Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria (GACR). GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. The GAR Coordinators — Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings — work to organize these efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the {{@GAR}} notification template, or make a comment on the talk page.
Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including not meeting the general notability guideline, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment can be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles can be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delist.
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 the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
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 the good 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. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion.
Notify major contributing editors, including the nominator and the reviewer. Also consider notifying relevant active WikiProjects related to the article. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
Reassessment process
Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them.
The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
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 at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.
Closing a reassessment
To close a discussion, use the GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).
GARs typically remain open for at least one week.
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 as keep at any time.
After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.
Manual closing steps
Locate {{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page.
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 consensusorotherwise 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 at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the coordinators.
The Good articles listed below would benefit from the attention of reviewers as to whether they need to be reassessed. In cases where they do, please open a community reassessment and remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, remove the template from the article talk page.
The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a featured article candidate, please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed.
Many of the sections are only one paragraph long and don't mention any of the storm's impacts. Additionally, there are several systems which are just empty. It's clear that this good article from 2008 doesn't meet the requirements today. OhHaiMark (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Production" section has lots of uncited text, and the "Cultural references" section feels like unrelated, random, uncited facts mostly in one-sentence paragraphs. Some additional sources might be discovered with an Internet search. Z1720 (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article contains numerous uncited sentences and paragraphs, large block quotes that can be summarised instead, and too many one-sentence paragraphs that do not seem to follow NPOV. Z1720 (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has several uncited sentences, including entire sections, its references contain many deadlinks, and the lede does not summarise all aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article contains a 5-paragraph bloated lede, numerous uncited sentences and paragraphs, and short, one sentence paragraphs in a very long "Legacy and honours" section. Z1720 (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has seen a flurry of activity since this GAR was opened. Could you provide additional feedback following recent edits? ZsinjTalk11:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a few uncited sentences, but the biggest issue is statistics is mainly based on the time of the GA listing in 2013, and many statistics are quite outdated. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This 2007 GA reads extremely poorly, and the information is all over the place. None of it feels comprehensive or comfortable to read at all, not even the lead (which is pitifully short for such an important song). There's also numerous unsourced statements, deviations from what song articles usually have (primary the lack of a background section), and irrelevant appearances in media that read like the bad kind of an WP:INPOPULARCULTURE section. This article should not be GA. λNegativeMP103:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous uncited passages (including a section with an orange "citations needed" banner since 2019) and a lede that is too short to summarise all important aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the "Benedit Buckeye" section as unsourced and undue detail. If I can get ahold of "The Gettysburg Cyclorama: The Turning Point of the Civil War on Canvas." the rest of this should be doable (it definitely needs further work), if I can't, I'll probably need to let this one go. Hog FarmTalk01:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many instances of statements which are not supported by the cited references. I marked up a bunch in Special:Diff/1232453072, but this is just a small sampling, and marking them all up would be more like vandalism than anything else. In many cases, entire paragraphs are cited to a single source, which is often just a DOT map showing major road alignments. I also described a bunch more sourcing problems in Special:Diff/1232450469. In short, this was a grossly defective GA review. RoySmith(talk)20:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith I've fixed most of the issues described in the "citation needed" templates and even added citations in places where they also might have been needed. I feel that now the article is sufficiently sourced and in proper GA territory now. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you need to do is go through the entire article and verify that every citation really does back up the statement that is supports. Here's a few more from Special:Permalink/1232539652:
I-85 narrows back down to six lanes ... [36] not supported by the map
The landscape becomes more rural as I-85 reaches just outside of Lexington ... [37] the cited document does't say anything about the landscape becoming rural.
I-85 enters a large forest with tree-lined medians and crosses Abbotts Creek ... [38] that's a link to a map that says nothing about a "large forest" or "tree-lined medians".
