Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improvegood articles (GAs) that may no longer meet thegood 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 discussionbelow and are concluded according to consensus. The GAR Coordinators—Lee Vilenski,Chipmunkdavis, andTrainsandotherthings—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 thetalk page.
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 reassessmentonly assesses whether the article meets the six 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 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 thecleanup listing. Delisted good articles can 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 rationalemust specify how you believe the article does not meet thegood article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
The user scriptdoes 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 GACR 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 good article 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 of GAR coordinators atWikipedia 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 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 one month.
Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed askeep at any time.
If there is no consensus, the reassessment may also be closed askeep.
After at least one month, if the article's issues areunresolved and there areno objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed asdelist. 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 asilent consensus and close asdelist.
If the article has beenkept, consider awardingthe Good Article Rescue Barnstar to the editor(s) who contributed significantly to bringing it up to standard.
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 wasobviously against consensus orotherwise 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 should post atWikipedia talk:Good article nominations and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the coordinators.
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.
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.
No post-2010 information, even though a Google search indicates that she continued playing during that time, and the infobox mentions that she played into 2013.Z1720 (talk)04:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ot much post-2019 information about his time with the Atlanta Hawks or post-retirement career, and no information about his play style. A Google search found source about his assistant coaching and other analysis of his career. The lead also mentions a podcast which is not cited in the article body.Z1720 (talk)04:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Update needed" banner from 2023. A Google search revealed that she released a single in 2012, got divorced in 2017 and spoke about sexual harrassment she received in the industry in 2025, so I think it is valid and needs to be addressed for this article to retain its status.Z1720 (talk)04:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and many of the awards. Unreliable sources are used in the article, such as Hello Magazine. These should be replaced with better sources or the text it supports removed. The 2017-2019 section is underdeveloped. This should have more text added to this section or merged with another section.Z1720 (talk)03:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are some uncited statements in the article. While the "Synopsis" section is covered underMOS:PLOT, others should be cited. Discogs is used as a source, but is considered unreliable by Wikipedia so it should be replaced.Z1720 (talk)03:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article was not reviewed thoroughly and is basically one huge piece of original research, references are entirely primary sources and even Google Maps (!). I personally don't think this is salvageable, considering I can imagine this getting sent to AfD in this state.JustARandomSquid (talk)21:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh. The editor that reviewed this appears to have reviewed it (not much reviewing seems to have gone on though) as one of 52 articles duringthis backlog drive. A sample check of a few of the highway related ones shows that they are just as problematic as this one — same deal, referencing almost entirely from primary sources (yes, Google maps too), original research, notability tags...
Maps are perfectly acceptable sources, especially for highway articles. Taken as a complete collection, the official state highway maps document the various changes made to the state highway system from its inception to the modern day, when each individual highway was extended, truncated, rerouted, commissioned or decommissioned. They are not primary sources; they're no more primary than a newspaper article that reports facts from multiple sources, and yet those same newspaper articles aren't viewed with any bias when they appear in the reference list of an article.
Translating the content of maps to words is not original research any more than translating the content of a French-language source is original research, and yet we don't hold any disdain for non-English sources.
That all said, I've added some additional newspaper articles not conveniently available when this article was original written and reviewed 13 years ago. On that basis, no AfD should be necessary nor desirable, and the article should be in better shape to retain its current status. I'd be happy to work on other articles as time allows if someone is gracious enough to drop a line on my talk page before initiating another GAR.Imzadi 1979→08:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hard disagree. Looking at a historical map from an archive of the organisation that built what it depicts and then writing a history of the road based on that is precisely what a historian should be doing and precisely NOT what a Wikipedia editor should be doing. Most of the old newspaper cuttings are kind of the same problem, though not as bad. Don't get me wrong, the article isn't bad, especially with the new sources, it's just not Good with a capital G.JustARandomSquid (talk)13:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uncited statements, including the entire "TV adaption" section and the "Additional citations needed" orange banner in the "Deleted scenes" section (which could perhaps be removed). Unreliable sources are used in the article, including Blue-ray.com, medium.com, and reddit. These should be replaced with reliable sources.Z1720 (talk)03:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - I feel like articles that arguably shouldn't have passed their GA review in the first place should somehow be treated differently than those that have since deteriorated. This article's extreme overreliance on primary, non-independent and/or unreliable sources, as well as the unsourced cast list were all issues present in 2012, and from what I can see the sourcing doesn't even appear to have been addressed in the review. Editors aren't being asked to polish up an old diamond or whatever, they're being asked to full on develop a GA, which isn't really the point. Maybe there should be a separate process to annul problematic reviews rather than for articles to spend a month here in the hopes that someone feels pressured into fixing them.JustARandomSquid (talk)17:44, 25 November 2025 (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]
The article has had a "neutrality disputed" orange banner on it since January 2023. A discussion on the talk page indicated that this was because there isn't enough prose on his racial views. There is also uncited text in the article.Z1720 (talk)03:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find the coverage of his views on race and immigration to be sufficiently clear. There is also a picture of his bust having been taken off the pedestal in a MIT museum. The article seems neutral enough to me. --Melchior2006 (talk)05:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the Legacy section now has a paragraph on his racist views, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs section does not appear to have been updated to reflectHyde's work (the source of the "neutrality disputed" banner, discussedon the article's talk page) on his work in that position. The argument put forward in the discussion on the article's talk page that "The above reference by Hyde is revisionist and inconsistent with Walker's words and actions", leading to the conclusion that there should not be a neutrality tag over failing to include it, relies onWP:OR to justify not including this material.WP:NPOV is clear that "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources", so excluding work on the subject by a notable historian specifically because some editors disagree with it would certainly seem to be a breach of neutrality. Until this is addressed, the article failsWP:GACR6.Robminchin (talk)00:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took a brief skim of the article and couldn't find any paragraph that went uncited save for one of the lead paragraphs (although I haven't check if that paragraph's content is confirmed in the body). Given the length of this article, could you mention what text is uncited, or at the very least mark it with{{citation needed}} to be visible on the article itself?Gramix13 (talk)03:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding the citation needed tags to the article. I went in and added sourcing to four of them, with the other one (about the location of the subject's grave) being removed as I couldn't find a reliable source for this and I don't consider it to be notable enough for the article. (I did find it listed on Find A Grave, but since that source is generally unreliable as perWP:RSP, I elected to remove the information on the chance that it cannot be verified reliably). Unless there are more uncited texts in the article, I believe that should make the article properly cited, although the neutrality issue remains at large.
