Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process primarily used to determine whether an article that is listed as good article (GA) still merits its good article status according to the good article criteria, and to delist it if not. There are two types of reassessment: individual reassessment and community reassessment. An individual reassessment is discussed on the article talk page and concluded by a single editor in much the same way as a review of a good article nomination. Community reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. Where possible, editors should conduct an individual reassessment, while community reassessment should be used if delisting is likely to be controversial. Community reassessments can also be used to challenge a fail during a good article nomination. This is not a peer review process; for that use Wikipedia:Peer review. The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not. Many problems (including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for delisting.
Unless an article's issues are extensive, consider taking the following steps before initiating a reassessment:
Fix any simple problems yourself. Do not waste minutes explaining or justifying a problem that you could fix in seconds. GAR is not a forum to shame editors over easily fixed problems.
Tag serious problems that you cannot fix with appropriate template messages, if the templates will help other editors find the problems. Do not tag bomb the article.
Notify major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects. Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.
Occasionally, rather than initiating either individual or community reassessment, an editor will merely tag the article as possibly needing reassessment. These tagged articles are listed below and each needs the attention of an editor to decide if reassessment is required. To tag an article, {{GAR request}} is placed at the top of the article talk page. It is useful to indicate in the edit summary or on the talk page why you think a reassessment may be necessary.
Individual reassessment
When to use this process
Use the individual reassessment process when you find an article listed as a good article that you don't believe satisfies the good article criteria and:
You would like to receive input from a community of editors who watch the article talk page
You believe the decision to continue listing the article or to delist it should be yours, at the conclusion of a good article reassessment discussion (unless you believe a decision made by you is likely to be controversial, then opt for community reassessment instead)
Use the individual reassessment process if:
You are confident in your ability to assess the article
You are not a major contributor to the article
You know the article has not been delisted before
You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war
You are logged in (unless you are not a registered user, then you may try asking another editor to reassess the article)
Note
Individual reassessments do not appear below on the good article reassessment page; those are all community reassessments.
How to use this process
The instructions for individual reassessment are:
Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
Follow the first bold link in the template to create an individual reassessment page (while the second bold link creates a community reassessment page). The individual reassessment page for this article is created as a subpage of the article talk page.
Leave an assessment on this page detailing your reasons for bringing the article to good article reassessment. List the problems you found with the article in comparison to the good article criteria. Save the page.
Transclude the individual assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and prepare to type at the bottom of the page. Paste in{{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}}. 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, relevant WikiProjects for the article, the nominator, and the reviewer. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=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.
Wait for other editors to respond.
After discussion, you must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria. You may close the discussion as well. An individual assessment may be closed after seven days of no activity.
To close the discussion, edit the individual reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).
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, delete the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page and update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page.
If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this, remove the article from the relevant list at good articles, remove the {{good article}} template from the article page, remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page, and update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (see example). Remove the GA assessment from project banners.
Community reassessment
When to use this process
Use the community reassessment process when you find an article listed as a good article that you don't believe satisfies the good article criteria and:
You would like to receive input from a community of editors who watch the good article reassessment page
You believe the decision to continue listing the article or to delist it should be the result of consensus, at the conclusion of a good article reassessment discussion (unless you believe a decision made by you is not likely to be controversial, then opt for individual reassessment instead)
Use the community reassessment process if:
You are not confident in your ability to assess the article
You are a major contributor to the article
You disagree with an earlier keep or delist decision
You are logged in (unless you are not a registered user, then you may try asking another editor to reassess the article)
You disagree with a fail at Wikipedia:Good article nominations (however, it is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for this; it is usually simpler to renominate it)
Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate. Wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment. If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered.
How to use this process
The instructions for community reassessment are:
Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
Follow the second bold link in the template to create a community reassessment page (while the first bold link creates an individual reassessment page). The community reassessment page for this article is created as a subpage of the good article reassessment page.