I really need to emphasize this: don't just fix those three and come back and say, "fixed, it's ready for GA now". The problem is endemic. It's going to be a lot of work to go through and fix this up, but it's encumbant on the author(s) to do that work, not count on reviewers like me to find the problems one by one. RoySmith(talk)17:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I expressed my opinions in this discussion on the nominator's talk page that this article was not ready for GA before the nomination was picked up. The biggest issues I raised were overreliance on maps for opening dates (when better sources such as Newspapers and DOT reports are available), the lack of information about notable post-construction projects, and formatting. Most of these issues still remain. In addition, I also recently quickfailed the nomination of Interstate 485 for many of the same reasons. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been wondering... have there been any notable post-construction projects? I can't seem to find any online other than the Corridor Improvement Project. Maybe I'm not looking too sharply. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, the interchange with I-77 was recently reconstructed in a pretty big project. That would definitely be worth including. While the article does provide a basic overview of the widening projects, I'm not sure it covers all of them. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few more sourcing problems:
Because the previous exit is northbound-only, drivers going southbound must use NC 47 to access I-285.[39] I don't see anywhere in the cited source that talks about this.
Once the lanes pass under Johnsontown Road around milemarker 102, the northbound lanes cross above the southbound lanes and return to the normal direction.[43] the cited map shows nothing approaching the level of detail which would justify making this statement.
Reading the thread noted by Bneu2013 above, I see you wrote: I'm usually more familiar with the I-85 article compared to I-40 since I've gone along I-85 more frequently and am living closer to that corridor. I suspect this is a core part of the problem. You have statement like restaurants, businesses, churches, and car dealerships lining the road.[16] and Businesses, restaurants, parks, and buildings can be seen lining the sides of the highway.[53] both of which are cited to sources which say absolutely nothing about these things. I'm guessing that you are relying on your personal knowledge obtained by driving the route yourself. Am I correct? If so, that is WP:OR and cannot be used. I apologize for my tone, but the requirement to use reliable published sources to establish verifiability is a core policy and it's astonishing to me that this level of non-sourcing got as far as passing a GA review. RoySmith(talk)14:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why yes, I've driven along I-85, but I usually look at Google Maps when I'm writing the route description for anything. Now I suppose you could consider that as original research. I do apologize for this, however, and Bneu himself has stated that he could find articles from Newspapers.com for it. The only problem is, I ahem... don't have a subscription. So clearly I don't even know what I'm going to do at this point. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same. What makes it annoying is the fact that I did indeed log in through the library, but for some bizarre reason, it doesn't let me take the clippings. I have no idea if this is my problem or a problem on the site's end. That's also pretty tedious. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead isn't really summarizing the entire article properly, including its impact + poorly usage of primary sources + poorly cited + citations aren't formatted properly + the reception and merchandising section is the worst and should be expanded + and axe this "Maggie Simpson in" section, and should be at "appearances". Overall, the article is in bad shape. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the problem with the lead? It seems fine to me. I don't see an issue with the citations not being formatted properly either, but if there really are issues, just fix them rather than GAR the article. The "Maggie Simpson In.." section seems perfectly relevant - it's separate from her normal role in The Simpsons TV series but clearly important and Maggie-centric appearances.
The relevant complaints here are too many primary sources (in the "Role in the Simpsons" section) and the Reception & Merchandising section needing a rewrite, IMO. Which will be some work but is probably doable. (The real trick will be distinguishing "stuff that the entire Simpsons family does and thus Maggie is tangentially a part of" vs. "No, this is really directly a Maggie thing".) Have you considered notifying Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons? Fixing this up will probably require someone who owns / knows the various Simpsons books. SnowFire (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That Wikiproject is dead. This article was sent out to GAR because of the significant issues for it to be a GA and not for a nominator to fix themselves. The fact that the lead (Zero mentions about its reception/discussion about the character) and the citations that aren't formatted well would be fine for you is a red flag. But not only that, but the reception needs to be expanded aside from being rewritten. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 08:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Boneless Pizza, kindly refrain from calling it a "red flag" that I don't see your point when you are the one making the point vaguely. It's not on you to fix the issues, no, but it IS on you to clearly delineate the "significant issues" and not just assert they exist. Be concrete here. What exactly is your complaint about the citation formatting? Because I don't see any major problems.
There's nothing really significant in Reception currently (About.com? Listicle crap?), so having nothing in the lead seems fine. Like I said above, I agree with you that section needs a full rewrite with much better sources than it currently uses, but am not sure it needs expansion compared to its current size. It's obvious why: Maggie is a baby. She's surfing along with the rest of the Simpson family 95% of the time. Even if the Reception section is rewritten, I doubt there will be much more than a sentence to say, probably something like "Maggie only rarely gets her own moments but critics like it when she does."
