthma but basically just condense info and update it
Pathophysiology. Update it and possibly simplify it a bit
Diagnosis. Update and condense
Update prognosis and epidemiology
Combine the economy and health disparities into a society and culture section
Cancerning{{rp}}, these will be replaced later this year withSub-referencing which is a much cleaner solution. Harvard-style referencing fragments citation information between inline notes and the reference list, requiring readers to jump between sections to understand precisely what part of a source supports a claim. Sub-referencing keeps page and chapter details directly beneath the full citation, allowing readers to verify sources immediately and with less effort.Boghog (talk)09:42, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see work in going quite well. I do notice quite a few quite technical bits being introduced however. For instance, the lead uses the terms bronchioles and alveoli, without explaining them. Not sure if it's possible to simplify the treatment section of the lead, but it comes across as more technical than our typical reader might need. In the genetics section, loci is not explained, atopic isn't defined (is it a necessary word?). In general the genetic correlation paragraph is tough to understand.—Femke 🐦 (talk)12:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My only contribution was a drive-by fix to an sfn reference error. I can help with formatting of references and copyediting if requested, but I won't be able to do any substantive work on the content. Best,Wham2001 (talk)12:03, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I have recently made edits related to Check Wikipedia Project, some formatting issues and such, but I won't be able to do any substantive work on the content.
@TompaDompa, I'll get to work on the article soon. I was tied up with the Horatio Nelson GAR, which is almost done, and so I didn't have much time left for this one. I expect to be done in about 3 weeks.Matarisvan (talk)12:44, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doing...RedShellMomentum01:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done genetic evidence section completely rewritten and supported with recent MEDRS compliant sources
Not done NHLBI_2007 → NHLBI_2020 (not possible since scope of NHLBI_2020 is much narrower than NHLBI_2007)