I agree with Robminchin view that Hyde's work should be mentioned in the Commissioner of Indian Affairs section. Would it be appropriate to run an RFC on this issue to resolve the neutrality of the article, or would that be overkill? Maybe such a hypothetical RFC can be posed asShould the bookBorn of Lakes and Plains: Mixed-Descent Peoples and the Making of the American West byAnne F. Hyde be cited and included inFrancis Amasa Walker § Commissioner of Indian Affairs? Open to rewordings/retooling of such an RFC, or other options to resolve this.Gramix13 (talk)05:16, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is an "article too long" yellow banner at the top of the page. After skimming through the article, I agree with this banner as there are several sections that can bespun out, summarised more effectively, or trimmed for excess detail. There are also some uncited statements.Z1720 (talk)17:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is uncited text, including entire paragraphs. At over 10,000 words, the article isWP:TOOBIG. I suggest that information be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed as being too detailed. Some sections are quite large, making it hard to read (especially on mobile). I suggest that more headings are used to break up the text.Z1720 (talk)17:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retain The upper limit ofWP:TOOBIG is 15k words, so "over 10k words" does not seem to invalidate this page as a Good Article, and uncited information can simply be deleted by anyone, including the nominator. An intractable issue has not been demonstrated. A split can be proposed on the page itself, without undergoing GA reassessment.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)15:12, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm:GA criteria #3b says the article "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (seesummary style)". I do not think an article with a yellow "overly detailed" banner fulfills this criteria. The uncited text will also need to be addressed before I can recommend that the article retain its GA status.Z1720 (talk)15:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After giving it a closer look, I will have to change todelist, but due to an issue that was not mentioned here, the proliferation of unreliable sources. Many areWP:USERG, like MobyGames or PCGamingWiki, or unsuitable for use as a source. This is a pretty big issue throughout the article, with a good chunk of the sources being unusable. So, even if we got rid of anything uncited, it would need a huge pruning of the cited stuff as well. This is massive enough that it should be delisted so that it can be re-reviewed.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)15:59, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of yellow and orange banners, including "plot too long", "needs expansion" for the reception section, and "no sources cited" in versions released section.Z1720 (talk)17:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The reasoning cited here is relatively minor, but there is a much bigger emergency fire in this article and that's the need of an update for the reception of the Pixel Remaster version of FFIII. At least, that's where I assume it should be given the article has a bunch of Pixel Remaster reviews it cites in its review box. If nobody can fix this in time, I don't think it could be considered a complete article.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)23:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I could save the article, but I've made a start at leaving it in a better state if I can't. I've reworked the development and release sections, but the rest still needs work. --ProtoDrake (talk)12:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shooterwalker andZxcvbnm I've done what rescue work I can in the broad strokes. There aren't any glaring issues now: gameplay's more structured and better sourced, plot section's tidied up, development's actually there, and the reception's also been expanded and incorporates the Pixel Remaster version. If your verdict remains the same, I fully understand. I've done my best. --ProtoDrake (talk)21:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is quite large and goes into unnecessary detail. For example, "Republican individuals and organizations" is much too detailed and the article doesn't need to describe how several Republicans have responded: this information can be removed or spun out. The "Demographics" section should be updated with the latest figures, and older statistics removed or summarised more effectively. There are some uncited statements in the article.Z1720 (talk)17:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, there are quite a lot of citations to less-than-ideal sources like post-2013 newsweek and Business Insider, the Daily Beast, and some to the decidely non-RS Raw Story and International Business Times. Also Rolling Stone on politics, which it is unreliable for. The Daily Beast/Newsweek/BI can be justified sometimes but in such a politically fraught topic with so much writing about it I don't see why they can't be replaced. Raw Story and IBT should just be removed. We are citing Frontiers as well, which is... eh.... Also some of the sources in the bibliography aren't actually cited. Generally this article overrelies on news sources for the depth of scholarship on the topic.PARAKANYAA (talk)17:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are uncited statements in the article. There is no "development", "history" or similar section: how was the theory developed, when was it published and gained prominence, and what were its influences? These feel like key pieces of missing information.Z1720 (talk)17:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is an "update needed" orange banner at the top of the article, as more recent events and proposals have not been added to the article.Z1720 (talk)17:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has a "too long" yellow banner since Feb 2024. I agree with this, as the article goes into unnecessary detail about every game in the season. Meanwhile, there is no information about the legacy of this season, including how it impacted future seasons (did the team try to rebuild after losing? Did they continue a trajectory to build a competitive team? Was this part of a stagnation period?)Z1720 (talk)17:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: Regarding legacy: I think the article should link toHistory of the Chicago Bears, but should also put this season in the context of the team's history. This article can go into more detail on that aspect than the history article. I would not consider it a coatrack to add that information to this article, as long as it stays focused on this season's legacy.Z1720 (talk)18:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As long as such "legacy" is based on secondary reliable sources making the connection. I've seen too many championship season (not applicable here) articles that go on and on about subsequent seasons. A lot of seasons are just "plain" seasons and not a catalyst.—Bagumba (talk)18:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's an "update needed" orange banner under "Traveling exhibit" since 2017. There are uncited statements, and icr is used as a source but is considered unrelibale by en-wiki.Z1720 (talk)17:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720KEEP: I've removed the icr ref and uncited materials, and repeated some refs for clarity. I checked the traveling exhibition and found no usable post-2017 sources; I've updated the text slightly and removed the tag. I've copy-edited the whole article. Two chunks of original research have been removed (one by me, one by another editor).Chiswick Chap (talk)14:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a "promotional" orange banner in the article since Aug 2024. When I skimmed through the article, I also found lots of promotional text.Z1720 (talk)16:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. At over 11,000 words, I think prose can bespun out, summarised more effectively, or removed.Z1720 (talk)16:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The species of Heterocera are commonly called moths." - this comes out of left field. I suspect bit rot (deletion of an earlier definition of Heterocera).Lavateraguy (talk)21:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are uncited statements in the article. While some might be covered byMOS:PLOT, other information is not. There is a lot of prose about the fictional world, but not much information about the series development, critical reception or other real-world aspects. I think this article might need a re-think to ensure it adheres to the information on what should be in the article.Z1720 (talk)16:20, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the uncited stuff seems to be covered by MOS:PLOT but I don't think there is enough out-of-universe sourcing to pass the broadness criterion of GA. That's the bigger problem.PARAKANYAA (talk)17:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and cited or removed everything that needed citation. In the process I removed an apparently spurious quote that has left the "critical reception" section very sparse indeed. Therewas some non-universe info getting drowned in that over-long "locations" section; I think there's a reasonable amount of non-universe info across the "Development", "Geographical inspirations", "Film adaptation", and "Reception" sections. But I'm torn as to whether the "Reception" section is close enough to to meet the low bar of "articles that do not cover every major fact or detail";some reception info is present...~ L 🌸 (talk)00:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be more explicit, I think the article is now sufficiently sourced for a GA, but still possibly borderline for breadth. I can see the argument either way for breadth.~ L 🌸 (talk)00:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I still think the article is a little too heavy on the fictional world, if other information can't be added then there's not much we can do. GAs don't require complete articles, and I think all the main topics are covered. Citation concerns are resolved.Z1720 (talk)01:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure morecan be added -- it looks like every book in the series got a Kirkus review, for example, so sources exist for more on the reception. But I don't personally choose to keep working on it, at least not today.~ L 🌸 (talk)02:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. At just over 10,000 words, I think there is prose that can be trimmed orspun out into other articles. The "Demographics" section has the 2020 census in the graphs, but the prose still has the 2010 information. I suggest this be replaced with the 2020 statistics.Z1720 (talk)16:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 2010-2020s section is quite short. I think this needs to be expanded and updated. There is an orange "sources may not verify text" banner at the top of the "Proto-prog and psychedelia" section, placed in 2016.Z1720 (talk)16:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Smokefoot: I am not sure what this is referring to. Are you proposing changing the name of the article? That would be outside the scope of this GAR and should be discussed on the article talk page.Z1720 (talk)18:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]
There are some uncited statements within the article. There is a yellow "too large" banner at the top of the page from June 2023: I agree with this banner. I think there are some sections that could be summarised more effectively or spun out including "History", "Territorial disputes", "Economy", "Transportation", and "Portrayal in media", although all sections would benefit from a copyedit with a focus on reducing prose size.Z1720 (talk)03:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no information about the topic's history, original publication, or critical reaction when it was published. While the lead states that it was named after Joseph L. Fleiss, this information isn't cited and it doesn't say why it is named for him. This information is a major topic of this article and should be included. The "Tests of significance" section is uncited. Having read through the section, I think there should be citations there.Z1720 (talk)03:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it. For the citations problem, I think the definition and the test significance are the sections that would need some sources. For the subsection of "worked examples", consider it as aWP:CALC.Dedhert.Jr (talk)04:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Much of the article is cited to primary sources. Wikipedia articles rely upon secondary sources, and I think some of the trial sources will need to be switched out. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article.Z1720 (talk)00:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There are two "update needed" banners: one from 2021 and one from November 2025.Z1720 (talk)15:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On it. I will ensure that all currently uncited paragraphs are cited, and that the is no trailing uncited text. If there are claims within paragraphs or parts thereof which are currently cited but you wish to challenge, please tag them individually.