I suppose if you can't be bothered, I'll make the Wikiproject notification instead. If the project is really dead, then it's harmless anyway. SnowFire (talk) 09:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I guess I just overly exaggerated about the citation format; it seems to be not that much (I probably mistaken it with other articles, so I apologize for the "red flag" stuff). It was the lack of authors in several citations. But anyway, the article still contains a lot of issues. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 09:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Seeing as nobody has seemingly responded after the notification, I would not object to delisting if nobody is working on it. (Given that there's quite a bit of media published on The Simpsons, this wouldn't necessarily be a super-quick cleanup, we'd want someone who's read the literature to rewrite the Reception section.) SnowFire (talk) 04:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article contains significant copying/close paraphrasing of non-free sources. I've removed some but more substantive rewriting appears warranted. Samples:
Article: "The Center for Advanced Power Systems is a multidisciplinary research center organized to perform basic and applied research to advance the field of power systems technology. CAPS' emphasis is on application to electric utility, defense, and transportation, as well as, developing an education program to train the next generation of power systems engineers. The research focuses on electric power systems modeling and simulation, power electronics and machines, control systems, thermal management, cyber-security for power systems, high temperature superconductor characterization and electrical insulation research. With support from the U.S. Navy, Office of Naval Research (ONR) and the U.S. Department of Energy, CAPS has established a unique test and demonstration facility with one of the largest real-time digital power systems simulators along with 5 MW AC and DC test beds for hardware in the loop simulation. The center is supported by a research team composed of researchers, scientists, faculty, engineers, and students, recruited from across the globe, with strong representation from both the academic/research community and industry"
Source: "The Center for Advanced Power Systems (CAPS) is a multidisciplinary research center organized to perform basic and applied research to advance the field of power systems technology. CAPS emphasis is on application to electric utility, defense, and transportation, as well as developing an education program to train the next generation of power systems engineers. The research focuses on electric power systems modeling and simulation, power electronics and machines, control systems, thermal management, cyber-security for power systems, high temperature superconductor characterization and electrical insulation research. With support from the U.S. Navy, Office of Naval Research (ONR) and the U.S. Department of Energy, CAPS has established a unique test and demonstration facility with one of the largest real-time digital power systems simulators along with 5 MW AC and DC test beds for hardware in the loop simulation. The center is supported by a research team comprised of dedicated and highly skilled researchers, scientists, faculty, engineers, and students, recruited from across the globe, with strong representation from both the academic/research community and industry."
Article: "Other marine stations maintained by Florida State University until 1954 included one at Mayport, on the St. Johns River near Jacksonville, which conducted research related to the menhaden and shrimp fisheries and oceanographic problems of the Gulf Stream and the mouth of the St. John's River, and one on Mullet Key at the mouth of Tampa Bay, which studied red tide. "
Source: "Other marine stations maintained by Florida State University until 1954 included one at Mayport, on the St. Johns River near Jacksonville, which conducted research related to the menhaden and shrimp fisheries and oceanographic problems of the Gulf Stream and the mouth of the St. John's River, and one on Mullet Key at the mouth of Tampa Bay which studied red tide."
Since you appear to be from Canada and perhaps unaware (forgive me if this is incorrect), this material brings out important information about how and why the East and West Florida Seminaries came to be (these became the flagship universities of Florida State University and the University of Florida), and why Florida was divided by early leaders. This sentence accurately, referenced, and concisely illustrates the early view of Florida by both Federal and State leaders. Additionally, this historically relevant information is formative in Florida politics generally since higher education in Florida shows how Florida turned from a rough territory into what is now one of the fastest-growing states in the United States. Sirberus (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC) Sirberus (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am reviewing your changes and am generally fine with your revisions. You are making the article better - thank you! Wikipedia is a time suck, so it will take a while for me to make corrections and continue the review.Sirberus (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the marine research article. Kindly advise if more is required. I will wait a few days for your response. If I don't hear from you I will remove the tag you placed and replace the sentence of discussion. Thanks again for improving the article!Sirberus (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the approach you're taking (in both cases) is not going to address the problem. The original was copied almost directly from an external source. Your revision creates a derivative work of that external content, which still can't be used. Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Rewriting_content has some guidance on how to approach this instead. Note also that these are examples only, not a complete list. I've opened a CCI request concerning an editor who worked extensively on this and related articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good, let's hope the other editor can help. What I did was to rewrite the text based on my interpretation of the original. It was not a mere paraphrase, the personality of the original author is gone. I don't see that as derivative, as I relied on my education and experience. However, let's see what results from the skilled editor.