Leave an assessment on this page detailing your reasons for bringing the article to good article reassessment. List the problems you found with the article in comparison to the good article criteria. Save the page. A bot will add the assessment to the GA reassessment page.
Transclude the community assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and create a new section named "GA Reassessment". Paste in{{WP:Good article reassessment/ArticleName/n}}. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display the community reassessment discussion.
Notify major contributing editors, relevant WikiProjects for the article, the nominator, and the reviewer. 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.
Wait for other editors to respond.
After discussion, consensus must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria. Any uninvolved editor may close the discussion (if needed, a request may be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure).
To close the discussion, edit the community reassessment page of the article and locate {{GAR/current}}. 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, but it will have to be manually added to the current archive.
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, delete the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page and update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page.
If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this, remove the article from the relevant list at good articles, remove the {{good article}} template from the article page, remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page, update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (see example), and restore any project assessment values on the article talk page (check history to see what they were). A bot will remove and archive the assessment from the GA reassessment page.
Guidelines for individual reassessment discussion
Please also see the community discussion guidelines that may also apply to an individual discussion.
Begin by consulting the good article criteria before commenting on whether an article should have its status changed or not.
All suggestions for improving articles are welcome, but criticisms not based on the good article criteria do not ordinarily disqualify an article from good article status. Note also that if an article is listed at good articles, it almost always means that someone considers it to be of good quality, so if it no longer meet the criteria, an explicit explanation is more likely to be appreciated by other editors than a general comment that the article is inadequate. Those who add an article to good article reassessment should feel free to fix problems with the article; this is not regarded as a conflict of interest and should encourage regular editors of the article to engage more actively with the reassessment process.
Please also see the individual discussion guidelines that may also apply to a community discussion.
Begin by consulting the good article criteria before commenting on whether an article should have its status changed or not.
When a community reassessment has run its course, it can be closed by any uninvolved registered user. (Significant contributors to the article are "involved", as are reassessment nominators, unless the closure involves withdrawing the nomination; editors are not usually considered to be "involved" unless they have contributed significantly to GA disagreements about the article prior to the community reassessment.) Reassessment discussions which are still active should not be closed unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than four weeks have passed since the reassessment was opened. All articles should be listed for at least seven days, unless there is a procedural mistake and a GAR is not appropriate. The clearer the consensus, the sooner the discussion can be closed. In particular, it is not recommended to close any discussion that has a comment less than 2–3 days old, unless
at least five editors have expressed an opinion
the editors' comments demonstrate a very clear consensus.
However, discussions which have lasted more than 4 weeks can be closed with no consensus: in this case the status of the article should remain unchanged.
Closing a discussion requires taking responsibility, determining the consensus of the editors, and taking action where necessary. Consensus is determined by weight of argument rather than counting votes: for instance, the article may have changed since being listed for reassessment, and some comments may no longer be applicable. Compare the comments made in the discussion with the current state of the article and with the criteria for good articles.
If there is a clear weight of argument that a current good articledoes not meet the criteria, then it should be delisted.
If there is a clear weight of argument that a delisted good article or failed nomination does meet the criteria, then it should be listed as a good article.
If there is no consensus, consider adding a new comment rather than closing the discussion, to see if consensus can be found. If in doubt, leave notice that you intend to close the discussion, and wait 2–3 days for further comments before closing. In particular, strongly contested discussions, where consensus is difficult to determine, should only be closed by those with more experience of reassessment discussions.
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 an individual or 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.