Sections tagged for expansion will be expanded if I can find appropriate sources. Both of the tags are reasonable requests as I am aware of information that would be appropriate for both. The update based on USNDM R7 should not be a problem, but the other about pressure distribution in the immersed body will depend on whether a source can be found. So far I have not been able to find one, which is a legitimate reason to leave it out, even in a GA.· · ·Peter Southwood(talk):18:03, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed all the obvious problems, and done a bit of copyediting and clarification. If there are any more issues, please tag or describe in sufficient detail to be actionable. If you think any links are needed, just make them. I can fix redlinks and ambiguous links. Cheers,· · ·Peter Southwood(talk):05:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I may continue to add occasional links and make copy edits and minor improvements, but unless you specify further work as necessary, I consider the job done. Cheers,· · ·Peter Southwood(talk):08:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbsouthwood: I added a couple citation needed tags. The short, one-sentence paragraphs in "Bubble models started to become prevalent" should be merged together. The lead is much too long considering the length of the article body: this should be summarised more effectively and information that is not in the article body should be be moved and cited there.Z1720 (talk)18:06, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MultipleWP:BLPPRIMARY violations existed in the article. These violations were included in the reviewed version and thus I do not believe the review was proper or adequate and a new one should be taken to ensure no violations of the BLP policy exist in the article.Traumnovelle (talk)23:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion did not agree that content only sourced to court documents such as 'A July 16, 2020, intelligence analysis memorandum from the Bureau of Prisons Counter Terrorism Unit stated that Raniere instructed Chakravorty to get more women to dance "erotically" outside the MDC. In response, authorities moved Raniere to another unit to keep the dancers out of his line of sight. A frustrated Raniere instructed his followers to help get him moved back by ingratiating themselves to prison staff, including offering coffee and donuts as they left their shifts.' should be restored, only that they could be provided as supplemental links for readers of interest.Traumnovelle (talk)19:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article, at over 13,000 words, is too long and too detailed. Text should be summarised more effectively orspun out. There are uncited statements, including quotations. I also think there is an overreliance on quotes and block quotes which would be better as summarised prose.Z1720 (talk)16:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720, would you be OK with this article being split into 2-3 articles like Early life, Military career of Nelson like that done for John McCain? But I reckon this would need consensus on either the talk page or a special RFC, so this reassessment would have to be on hold till such a process concludes.Matarisvan (talk)17:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two uncited paragraphs, as well as an orange "more sources needed" banner at the top of "Awards" since 2017. It is also possible, as pointed out in 2017 on the talk page, that the review was never properly completed.Z1720 (talk)16:47, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As one man said "dum dum dum another one bites the dust". However, can you point which uncited statements and unreliable sources are? The article is long, so maybe, it's easy to fix the problems if you point them. --HHH Pedrigree (talk)09:57, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HHH Pedrigree: CN tags have been added to the article. The unreliable sources are "RingsideNews.com.", "Sportskeeda.com.", "WhatCulture.com", "Wrestlezone" ("WWE SummerSlam Result: Dolph Ziggler vs Dean Ambrose For The WWE Title".), "Online World of Wrestling", and "Cageside Seats". There are also some YouTube links used as sources, that might need to be investigated to ensure they are reliable.Z1720 (talk)15:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Hello Magazine is used as a source, which is considered reliable.Z1720 (talk)21:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is not much information post-2011, even though it seems like they were active in their careers. There seems to be no post-2018 information. There was discussion on the article's talk page about whether this information should be added, or whether it belongs on their respective pages (or perhaps this page should be merged into their pages, and a AfD should be opened?) Later parts of the article have short paragraphs, which should be formatted more effectively. Unreliable sources like IMDB and reddit are used in the article: these should be replaced with better sources or the text verified by the information removed.Z1720 (talk)16:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As Kids they had a significant career working together but this ended with their focus on school and then their separate projects. I do not think anything should be merged here as that would create too much duplicate content. There should be better, more easily findable links to their separate pages though.--Denniss (talk)17:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's not a lot of post-2009 information about his career, which is when this article was promoted. These should be expanded upon. (Is he still playing football, or did he retire?) There are some uncited statements in the latter parts of the article.Z1720 (talk)01:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. At almost 10,000 words, this article might beWP:TOOBIG perWP:SS. The article should summarise information more effectively orspin out information that is too detailed.Z1720 (talk)01:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article's formatting is not great. Some sections, like "Moscow: as ambassador" have small paragraphs that can be merged, while other sections have large paragraphs that should be broken up for readability (especailly on mobile). The article uses a lot of quotes and block quotes, which causes the article to struggle with an encyclopedic tone. The article should make use of summarising Matlock's positions more effectively. The "Published works" and "Multimedia" sections are quite long, with the majority being external links. I suggest that these be summarised more effectively, with analysis of the most notable works from secondary sources.Z1720 (talk)01:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, but this sort of minor issue is not worthy of a GAR. There's no reason to believe this is - release dates for a very mainstream modern rock album - is going to be some sort of insurmountable problem to resolve. This didn't need this sort of escalation.Sergecross73msg me21:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I tagged the release section, I did not mean to imply that this otherwise well-sourced article was in need of a total reassessment. Rather, it was more of a suggestion that reliable sources should be added to verify the information in the section, just like any other information that's included in an article. I felt this was especially warranted since this article is listed as a GA, but contains a section stating the release dates in certain territories, yet there isn't a single source for any of them.Magatta (talk)13:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried looking for the Australia date, and there's evidence that itprobably was the case. Unfortunately, absolutely nothingreliable has survived. Sadly, this section wasn't sourced when the article was passed 11 years ago (when such resources probably existed), and it should have been. I didn't go further than that.mftpdanoops14:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chchcheckit: The orange banner is for five release dates, so that might require up to five sources. I invite anyone interested in fixing up the article to do so, as subject-matter specialists can usually find sources more quickly than the average editor or reader. If the orange banner remains, that could be justification for delisting as orange banners are aquick-fail criteria in GANs.Z1720 (talk)15:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a "Plot summary needs to be improved" yellow banner at the top of "Plot". I agree with this, as the plot of the movie needs to be explained. The "Reception" section mentions several reviews on RT and Metacritic, but