Florida leaders of that era thought of Florida in east and west terms, resulting from the A-O Treaty. Congressional records show the desire for a "University of Florida" by reserving two townships in east and west Florida in 1836. The 1836 document was signed by Francis Eppes, among others, who later would be the mayor of Tallahassee and the first leader of the West Seminary, which evolved into what is known today as Florida State University, though it was also titled in state law the University of Florida in the post-Civil War period. This link may be a clearer to the origins of West-East Florida. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/florida. I think it makes sense to show why there were two seminaries and how the concept developed. The references to this are already in the history section of the article. Sirberus (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask why you removed “research university” from the first sentence of the page? This seems inconsistent with the style used on the pages for all other major research universities. TravelsWithCharley (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article Review (GAR) process - it appears we need to refresh ourselves with the GAR process:
Reassessment process
Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them.
The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
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 at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.
The delisting editor (Real4jyy) shows up and says the reason the delisting was made is that no additional edits were made in two weeks...while the two active editors were waiting for a subject matter expert in non-free material to contribute to the review. Pardon me, but I live in the real world, and Wikipedia is a low priority for me and others who want to make Wikipedia better. It may takes months to finish the work. Frankly, the pattern of this individual appears to be to move from one GA review to another and delist whatever falls under their cursor. That is absurd. It takes substantial work to bring an article to GA status. I suggest if any editor want the authority to delist a GA, they should at least bring an article to the GA standard first.Sirberus (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violations in articles are a GAN quickfail criterion, Sirberus. You will note that WP:COPYRIGHT, a policy with legal implications, is just as much a part of "the real world" as whatever you consider not "low priority". Sitting around "waiting for a non-free expert to contribute" is not acceptable (I don't know where you got that—Nikkimaria didn't say anything of the sort would happen), and if you truly want to make Wikipedia better you would let the article be delisted and take the months to finish the work yourself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking through what SeminoleNation added, but what data specificailly is the problem? If you cannot be more specific, what percentage is of concern? Help me identify and eliminate problem text.Sirberus (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Just to be clear, I see you are targeting a user's contributions, not this article. Your report to CCI covers many different additions and edits a single user made to perhaps as many as four or more different articles, related in some way to FSU. Let's simplify this to the article at hand - the other edits in other articles are beyond my concern at this time. Help me to identify what is a problem in the main FSU article. Then we can (or I can, your choice) correct the issues and AirshipJungleman29 can weigh in as I appreciate all the work he's done in Wikipedia (sans the snark). Sirberus (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should note that Good Article Nomination is not Good Article Reassessment. Once a Good Article, the effort is to preservation. Achieving GA status is not easy as you well know. I will not let it go if I can fix it.Sirberus (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 I will not sink the GA status of the article for the sake of the two questioned paragraphs. The two paragraphs can be deleted if indeed they are a violation of copyright, which I tend to doubt, absent some verification. And if we refer to GAR process we note that delisting is perhaps the last action to take, with emphasis first on correction and preservation. Out of respect for the process Nikkimaria started I was waiting for input.