I am nominating this article for Good article reassessment for multiple reasons. The citation needed, page needed and Miscellaneous info tags alone would be more than enough, but there are also of couple a potential WP:COPYVIO Youtube refs (157 and 158), and the awards section doesn't talk about or source the specific awards in prose but rather just makes it dependent on a unsourced Succession box list. It may have met the criteria at the time it was promoted, but I don't think anyone predicted how even more popular this show got and thus there were probably less experienced editors infiltrating the article with unsourced info and trivia. Nonetheless, the issues are significant enough for a reassessment. 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[]
I agree in regards to the awards section- I came upon that recently and there is certainly no need to list predecessors or successors of when the show did win. Something similar to Whose Line Is It Anyway? (American TV series)#Awards and nominations would probably be more preferable. Would I be fine to go ahead and do that when I get a chance? Magitroopa (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[]
Do whatever it takes to improve this. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[]
Hello, I wasn't the one who did most of the work to promote this to GA (that would be SethAllen623) but I do remember when this was going through the nomination process. I am away this weekend but am willing to work when I get back...let me know if anything else needs to be done beyond reference/source fixes and improvements. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[]
Opps, my apologies. I looked at the edit history and it wasn't clear who the nominator was, so I assumed it was you. Sorry. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[]
I'll see if I can take a look at this. The article has gotten rather bloated with fancruft and I've tried to chainsaw some of it out, but it just keeps getting worse. I'm sure we can make this one a True Daily Double. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[]
Haven't had much time to take a look. I did try to trim some bloated text but I could use help on fixing the awards section and seeking feedback on what other bloat to remove. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@TenPoundHammer: I know what I said above, but you're more than welcome to do that if you want to. I might check it out/redo the table tomorrow (currently 3:40am for me...)- just had never gotten around to it, like a whole bunch of other stuff I've been wanting to get to. I've been in the Jeopardy-mood lately (and have been cleaning up Mike Richards (television personality) since the recent news...), so will try to use that to my advantage. :P Magitroopa (talk) 07:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Fixed some of the mentioned issues. The rest seems alright, good enough to keep it as a good article in my opinion. Aircorn(talk) 23:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The recent scandal involving the newly-announced host (who was shortly thereafter out following the scandal about his sexual comments) may affect the article's stability, so I'd wait until that settles so that we can come to a conclusion. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC) []
Changes to the article since the review have added an unreferenced section. Changes to the lede contain typographical errors (the last sentence of the lede is without a full stop).
There are at least two references to wordpress blogs. The section on France contains measurements for different cuts of fries but doesn't provide references. The list of "popular options" for dipping sauces in the Belgium section is unsourced. (Zigeuner sauce is served with schnitzel and not a dipping sauce for fries.) The content about vacuum fryers in the preparation section is unsourced. The last sentence of the South Africa section is unsourced.
I was very tempted to demote it unilaterally based on the self-published Wordpress references. However, I think it can be fixed if any editors are willing to go over it again. Spudlace (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[]
I agree that there are major sourcing issues. For the record, sauce tzigane really is served with fries and I doubt you could buy a schnitzel in Belgium or the Netherlands if you tried... —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[]
Missing full stop – is that really the sort of thing to bring up at a GAR? It's the sort of thing that we just routinely go and fix, not make a song and dance about. SpinningSpark 23:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Did some work on it. I think it is good enough to remain a Good Article now. Aircorn(talk) 09:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC) []
The biggest issue with this BLP article is the lack of verifiable sources for some of the content. An additional issue is that considerable amounts of content seem to be WP:UNDUE. I think compliance with GAC#3b would be obtained with some trimming of low-relevance info, esp. in the later life section. (t · c) buidhe 07:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[]
Delist - no improvements, and uses user-generated sources like last.fm and discogs multiple times. Needs sizable sourcing work, and at almost 12,000 words is probably too long. Hog FarmTalk 22:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[]
Delist per Hog Farm. – zmbro(talk) 20:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC) []
This 2009 promotion is now extremely out of date - in many places that article has not been updated since 2014 events, and many of the statistics are from before 2010. Hog FarmTalk 19:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[]
Delist - needs largely rewritten, no engagement. Hog FarmTalk 22:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[]
Delist - seems no one interested in updating Chidgk1 (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[]