there is no discussion on what critics said about the film, which should be included in that section. "IMDB" is used as a source twice, and should be replaced.Z1720 (talk)00:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I added details and cleaned up a bunch of uncited statements about the 2009 eruption. If there are other portions that need citations, could you mark them with{{cn}}? Otherwise, does it look good to you? —hike395 (talk)04:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The layout of the article is also confusing: what is the Bibliography section trying to tell readers? Is this supposed to be after the references, as outlined inMOS:ORDER?Z1720 (talk)00:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't have much post-2019 information. A quick Google search produced souces such as the 2025 backlash on him being commissioned for a Elsie Inglis statue ([1],[2]), a statue for Dallas ([3]) and Indiana ([4]), and a statue unveiled in 2021 ([5]). I think a thorough search might find more sources of recent works. There's also a "too many quotes" yellow banner from October 2022.Z1720 (talk)00:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking afresh at this article since I created it as a stub 18 years ago, it has come on a long way, to become a very informative article about the subject, his thought and works. The issues for attention at this point seem to fall under two topics: whether it needs extended for recent works, and the extent of appropriate quotations.AllyD (talk)14:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taking the works-over-time topic first... TheCivic monuments section in the present article does a good job in summarising the subject's Edinburgh and Glasgow statues. (I'd be inclined to lose the brief descriptions of the occupations of their subjects - the hyperlinks are sufficient here).
The 2021Edinburgh Reporter article is an appreciation of the 2004 Corstorphine sculpture already mentioned there; it can serve as a reference for that work.
As to recent works, I'm wary of this becoming an extending list of a working artist's works. The Alberti and Hermes statues don't appear to have attracted coverage outwith the 2019 and 2025 Herald articles, so appending them could be at best too soon.
The proposed Elsa Inglis statue iscovered elsewhere. The controversy seems more around the commissioning trustees than Stoddart himself, and the piece is unrealised, so I would be minded towards omitting it at this point, or perhaps a sentence linking to the discussion in the other article.AllyD (talk)14:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the topic of appropriate levels of quotation, I agree it is currently excessive. The "A painting by Titian ... skinhead in an underpass " block quite is already summarised above, with the same reference, so could be deleted. I also suggest removing the modernism block quote and just linking the Manner of Man interview after "... a more broadly-construed "Modernist" tradition".AllyD (talk)15:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That said, the first of these extended quotations was already in the article at the time of the original GA assessment. I am deferring making any changes to the article until further discussion input.AllyD (talk)15:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I've updated the later career section and added some missing citations. Aside from that, the article remains largely unchanged since the previous assessment so please let me know if any other issues. ThanksSFB12:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is an "update needed" orange banner in the article since 2019. Is this still valid? The lead also doesn't summarise all major aspects of the article.Z1720 (talk)01:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The section marked for required update has information about government's intentions about the sinkhole but doesn't have update on the taken actions. I checked Gnews and GScholar, and didn't spot any updates on its status. There are listicles posted after 2010 that briefly mention the sinkhole but gove only 2010 information. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr)14:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There an "update needed" orange banner under the 2015-2018 section. Is this still valid? The lead needs to be updated to add more recent events from his career.Z1720 (talk)01:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kline@Z1720 Unfortunately, his time in Buffalo was not very notable. He didn't lead in scoring, didn't have career highs, and didn't win any awards. As far as I can tell, his time in Buffalo was mainly the non-hockey stuff.Conyo14 (talk)16:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are some uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There are lots of short, one-sentence paragraphs. These should be merged and formatted more effectively. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article, especially the airline's history.Z1720 (talk)01:22, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is an orange "lead needs to be rewritten" banner at the top of the aricle which needs to be resolved. It is also too detailed in its information and sections should bespun out to help with readability or sections summarised more effectively. There are a couple of uncited statements.Z1720 (talk)01:18, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reassessment
Z1720 Out of the 6 criteria, two of them seem at issue if I am understanding you correctly.
#1, that it be well-written. The lead does seem to need rewriting. That's easy enough to fix, and I can get on with that in about a week if you can grant me that leeway. Real life is kicking my butt right now.
And #3. That it is Broad in its coverage without unnecessary detail.
I don't agree that it is too-detailed. This is a complex subject that spans an extended period of time. It cannot be adequately explained without addressing its many forms, aspects, controversies and changes over time.
I can try to do some copy-editing to shorten it some, but I do not agree the sections should be spun out into separate articles. There are already separate articles on each of these topics, and as a parent article, the sections -- with adequate descriptions -- are absolutely necessary.
I have added cn tags to the article. If a section of the article is already spun out, then information should be moved to that spun out article and summarised more effectively here. I recommend that spun out text have a maximum of four paragraphs in the parent article (about the maximum size of the lead) and, of the reader is interested in learning more, they can go to the spun out article.Z1720 (talk)23:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, should have checked, just saw the revert and went batshit! I'd be happy for either of you to make the effort to improve the lead any way you see fit. It's a lot easier to be a critic than it is to be a creator. Go for it.Jenhawk777 (talk)04:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to fix this if you give me a few days (I'm a bit flat out IRL until the weekend though). If it's just lack of citations then I will try to find some media coverage and/or remove uncited material, and review it for coverage and focus. Is there anything else? —Jon (talk)22:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look at the diff since Nov 2007 when it was listed reveals a fair bit of edit churn that resulted in citations being moved around or possibly dropped. —Jon (talk)23:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is an "LLM" orange banner at the top of the article, and an LLM script I use has flagged "Malin, Sean (December 2, 2024)." as AI slop. Should this reference be removed? Unreliable sources like IMDB and Look to the Stars are used. These should be replaced or removed. The article has lots of short, one paragraph sentence which should be merged or expanded, with level 3 headings used to break up large sections. Some sections are underdeveloped like "Filmography" and "Politics".Z1720 (talk)01:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a quite old GA, as it was listed in October 2006 - just over two months after the game's original release. However, I am concerned that it no longer meets the standards expected of a GA in 2025. Just a few things that stand out on a first glance:
1. Lead is very short and contains no summary of the development, and barely anything on the plot, gameplay and reception.
2. Gameplay is, effectively, mostly unsourced as entire paragraphs only cite the game's instruction manual, which is a primary source that should not be used so extensively. There's also a CN tag on the multiplayer section.