Nikkimaria, how are you determining the two questioned paragraphs are burdened? What process are you using? If I can corroborate that status, I will delete suspect material today. Or, shall we continue to wait? Sirberus (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "burdened" here. I provided above sample comparisons showing copying between the article and external sources, and a link to a page that explains how to address that. I do want to emphasis though that these are samples only, not a comprehensive listing. Essentially at this point someone needs to go through the entire article to eliminate copied and closely paraphrased content, and unfortunately that's not a quick or easy process. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being burdened means having a problem. Let's start with your first concern - the two paragraphs you identified. Who is to judge when it's not a derivative work? Let's then clear the article by section. Once the initial concern is resolved, we can move to the top (lede) and work down. Sirberus (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for a process we can agree to follow to achieve consensus. For some items I can approach the university directly and request they authenticate and submit permission for detail which cannot otherwise be included.Sirberus (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If rewriting is to occur, that might be a good opportunity to shift lead-exclusive information into the body and handle the unsourced text scattered here and there. I've removed an odd paragraph stating the university was building generic university facilities and trying to make campus look visually appealing. CMD (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I saw your edit and appreciate the culling. The article has accumulated much chaff over time and it is time to clean it up. Sirberus (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. But that is not this article. I suspect copying and pasting text from other sources is common across Wikipedia especially among young editors, because it is easy. That's why preservation is important here, it took me a lot of work to collect sources and render referenced information for this work.Sirberus (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found an online tool to detect plagiarism and tested it. In the last History section you deleted this text:
By 1854 the City of Tallahassee had established a school for boys called the Florida Institute, with the hope that the State could be induced to take it over as a seminary. In 1856, Tallahassee Mayor Francis W. Eppes again offered the institute's land and building to the legislature. The bill to locate the Seminary in Tallahassee was signed by the Governor on January 1, 1857. On February 7, 1857, the first meeting of the Board of Education of the State Seminary West of the Suwannee River was held, and the institution began offering post-secondary instruction to male students. Francis Eppes served as the Seminary's Board of Education president for eight years.[2] In 1858 the seminary absorbed the Tallahassee Female Academy, established in 1843, and became coeducational.[3]
The tool gives a percentage score to other sources. In the tool, it scores this as 43% matches an FSU source. I can seek permission of the university to use this and other material. But what percentage is acceptable? Can we agree to use this method to clean the work? Are you good with FSU giving permission in a fashion acceptable to Wikipedia?
This as interesting history which I intend to correct and replace, however it evolves. Especially about the battle streamer earned by the cadets during the Civil War. What are your thoughts?Sirberus (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Sirberus (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what percentage is acceptable? Unfortunately, there isn't one. Automated tools can be helpful for catching word-for-word copying of freely accessible English-language web sources. But they will frequently flag correctly marked appropriately sized direct quotes or proper names, and miss close paraphrasing or copying of less-accessible sources. This page has more details (focused on one such tool but generally applicable). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In refreshing myself in this area, Wikipedia has many helpful references. I see straightforward ways to cure suspected non-free material in this article.
* Delete the material.
* Reference the material.
* Rewrite the material.
* Get permission to use the material.
* Use a combination of the above, especially in the History section, where the material is so old copyrights have expired. Sirberus (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing the material is a solution only where the material is so old copyrights have expired. If all of the affected sources are willing to freely license the content, that might be another. But failing that, the solution is delete and start again (not rewrite from the existing content). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am rewriting some sections of the history. It may be the easiest to deal with due to the age of the material. Fortunately, I have many of the the references on hand.Sirberus (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The recent deletions of suspected non-free material is helpful. Now material may be vetted and added without concern for non-free taint.Sirberus (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not at this point - while great progress has been made on one CCI, there's at least one more that impacts this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of this one, but even that might not be the end of the story - the piece I removed today was not from either of those two CCIs. I should also note that in doing spotchecks, I'm running into a lot of cases where the citations given are not copied but also don't support the material they are claimed to. I'm not sure whether that's because a different source was used originally (as was the case for at least some of the copying), or whether uncited material was interspersed with cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has picked up a lot of stuff over the years and was written mostly before Wikipedia copyvios were closely followed (before Wikipedia started trying to monetize things?). It has also been edited over time. The entire work should be checked. Back then, citations were manually entered, and citing material properly took a lot of work (remember Kate Turabian’s book? - lol). Today, there is an automated process that simplifies cites. I want to preserve GA status. It will be cleaned up one way or another. Sirberus (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 I have corrected a number of cites and added cites where tags were located. I think the non-free material has been removed, unless other editors think more culling is required. The gallery was a mess and I removed anyone not elected or fired into space at taxpayer expense. What else? Sirberus (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of additional edits, checks and rewrites. I scanned the article for additional copyvios and found none. Removed the Non-Free tag.Sirberus (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed several FV and CN tags after I have addressed the assorted problems, like a page number problem. If you have a concern with the cite itself, please be more specific. What else needs to be done? Thanks for taking the time.Sirberus (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that there still seem to be verifiability issues. Couple of quick examples: "Doak Campbell Stadium is a unique venue for collegiate athletics. It is contained within the brick facade walls of University Center, the largest continuous brick structure in the world" - the given source states "Doak Campbell Stadium is the largest continuous brick structure in the United States"; "In 2008, the lower floor reopened as the graduate- and faculty-focused Scholars Commons. In 2010, the main floor was transformed into an undergraduate-focused Learning Commons. The most recent renovation added smart study rooms, an enlarged computer area, new circulation areas, a tutoring center, and the nation's first double-sided Starbucks" is cited to a source that verifies only "the nation's first double-sided Starbucks"; "The NSF denied the appeal, explaining that the superior enthusiasm for and commitment to the project demonstrated by Florida State led to the decision to relocate the lab" is cited to a source that confirms the appeal was denied but doesn't say anything about the NSF reasoning for why. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Far from covering all major aspects of the topic. Chinaknowledge, which is based on Chinese language secondary sources, contains several paragraphs of information about the contents of the book, while the article only has two sentences. The article says that the book is considered lost in China, even though Chinaknowledge makes clear that large sections of the book survive and even lists modern editions of the text. Kzyx (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing they list their sources so we can hopefully check those out. This also makes me realise that I think there must be more sources for this work that are in Mandarin, which I unfortunately do not speak; but if we find the sources hopefully there would be Mandarin-speaking Wikipedians willing to help translate/factcheck machine translations. ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 11:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a long while since I took a look at this but I would hesitate to call Chinaknowledge.de a reliable source, even though its information is ostensibly based on reliable-looking Chinese sources. Notwithstanding the fact that I would really love to incorporate info from Chinese-language sources, I believe this article already covers virtually everything that can be found in the English-language scholarship; I would challenge anyone to contradict me. Claims such as the full text being lost (which I think you're insinuating to be inaccurate) are not based on my word (WP:OR), but the RSes cited. In any case, thanks for helping to improve the article but I respectfully submit that this GAR is a tad premature. Cheers, KINGofLETTUCE 👑🥬12:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I believe you meant to link here instead. Frankly I do not see that much of a significant difference between the info listed there and in our article. There is a distinction between "comprehensive" (in fact, just "broad in coverage" suffices for GA purposes...) and "exhaustive"... For instance, I'm not quite sure our readers really need to know about every single modern print of the fragments by the Keji weisheng press, the Shanghai keji press, or the Shanghai guji Press, etc. KINGofLETTUCE 👑🥬12:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I did mean that link. I didn't actually want to cite Chinaknowledge (which is written by a specialist in Chinese history) in the article and it's definitely not necessary to actually list modern editions. I was just pointing out that there is a lot of information yet to be added. And yes, the statement that the full text is lost is inaccurate: the Encyclopedia of China states that 20 juan survive, and those 20 juan can be found on ctext.org. There are also very many academic papers in Chinese whose main topic is the Xinxiu bencao :[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. In any case, the article's five paragraphs are woefully inaccurate for a clearly important text in the history of Chinese medicine. Kzyx (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please address my point that "this article already covers virtually everything that can be found in the English-language scholarship"... It's not reasonable to expect anything here to incorporate information from the "very many academic papers in Chinese", as much as I would like for this to be the case (and notwithstanding the fact that this topic is indeed Chinese-related)... The claim, for instance, that the full text is lost is made in one of the RSes and faithfully reported in this article. Per WP:OR, it is not in within our purview to contradict that. FWIW, the fact that 20 juan survive (which you are more than welcome to add) is not mutually exclusive with the fact that the full text (comprising who knows how many juan) no longer survives.... Again, as far as the modern English-language scholarship is concerned, I do not think your assessment of "Woefully inaccurate" is at all fair. Cheers, KINGofLETTUCE 👑🥬16:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kingoflettuce, per WP:RSUE English-language sources are only preferred over non-English ones when they are of equal quality. From what Kzyx is saying, it seems like the Chinese-language source include huge amounts of relevant information, without which the article can't be said to cover the "main aspects" of the topic. I am thus of the view that unless the relevant material is added from the Chinese sources, this should be delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 Kzyx is being hyperbolic with such claims as "woefully inaccurate" and I respectfully submit that you shouldn't simply be taking his word for it. His main gripe revolves around the "Contents" section and I believe that since we aren't a specialist encyclopedia there's really no need to go into too much detail (or any at all) regarding the hundreds of various medicines listed in the text, apart from the fact that there are 850ish of them. Moreover, "the 'broad in its coverage' criterion is significantly weaker than the 'comprehensiveness' required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." Short of gesturing towards a list of papers, Kzyx also has not specified what relevant info is so crucially missing from the article. Cheers, KINGofLETTUCE 👑🥬05:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous uncited passages, bloated lede, reliance on block quotes, and unused sources in the "Further reading" section. Z1720 (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My advice is to trim the lede by at least one paragraph and reincorporate into another section, cut down some of the block quotes and change them into regular prose, and look into some of the works found in the Further Reading section to determine if any of the unsourced claims can be found there. I was able to find a Los Angeles Times reference for one of the unsourced claims and I might be able to assist further with the article. Are you available or willing to clean up the article? If so, can you provide a timeframe? Dobbyelf62 (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: That's fine. While I might not be able to heavily overhaul the article, I am willing to make various improvements. I have made a couple of changes in the interim, including the addition of references and the elimination of a few block quotes in favor of prose, but I'm hoping that I did not remove any necessary context in doing so.