This 2008 promotion needs further attention now. There is uncited text scattered throughout, as well as datedness - the source for One in every 45 (2.2%) last-year users of BZP in New Zealand is classed as dependent upon it, although 97.9% of users said that "it would not be difficult to stop using legal party pills", and 45.2% of people who reported using both BZP and illegal drugs such as methamphetamine reported that they used BZP so that they did not have to use methamphetamine, which was perceived as more harmful. is about 15 years old and probably outdated, and the information in the legal issues section all seems to pre-date 2010. Without a thorough updating and citing, this may have to be delisted as a GA. Hog FarmTalk 06:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[]
Delist - no engagement. Hog FarmTalk 05:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Hog Farm: I'm going to try to take this on. I've never written a GA before, so I figure that saving one from delisting is a less formidable task. I can cite and update — is there anything else you think needs work? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 17:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Tol: - I think those two things are probably the two main outstanding items. Hog FarmTalk 22:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Alright; thank you! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Requesting a reassessment following observations from Yngvadottir. As the original GA assessor I feel very embarrassed and humbled that I missed the items that have been mentioned in the observation - which are very obvious to me when I look at it afresh. simongraham (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[]
The observation identified the following problems:
The section on equipment produced by Holbrook's company contained obvious OCR errors and its phrasing indicated that the source was an advertisement.
Repetition of information (the creation of the company and factory)
Uneven style (the Genealogy section, in particular, did not fit with the rest in style)
Unclear writing including burying the information on when he started his first school and simply puzzling sentences like "There were a hundred lyceums formed in the 1820s for crafts and mechanics of agricultural methods and geological surveys and further advanced the teaching system into other areas."
Clumsy integration of the information from references, such as "He developed a small factory for the manufacture of scientific apparatus" in the "17th Reunion" news source was "made a factory that was specifically designed to manufacture scientific apparatus" in the article.
The "Founder Yale Grad" source is the same text as part of the "17th Reunion" source; obviously some of these news reports have a common origin.
Yngvadottir has undertaken essential editing but I feel that the article needs to be reassessed by someone with more experience than me. The nominee, Doug Coldwell, was always helpful in the review and I feel has made this errors, as I did, in good faith. simongraham (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC) []
Previous GAR was 5 years ago, and there seem to be some significant issues to adress.
Article is too long, with a readable prose size of over 18,000 words, almost twice the recommended 10,000. As noted by Jehochman on the talk page, more content should be moved to subarticles and replaced by summary style.
The lead, too, is way too long, consisting of 5 lengthy paragraphs. The expositions of his wars and campaigns should probably somehow be condensed. There's also a balance issue, with the last paragraph extolling Napoleon's achievements - including a direct quote from a historian taking up more than half the paragraph - without mentioning any negatively viewed aspects of his legacy, e.g. reinstating slavery in the Caribbean. An additional paragraph focusing on the latter was recently added, though not in an optimal way, and has since been removed again. See also Talk:Napoleon#Lead: length and recent addition.
There are six {{citation needed}} tags, five of which date back all the way to 2016.
There might be additional issues that I'm unaware of. The ones above seem altogether sufficient to justify a GAR, especially for such a vital and prominent article. Lennart97 (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[]
You may be intrested in the discusion held before on the talk page, in wich i proposed a way to cut the lead to five shorter paragraphs, so far i have proposed it, but i would want to hear your opinion, and how to improve it. (we are talking about the lead). we talked about this. So far we need consensus, and focus on the problem itself.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[]
I appreciate the proposal of a new lead. It's definitely shorter, that's good. Apart from needing a lot of copy editing for grammar/spelling, I'm not personally sure whether it's up to GA standards. Others' opinions on this are very welcome. Lennart97 (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[]
I was notified of this GAR - but I have no real interest, experience or expertise with the article,a dn am not currently writing on Wikipedia. However the concerns expressed are clearly something that someone should be able to fix in a matter of days, expending about the same amount of energy as a GAR would take. Why not fix it instead? By the way, excessive length is really a silly object to an article's quality, some topics need to be longer than the standard article to provide sufficient coverage of the relevant literature - without having read this one, I'd not be surprised if this is a such a topic. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[]
I notified you only because you were involved in the previous GAR, hope you don't mind. I nominated the article for a community review because I'm not personally able to fix the article's problems, it's as simple as that. More specifically, per the guidelines at WP:GAR, I 1) don't believe satisfies the good article criteria and 2) [am] not confident in [my] ability to assess the article - thus a community reassessment seems like the correct choice.