3. Development uses unreliable sources such as GoNintendo and Reddit, and has several obvious grammatical errors. The game's release dates are also not sourced.
4. The prose in reception is very poor and does not meetMOS:VGREC. The entire section is one block of text that mostly cites review scores without going into detail on critics' opinions. Also uses questionable sources such as Mansized and QJ.net.
Delist I was surprised at how reception-light this is for a GA, especially for such a prominent game. I'd call it C-class at best. It certainly needs an expansion.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)15:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I agree with all four points here, especially the extreme overreliance on primary sources (the manual, Reddit, the interview). Very, very far from GA.JustARandomSquid (talk)21:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of uncited text, especially in the "Current constitution (1971)" section, which provides analysis of each article in the constitution.Z1720 (talk)22:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's an orange "no sources" banner at the top of the "Positions in government" section, as well some uncited sentences in the article.Z1720 (talk)16:15, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs, in the article. The article is too detailed andWP:TOOBIG, with overly-detailed prose that can be summarised more effectively or removed. One area to start might be the "Demographics" section, which needs to be updated with the 2020 census: once it is updated, older census information can be removed as outdated.Z1720 (talk)15:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of uncited text, including the entire "Criticism" section. The lead is too short and does not summarise all major aspects of the article.Z1720 (talk)15:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is okay, but I think it is weak on some topics and missing coverage of others. I would expect to see the article discussBe stars andshell stars in the context of mass loss due to rapid rotation. It should expand on gravity darkening, and discuss the effect of metallicity on the evolution of rotation.[6] As stars evolve into giants, the expansion should impact the rotation. What about stars that have a more rapid internal spin rate?[7] Finally, it can discuss the impact of planets (such ashot Jupiters) on stellar rotation.Praemonitus (talk)23:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 Thanks toMatarisvan for noting he can work on this. If he ultimately needs help, I have some books about the battle or that would include information about it. But I almost certainly can't get to work on this GAR before Matarisvan does or before early December. I will be offline for about a week and then will need to pay attention to the military history project backlog reduction drive (and possibly to the overall drive, also this month) and requests for article assessments. So if I need to help with this it will be early December before I can get to it.Donner60 (talk)07:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uncited statements, especially in the "Active Liberty" section. I also think the article could use a copyedit to merge and reword the shorter paragraphs.Z1720 (talk)00:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is in pretty rough shape: a lot of it is just a grab bag of random cases without any effort to integrate them into something encyclopedic. When the main sources are slip opinions and day-of-decision news coverage, you end up with whole paragraphs on obscure criminal-procedure decisions and not a word on affirmative action (e.g.,Parents Involved) or religion (e.g.,McCreary County/Van Orden). It'd take a lot of work to save this one, and I know I at least would be reluctant to put in all that work now when there's inevitably going to be a full-length biography at some point (although there's definitely some good scholarship out there already, like[8]).Extraordinary Writ (talk)08:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have read all of Breyer's books and am fairly familiar with the commentary on his jurisprudence, so I will take this on. Agree that this would be easier with a biography, but considering that his predecessor,Harry Blackmun, did not get a biography untilLinda Greenhouse's 2005 book was published eleven years after his retirement, I would not count on such a source emerging anytime soon.ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬)16:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, addressed all uncited statements and other maintenance tags, added multiple book citations to supplement claims, and removed extraneous details. I have added a section on "Religion" because multiple sources refer to Breyer's 2005 votes inVan Orden v. Perry andMcCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union as the high point of his career, and Extraordinary Writ clearly feels the same. I will take a bit longer to think on how to integrate his views on affirmative action, trim unwarranted focus on niche CrimPro decisions, and similar considerations ofWP:DUE weight.ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬)01:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that it was the high point in his career—the Dalin book just says it was the high point in his influence on the Court (because he got to be the swing vote for once).Extraordinary Writ (talk)03:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely moving in the right direction. Some thoughts in case they're helpful:
Abortion: explain what the benefits and burdens test fromWhole Woman's Health actually is; I think that was his main contribution in this area. Not sure why it talks aboutJune Medical first and then circles back toWhole Woman's Health.
Census: I'd just axe this.Department of Commerce might fit if you wanted to write an admin law section (other cases), but that's not necessary for GA purposes.
Death penalty: probably could use more than three sentences
Environment: I'd just rewrite this based onthe Lazarus article. The FOIA case doesn't need to be here, and the border wall case isn't very environmental either.
Intellectual property and Native American law: these are both just grab bags that don't give much information about what Breyer's approach to the area was. Feel free to just cut them if there's not a lot of sourcing out there.
Partisan gerrymandering: maybe combine with voting rights
Religion: Is there a source for "widely praised"? Klarman liked it, butErwin Chemerinsky for instance hated it ([9][10]), although he had a horse in the race.[11] says it "received, not surprisingly, both praise and criticism", which sounds about right. Anyways, Breyer has lots of other religion cases that might be worth mentioning—I'd just check what the scholarly sources think is important.
Probably worth a section on federalism/federal power, e.g., his dissents inLopez andMorrison (which get a passing mention in the judicial philosophy section). Also separation of powers and the like (NLRB v. Noel Canning comes to mind). But this isn't FAC, so you don't have to cover everything—feel free to remind me of that if I forget, as I am wont to do.
I like to go over the judicial philosophy stuff early in the Supreme Court section, since it sort of sets the stage for the topic-by-topic analysis. That's up to you, though.
Gotta say something about his oral-argument hypotheticals! I'd also mention (when talking about his pragmatism) his preference for multi-factor balancing tests over bright-line rules.
Hopefully some of that is useful. I think the main thing is just bringing in more of the scholarly/analytical/retrospective sources and cutting back on opinion quotes and same-day news coverage, as you've already been doing. Glad to see you're using the KerschBiographical Encyclopedia piece—I think that's a good guide to what's due weight (at least through 2006). If you haven't seen it, Kersch also has a chapter inthis book (plus the cited Mandarin Liberty article).Extraordinary Writ (talk)03:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still plan to do a bit more editing today, but as I have tackled a few of your points already, I figured that I should do a write-up of my work so far:
"The high point" was definitely excessive on my part to describe theVan Orden/McCreary split, and "widely praised" is probably too much too, so I have toned it down to "praised" in the article. The only criticism that Garnett cited in his "both praise and criticism" line is from Chemerinsky, who as you noted, was counsel of record for the petitioner inVan Orden. I have added another source that is fairly positive on Breyer's position there.
I think the "Death penalty" section can remain short. The hullabaloo aroundGlossip v. Gross was that the dissent alluded to the across-the-board unconstitutionality of the death penalty, but considering that the liberals are still yet to explicitly embrace that position and are not dissenting to all denials of death penalty stays like Brennan and Marshall, I am sour on framing Breyer as doing more than what is already captured by these three sentences.
Reworked the "Environment" section using Lazarus (2023) and a few other sources. There's an interesting connection between McGarity's pre-confirmation criticism of Breyer as favoringnatural gas and his vote inPennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey, but alas, Lazarus did not make the connection.