Could you provide more specific examples on some of your grievances with the article? You mentioned that the lede is too lengthy, but are there any particular paragraphs that are worth trimming or removing? Which ones are absolutely necessary for the article and should be retained? I can address some of these requests once I have additional context, but I will also exercise some discretion when making these changes. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dobbyelf62: According to WP:LEADLENGTH, it is suggested that an article of this length should be two to three paragraphs. Typically, the lede is a summary of the most important aspects of the article. I don't have enough knowledge of the prose to know what should be cut from the lede, and I don't have the time or desire to obtain that knowledge. Z1720 (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A. Serious concerns with "Verifiable with no original research"
I have compiled a registry of the sources used in this article:
New York Times (x4), Eurasia Review (x1), Radio Free Asia (x1), Chinese Urgent Action Working Group (x1), Frontline Defenders (x3), Human Rights Watch (x1), Christian Science Monitor (x2 - erroneous double cite [7][13]), Reuters (x1), Amnesty Int'l (x1), Lawyers for Lawyers (x1), BBC (x1), HK Free Press (x1), Government of the Netherlands (x1), Radio Netherlands Worldwide (x1), SCMP (x1), Voice of America (x1).
There are 23 sources in sum. While sources themselves are generally consistent with perennially reliable sources, each of the guidelines for several of the sources used (Amnesty, RFA, etc.) carry recommendations or disclaimers that citations of these sources should be done with caution (either amending the language for neutrality, or disclaiming a relationship to the U.S. government). However, the *majority of sources* as expressed (Lawyers for Lawyers, Human Rights Watch, China Urgent Action Warning Group, etc.) are primary by nature, have express political leanings and incentives, and are used as the guiding citation for several contentious claims in places where substantially more reliable sources may be called for.
Language in the text appears flaired or put in substantial excess of what the sources themselves say. For example, the sentence
having her passport arbitrarily denied by Chinese government authorities
is not found anywhere in the BBC article that the clause cites - at all. The article only indicates that Ni was released from prison and that she uses a wheelchair, which the article proceeds to suggest (without further provenance) that some of her supporters say are due to the hands of police - hardly sufficiently reliable to justify any unqualified claim regarding police brutality.
The passport claim, which is then repeated several times in the article (unqualified), may be found in some other sources (e.g., the New York Times), but such sources, e.g., [18], carry no particular provenance for the claim other than a direct interview with the person herself - by definition, a primary source for which the publisher has repeatedly and clearly disclaimed as content from the interviewee herself. This phenomenon repeats frequently and is once again an example of flawed authorship in the article.
Continued claims in the article about alleged social hardship, such as source [17] indicating her eviction, are themselves uncited and of dubious quality. No evidence, provenance, or citations are offered in the source. The only other source where the alleged 2017 window-smashing case is mentioned is in Hong Kong Free Press - once again, only through an interview by the subject herself.
These issues are present throughout the article. Overall, by inspection of about six sources, the article dramaticizes content with theatrical effect, relies overly on a persona constructed by the article subject herself through interviews, and offers no explanation connecting any of the disparate phenomena observed (e.g., window-smashing with passport denial, etc).
C. Cursory initial approval round
Upon inspection of WP:Peer review/Ni Yulan/archive1, it appears that no particular analysis or work was conducted on the article other than the addition of certain sources and basic formatting. No particular comment as to relationships with the GA criteria were discussed at all. Moreover, no commentary in relation to writing quality exists at any point, in any form, at any time. Augend (drop a line) 06:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the only two concrete issues identified (removed the failed verification and double citation). I seem to have done a very cursory source check in the initial review, and identified one instance of text-source verification issue there. The text seems quite consistent in using phrases such as "According to Ni", and "According to Radio Free Asia", indicating proper attribution of primary sourcing. WP:RSPSS says inline attribution and a note of who funds RFA may be appropriate, but I think the name and inline attribution already give enough of a "warning" sign to readers that funding is not too relevant here. Many of the claims in the article are stated unattributed by sources like NYT.