Combined the "Partisan gerrymandering" and "Voting rights" sections per your suggestion.
I think keeping the "Judicial philosophy" section to the end is best since it is a segue to explaining his books that set forth that philosophy. While Kersch claims thatLopez andMorrison show Breyer embracingcooperative federalism, secondary sources sparingly use that phrase to describe his jurisprudence.Freed 2009 andKrotoszynsky 2012 use the phrase to describe his dissents inSchaffer v. Weast andStern v. Marshall, respectively, but those cases dealt with such minor statutory interpretation that I find it a stretch to use them for any broad claim of his view on federal power beyond theCommerce Clause. I will definitely add some info onNoel Canning though!
Added info on his hypotheticals and multi-factor balancing tests to the "Judicial philosophy" section.
Pretty sure I am wrapped up! Building on my last update:
Kept the "Intellectual property" and "Native American law" sections since there were sources which united his major decisions in each field. I am especially inclined to retain the former, given that Breyer's "The Uneasy Case for Copyright" article made him known as an IP law scholar well before coming to the Supreme Court.
Overhauled the "Abortion" and "Free speech" sections to summarize key decisions. For the latter, there was a fair amount of criticism that balancing tests are inappropriate for the First Amendment context, which I figured was best presented there.
Scrapped the "Defendant protections" section. While it was well-sourced with news coverage of three cases, the secondary sources did not recognize them as forming a distinct part of Breyer's jurisprudence. His work in criminal procedure is generally recognized as limited to theUnited States Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which is covered elsewhere in the article.
Thanks for the Friedman (2013) book chapter! It was comprehensive on his 1994-2013 decisions but perhaps too much so, such that I was not able to discern which cases it considered more important. Luckily, I think that info was available from the other sources that I added, many on your advice.ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬)06:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MFTP Dan: In addition to the "Music video" section, the last paragraph of both "Remixes" and "Live performances" are uncited. I also see that there are some very large paragraphs that would benefit from being split into multiple paragraphs.Z1720 (talk)13:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for expounding on that, I will take a further look. Regarding the music video, I wonder if the rules have changed since 2011. I believe it used to be accepted that the synopsis of a music video could be relayed without citations with a few exceptions, like one would a plot section for a film. I was unsure if you were aware of that, or if it's still the case. As for the other places, I agree those will definitely need to be cited, but I would like further clarification on the rules for music videos.mftpdanoops13:31, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MFTP Dan: Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, I think all of that text is covered underMOS:PLOT. However, I didn't realise that it was all the plot of the video because of how long it is. I think this can be summarised more effectively, and other text that concerns the production of the music video (like the actors involved) should be cited.Z1720 (talk)14:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to try to cite these paragraphs, but it turns out the NRHP report does not even include the info in question. Pinging @Daniel Case who seems to have added a lot of the text. –Epicgenius (talk)15:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I considered that, but the issue is that these might be considered primary sources, which wouldn't be enough to alleviate Zed's concerns about uncited/poorly cited text. –Epicgenius (talk)16:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The lead also needs to be expanded to include all major aspects of the article.Z1720 (talk)00:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are some uncited statements in the article that is preventing me from recommending a "keep" declaration. I also think the "1960–1990" section is too long and it should either be split up using another level 3 heading or trimmed of excess detail.Z1720 (talk)03:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. At over 14,000 words, the article istoo detailed andWP:TOOBIG. Some prose should bespun out, summarised more effectively, or removed as too detailed. Many sources listed in "Bibliography" are not used as inline citations and should be moved to "Further reading".Z1720 (talk)16:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, this article has already been reduced in size, to allign with thePresidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower article. Grant's presidency was detailed, as it included 8 years of turbulent Reconstruction, Native American, Domestic, and Foreign Policy. Second, Grant's presidency article, should not be a reduced format historical article format, when the Eisenhower article receives ample article size. This is Wikipedia. Articles should be detailed, supplied by reliable sources. Important issues such a civil rights, prosecution of the Klu Klux Klan, should have detail. Both Grant and Eisenhower, deserve equal importance and equal size. As far as sources, not used in the article, I have no issue with them being removed. Third, I think this article has already been improved, and deserves GA standing. I am not sure why Grant is getting this attention all of a sudden. The article appears to be written in a neutral format. Why now?Cmguy777 (talk)16:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmguy777: Wikipedia is a general knowledge encyclopedia, and not all details will be included in an article. If the level of detail is important, the information can bespun out into a child-article.WP:DETAIL outlines examples of how much detail an article should have, and states that "Some readers need a lot of details on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate subarticles)." The last part, linking to separate articles, might be what is best for some aspects of this article.WP:TOOBIG outlines that articles should probably be less than 9,000 words: at 14,000, this article far exceeds that. In a GAR, the current article version is evaluated on its adherence to theGA criteria and does not consider how much work has been done to an article, or how much it has been improved. The Eisenhower article is not a GA, so it is hard to compare the qualities (and size) of those two articles for this GAR.Z1720 (talk)17:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, articles can be spun out. You have not mentioned anything specifically you want changed. What is it exactly you want changed? Again, I have substantially reduced this article before. Is there an exact rule of how long articles should be such as 9,000 words or less. What does "should probably be less" mean ? Anymore reduction in this article would reduce the reliability and needed context of the article, imo. Grant has a lot of biographers and biographies. Renewed interest has been taken in Grant's life, generalship, and presidency. Charles W. Calhouns (2017) book on Grant's presidency has 593 pages. What specific areas of the article do you find too long?Cmguy777 (talk)19:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many notable people and topics have books that are hundreds or thousands of pages long.WP:TOOBIG has useful rules of thumb for article size. I usually do not recommend specifics at the beginning because I want to give a chance for subject-matter experts to make recommendations first. Since I have been asked, here are some suggestions:
In general, I recommend that a subject-matter expert do a copy edit of the entire article and remove redundant text, off-topic information about others, and sumarise text more effectively when possible.
First Presidency:
"Financial policy" Suffers fromMOS:OVERSECTION. I suggest these paragraphs be merged and extra/too detailed information be placed in the appropriate article.
"Failed annexation of Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic)" could be too detailed and possibly trimmed.
"Native American policy" also suffers fromMOS:OVERSECTION and, if the paragraphs are merged together, information can be spun out to the appropriate articles.
"Domestic policy" also suffers from OVERSECTION and not as much detail is needed for all of these individual aspects (especially the "Holidays law")
Second Presidency:
"Vicksburg riots" and "South Carolina 1876" spend at least a paragraph explaining the conflict before mentioning Grant. While a brief introduction is appropriate, too much space is given to this off-topic information and this article should focus on Grant's actions and policies.
"Foreign policy" suffers from OVERSECTION with the last three paragraphs: these should be merged and summarised.
"Reforms and scandals" Lots of oversection, it is better to merge the information and give a wikilink than have a whole paragraph explaining each topic.
"States admitted to the Union", "Vetoes" and "Government agencies instituted" can be moved to the part of the article most appropriate to his presidency. "Memorials and monuments" can be moved to Grant's main article.
This is not an exhaustive list, and there can of course be disagreement. None of this negates the uncited paragraphs in the article, which also need to be resolved.Z1720 (talk)20:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those spin off articles have not been created. The Presidency of Barack Obama article 13,915 words. I found that on XTools. Is this correct? You can verify that. The Holidays Laws is important. They are national holidays created by Grant and congress. This article can be improved. You are free to make edits to the article.Cmguy777 (talk)20:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmguy777: Yes,Presidency of Barack Obama is 13,000 long. No, it is also not a GA. This process is to evaluate an article against theGA criteria. If the article topic is notable, any editor can make a new article and place information there. I will not be making edits to this article as I am busy with many on-and-off wiki tasks. I am happy to support those who do want to make those edits and will re-review if pinged.Z1720 (talk)20:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article passed GA in the past. Yes. There is room for improvement, and thanks for the specifics. I just don't think it necessary to take away the GA status, when in the past it was given GA status, by whatever standard(s) was(were used) at the time. Improvements can be made to the article without removing the GA, imo. I have made past reductions to the article, found in the talk page, to improve the article. Grant's Native American policy, reforms and scandals, have been made into spinoff articles. Probably, the next spin off article should be Grant's Foreign policy. Grant's presidency was different. He was elected and served two consecutive terms in office, that would not be repeated until the election of Woodrow Wilson. Thank you.Cmguy777 (talk)21:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmguy777: An article will not be delisted if improvements are ongoing and concerns addressed. My concerns are listed above. The GAR will assess the article against the current criteria, not the criteria that was in place when it was passed.Z1720 (talk)21:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been significantly been reduced in size, before. Your concerns are noted. What about editor concensus? These objections seem to be only your objections focused specifically on Grant, not other Presidents. You also seem to be requiring other spin off articles to be made on Grant's domestic and financial policies. The Santo Domingo annexation was very important to Grant. It was also a drama between Grant and Charles Sumner, who would control the Republican Party. Some leeway should be allowed in that section on article length, since this article focuses on Grant's Presidency. When you say "delisted", are you saying removal of the article from Wikipedia?Cmguy777 (talk)15:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmguy777: When I say "delisted", I am saying that the article will no longer be designated as a "good article". It will still be a Wikipedia article regardless of whether it is delisted or not.Z1720 (talk)15:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I can work on the annexation of Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic) section. That was a primary initiative to the Grant Administration.Cmguy777 (talk)16:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmguy777: I am sorry that I did not respond sooner. AJ29 is correct: pinging me is a better way to ensure that I respond. I have done a deep read of the first paragraph of "Foreign policy" and the "Attempted annexation of Santo Domingo" sections. They have improved from where they were before, and the comments below are what I think need to happen next to bring them to GA quality.
"Grant was a man of peace" I don't know what this means because I don't know much about him. I think this should be removed, and instead the paragraph can describe what this means later on.
"Besides Grant himself, the main players in foreign affairs..." This is an instance where the article starts going off-topic. Later in the paragraph, it starts describing Fish's work. I think this parargaph should focus on what Grant did and what he did with foreign policy. If Grant was hands-off and let Fish run everything, then that should be explained. If Grant focused on specific issues, that should be explained in this paragraph. Describing the major players of Grant's administration is important, but their contributions should to be connected to Grant's presidency more explicitly.
"He tried to annex the Caribbean country of the Dominican Republic as a safety valve for them." Safety valve feels like anidiom to me, and I don't know what that means in this context. Is Grant buying DR to bring Black people to the location? Was he trying to have DR become part of the USA? This should be explained.
"Republican Senator Charles Sumner opposed Grant, believing he sided with men of financial interest." Why is this important to state in this article? I think it can be deleted.
In the second paragraph, there is information about the annexation of DR. This makes the first paragraph redundant, and I think it can be removed.
I made lots of cuts as I was reading. Feel free to take a look and reverse any changes. However, with the length of the article I think some of these changes were helpful to reduce the word count, and I would continue having cuts like this in other parts of the article.
I hope the above helps editors with ideas on how to improve other sections of the article. There are still uncited statements in other spots and I highly recommend a thorough copy-edit and trimming of off-topic information before a re-review is requested, and I think this article needs some more work before I could recommend that it keeps its GA status. Feel free to ping me with questions or comments.Z1720 (talk)05:45, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I am for reducing article narration, but not at the expense of loosing valued content. Also, I am for going by what the sources say. As far as Santo Domingo goes, Grant was the main leader behind annexation. I readded information that Grant appointed Frederick Douglas. Apparently, Grant wanted both to make Santo Domingo a state and to serve as a refuge for blacks. Douglas supported the annexation.Cmguy777 (talk)15:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmguy777: The content doesn't need to be lost: it can be moved to other articles whose scope is narrower. Too much prose stops readers from finding the most important information and discourages them from reading any part of the article. Prose cannot include everything that the sources say as articles are written insummary style. The information described above cannot be explained here: it needs to be explained in the article.
Regarding Frederick Douglass: the article does not describe who he is or why he is important until "Election of 1872". If Douglass is to be included in the "Attempted annexation of Santo Domingo" section, the importance of his appointment needs to be explained there. Otherwise, it is justWP:TRIVIA: a miscellaneous fact that the reader does not need to know to understand the importance of this event in Grant's presidency. My preference is to remove this sentence, and trivia prose similar to this in other places in the article.Z1720 (talk)20:39, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The importance? Frederick Douglas was a leading spokes person for black rights. Historian Jean Edward Smith, Grant, on page 505, mentioned Grant appointing Douglas secretary of the Santo Domingo commission. Do you have that book?. I do. I don't feel appreciated in this article. I should not have to defend every edit made on this article. I am only going by what Smith said. Removing important content will affect the neautrality of the article. I also feel there may be underlying hostility toward Grant, or people don't believe his presidency was that important. I just go by what the sources say.Cmguy777 (talk)04:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmguy777: If Douglass is to be included in this section of the Wikipedia article, the Wikipedia article needs to explain who this person is and why he is important to mention here. In other words, if the information is important, the Wikipedia article needs to explain its importance. A reader should not have to go to the source to get that information.Z1720 (talk)05:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link that explains Douglas and Santo Domingo. His appointment by Grant represented black progress, that was part of the "new" for blacks.[12]Cmguy777 (talk)07:21, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would best to add in a add in a note that Douglas was a prominent African Amercian, who was primarily known for work as an abolitionist.Cmguy777 (talk)17:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. The current format of giving every little detail its own level-4 section is definitely excessive. For one example, there are 224 words dedicated to the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Half of that paragraph has nothing to do with Grant. The parts that do pertain to Grant include a quotation that could be replaced with a concise statement, as well as a line straight up telling the reader the paragraph is not that relevant: "Grant had no role in writing the Civil Rights Act of 1875 but he did sign it a few days before the Republicans lost control of Congress."Thebiguglyalien (talk)🛸22:46, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Civil Rights Act of 1875 was ground breaking. The first in U.S. History. And yes, Grant signed it into law. Grant was the president and deserves credit for signing the legislation into law.Cmguy777 (talk)04:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist This article has been open for over a month and a half, and there are still significant paragraphs without citations. The length concerns also still remain. Work seems to have stalled, and it might be better if the article is worked on without the pressure of GAR, and nominated at GAN when it is ready.Z1720 (talk)00:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I felt I have been the only one who has working on this article. Wikipedia is suppose to be a group editor editing. It's not one editor giving orders. I don’t agree GA should be removed. I felt I have been doing allot of the editing, trying to comply with "suggested" changes. Also, no one ever told me whether my changes were good enough. I hope there is no personal bias against Grant in any delisting process. I stopped editing because there was no positive feed back on my previous edits. That is not my fault. I believe the article is a good article too. It should not be delisted. This article well referenced. There needs to be more editors working on the article. Reducing article size should not reduce content.Cmguy777 (talk)20:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did the Santo Domingo section clean up meet your approval? I need that type of feed back. I have the Grant biographies by Chernow, Smith, and White. I have the two Grant presidential biographies by Calhoun and Kahan. I believe my sources are reliable and trustworthy. Thank you.Cmguy777 (talk)03:59, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmguy777: Thanks for following up. Wikipedia is supposed to be the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Some articles are written by a single editor and some are written by a group.We are all volunteers and can choose where to edit: I have neither the interest nor the time to fully commit to improving this article. However, I am willing to give feedback to ongoing work. The best way to ensure that I reply is toping me. However, I do not have the time to give constant feedback, and it is easier for me to evaluate whole sections or the whole article at once. More information on the GA criteria can be found atWP:GA?.