Checked another 2 sources ([16][18]), which revealed some close paraphrasing to 16. Changed my mind and not giving this the benefit of the doubt, but a proper spot check would be good. I think there may be more close paraphrasing to that source. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think I got all the close paraphrasing. I couldn't find further issues with source-text integrity, and have now checked roughly 1/3 of the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 2019, I promoted this article to "Good article" status, which was the first time I ever took on this responsibility. As such, I am not entirely sure if I conducted the process properly. My biggest concern is that I directly assisted in the editing of the article during the GA Review process, which I believe influenced my decision to list it as one of the Music good articles. If we could get an impartial set of eyes on this article, that would be greatly appreciated. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick drive-by, but there are too many fair use audio files in the article. WP:SAMPLE notes that "There should be only one sample per song recording, even if several users produce samples," and I doubt this song requires multiple samples; in any case, the 70 combined seconds of sample audio is 23% of the length of the original song's length, much greater than the 10% recommended in the MoS. This is luckily pretty easy to fix, removing two samples from the article and leaving one, but I'm not entirely sure if it's enough to warrant a delist because the audio files, while excessive, are technically relevant as they are captioned. Making the call is probably best reserved for someone with better knowledge of the criteria and the song. Leafy46 (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, this would be an easy fix. If we were to keep one audio file, I would probably select the piano intro, although I could be convinced to keep the second pre-chorus and chorus. Of three, which one do you think adds most to the article? Dobbyelf62 (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dobbyelf62: Sorry I didn't catch this! I am personally partial towards the second pre-chorus and chorus, as it "covers more ground," per se. It handles the paragraph about the descending melody with "girls don't seem to care," it touches on the paragraph about the chorus, and (as the biggest factor in this opinion) it adds onto the paragraph about the lyrics. If you're planning on keeping this one, I'd probably add a line to the description calling back to the Lyrics section when it mentions "The chorus's overlapping harmonies of "no static at all" suggest a station identification." However, you have a better understanding of the song as a whole, and the piano intro certainly covers a lot of ground as well. Alternatively, it may be good to cut down both audio samples to just 14-15 seconds, such that the overall lengths of the files are 29 seconds or less. Make your best call! Leafy46 (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update. I will relay this information to the primary author of the article to gauge their thoughts. In terms of the actual text and substance of the article, do you have any feedback? Is the article too heavily reliant on quotes? Dobbyelf62 (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This 2009 GA needs sourcing improvements - a good chunk of the article is sourced to Global Security, which is now considered unreliable - see WP:GLOBALSECURITY. Additionally, there is other uncited material in the article, including a couple CN tags. Additionally, if possible, it would be nice to get a little more detailed inforation about the 2017 Atlantic Resolve and 2019 Freedom's Sentinel deployments. Hog FarmTalk13:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hey, nice to see you're planning to work on this article. I'm not an expert on the period, but I was confused by the following: he came from a peasant family ... The name Iustinianus, which he took later, is indicative of adoption by his uncle Justin. ... His mother was Vigilantia, the sister of Justin. Justin, who was commander of one of the imperial guard units (the Excubitors) before he became emperor. I think it should be clarified - how it was possible that commander of the guard became an emperor? Was there a military coup? Or he was from the previous emperor's family? And were this commander and his nephew really from a peasant family? Artem.G (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Artem.G, I just concluded another GA reassessment and have started working on this one. Give me some time and I will resolve the queries you have. Matarisvan (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This collection of randomly selected texts from several sources (including primary sources) could hardly be described as a coherent article. For instance, section "Legislative activities" contains sentences about elements of his legislation without explaining why they are emphasised, and section "Natural disasters" does not explain their effect on Justinian's reign. Borsoka (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Borsoka, good to see you here! I understand you are quite well read on Crusader and other nobility, so I hope you could help me out here. I have just started working on this article, with my sole edit yet only seeking to improve source formatting. I will work on the issues you have raised and hope I can get them resolved soon. Matarisvan (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