Regarding the Santo Domingo section: I did a copyedit of the section and it seems fine. I would suggest a similar exercise happen throughout the entire article. Afterwards, editors can reevaluate the article's length and determine if more needs to be spun out to other articles.Z1720 (talk)14:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Hello. I am all for copy editing, as long a content is retained in the article. Are there any sections you find too long or specifically need improving ? Thank you.Cmguy777 (talk)20:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmguy777: As stated above, the whole article needs a copyedit to remove redundancies and summarise the prose more effectively. For example, "Foreign policy" has its own section that gives more detail on this subject: much of this section's inforamtion can be moved to that article, with this article focusing on the most important aspects. There are also lots of subsections that are quite short, like "Pratt & Boyd", "Hawaiian free trade treaty" or "Liberian-Grebo war" (this is not an exhaustive list). In general, perMOS:OVERSECTION if a section is a paragraph long, it should be merged with other sections. This merging might also help with summarising information as information can be moved to other articles or redundancies can be trimmed.Z1720 (talk)20:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Thank you. I believe the article can be trimmed more. I think the beginning of the Article looks good and reads well. Can you please be more specific on the "uncited" parts of the article? There are references throughout. Are you saying every sentence needs to be referenced?Cmguy777 (talk)03:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmguy777: I have added "citation needed" templates to the article, and there were already some in the article before I started tagging. At a minimum, there needs to be a citation at the end of every paragraph (except in the lead, and some other exceptions). Resolving these tags is also a good opportunity to see if the text is needed in the article and if it can be summarised more effectively. The article also hasMOS:OVERSECTION concerns, with numerous short, one-paragraph sections that make the article look like a list in some sections (such as in the "Financial policy" section). Consider merging sections like this and removing the level 3 headings.Z1720 (talk)15:38, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Thank you. I can look into adding citations. There are a lot more books, and Grant, I can find the right citation. I will look into the Financial Policy section for possible merging of sections. Does the Santo Domingo section look alright? Thanks.Cmguy777 (talk)01:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmguy777: Below are suggestions, based on a quick skim of the article. I am going to let interested editors make the final decisions on what can be moved, spun out and summarised to get the article under 9,000 words perWP:TOOBIG. I also suggest removing headings perMOS:OVERSECTION. Section names are in quotation marks:
"Force Acts of 1870 and 1871": Reduce the size
"Financial policy": Remove level 3 headings, remove extra detail
"Foreign policy": Reduce prose size
"Native American policy": Remove level 3 headings, reduce prose size
"Domestic policy": Remove all level 3 headings
""Holidays law": Cut this. I do not think this is one of the most important things to include about his presidency.
"Yellowstone created": Cut most or all of this. Only the creation of the park needs to be mentioned: the rest is too much detail for this article.
"Reconstruction continued" Reduce prose
"Foreign policy" Remove level 3 headings, reduce text (especially in the former "Virginus incident" section
"Midterm election 1874": Cut most of this: it is too much detail.
"Reforms and scandals" Anything that was not caused by Grant directly should be removed. Not every federal scandal needs to be explained in this article.
"Centennial Exposition" Cut this: too much detail.
"Election of 1876": cut this. Does not directly concern his presidency.
"Third term attempt 1880" Cut this. It does not concern his presidency.
I will not be participating in improving the article, but am willing to review when the article is ready, everything is cited, and the article is under 9,000 words. Feel free to ping me when ready.Z1720 (talk)21:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Thank you for the specific areas where the article should be reduced in size. The WP:TOOBIG section does say, "> 9,000 words || Probably should be divided or trimmed,though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." I will leave that as it is for now, but subjects such as Indian Policy and Reconstruction, may need higher levels of explanations.Cmguy777 (talk)04:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the article several times, and giving suggestions on how the prose can be reduced, I do not think that the articles extended length is justified for this article to remain a good article. I still recommend that this article be delisted.Z1720 (talk)17:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Yes, the article can be trimmed. I am not disagreeing with that. I think the article should not be delisted from the good articles. I don't understand the rush and push to get this article delisted. Reducing the article takes time. I have adequate book sources to do so. You suggested the changes. I have added the references. I put a block quote into the note section. Another previous editor wanted to reduce the article. I did. I removed a lot of material. I seem to get no credit for the edits I have made. This article has gone through substantial reduction and revisions.2600:6C52:69F0:B6E0:7CA5:E1AB:8055:41F2 (talk)03:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the work that you have done with the article. Unfortunately, GAs do not keep their status because the article has gone through changes. Instead, an article gets their status by adhering to theGA criteria. This has been open for three months and it still has uncited statements and information that needs to be moved to other articles and removed here. Sometimes it is better to let the article be delisted so that editors can work without the added pressure that GAR brings. When it meets the GA criteria again, the article can be renominated to GAN.Z1720 (talk)12:01, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the necessity to remove the article from GA status. Improvements can be made at any time in the article. I believe all the citations have been removed with added references. Yes. I agree that there should be a reduction in and improvement in wording. Grant's presidency took place during Reconstruction, adding importance to the article. We seem to be repeating ourselves. I seem to be the only one making edits to the article. Wikipedia should be done with multiple editor edits. Not just one person.Cmguy777 (talk)17:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)the article. r[reply]
To avoid edit waring, I suggest reducing information from this article on a larger scale be postponed for now. Recently, information was ubruptly readded, and then removed from the article. Also, this article seems to be on par with the number of words in thePresidency of George Washington, another good article. Emphasis for now should focus on improving narration and readability in the article. Thank you.Cmguy777 (talk)21:19, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