You may have a point about the article length, but isn't that what spinning off content and using summary style in the main article is for? I'm pretty sure I've seen length considerations in GA reviews, anyway. Maybe Jehochman who first noted the length as an issue wants to comment on this as well. Lennart97 (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[]
. I hope the issues can be corrected within the scope of this review. Summary style is not hard to do, nor does it take very long. I fixed the worst reference issues. Some that remain may require an editor with more reference expertise than my level. @El C: might know who to contact. JehochmanTalk 14:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC) []
2008 promotion that has seen better days. Although many parts are exquisitely detailed, there are dozens of citation needed tags (including one in the lead) that need to be addressed. I recently made some edits myself regarding extra references in the lead and infobox, but I can't assist anywhere else. I feel the dozens of tags are sufficient enough to nominate for reassessment. – zmbro(talk) 19:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[]
Now there are 14. I am not going to work on this article myself but am curious to know whether if all the remaining uncited sentences were removed it would still rate as "good"?Chidgk1 (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC) []
A GAR request was asked for by Sun8908. There have been two prominent tags at the top of the article since November 2020 that need resolving. Given past issues with technical articles I am not going to comment on that aspect apart from to say that I find it very hard to follow this article (although that is true for most articles of this type). There are some areas where the prose can be tightened up (the refinement section is mostly proseline) and sourcing seems inadequate in other areas and relies too much on Request for Comments when it is used. There are external links embedded in the body and outside the lead no description of what URI actually is. Going through the community process due to past experiences with these types of articles. Aircorn(talk) 23:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment - there is also a Harv error in the references section that needs attention. Keith D (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I do think this one is a failure of WP:TECHNICAL personally, for a topic that should be more accessible to a general audience. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Its a long time since I have been with RDF and OWL, most of which is done automatically now. The Lead is confusing to the general reader. Linking to FOAF in the lead is irrelevant. The language used in Conception and Refinement are relevant to W3C, the web consortium. If you are not familiar with IETF and the like, there can be quite the obfuscation taking place. There is a correction here, referring to the Semantic web, which is that (body) (instrument/code) that gives you and me a Uniform Resource Identifier. What will become of this, is unfolding as we write. There have been developments leaving Dublin Core in the dustbin of history right through to post Google adsense identifiers.
This article is simple enough for those used to working with the W3C and its frameworks, validation, resolving URI references and the like. XML namespaces do deserve an inclusion here, and its a wonder Open Graph Tags haven't been included.
Delist, too technical for the average reader. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC) []
The article no longer meets the criteria for GA since being listed in 2008, particularly points 1, 3 and 6. Article is no longer well-written by GA standards, and will require heavy cleanup to meet GA criteria again. Article is also very brief and not broad in its coverage. Theknine2 (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Pinging Leoseliv as they had a similar discussion on the talk page. Theknine2 (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC) []
2008 GA with myriad issues. Too short lead, missing elements such as seal/logo image for infobox, wide chunks of unsourced content, and bare URLs. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 08:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Speedy Delist – per nom. It's had that tag for seven years so that's honestly embarrassing. – zmbro(talk) 20:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Delist too much unsourced prose, and too much prose sourced to primary or non-RS sources. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Delist - uncited text and outdated material, such as discussion about the moot court team's activities from almost 20 years ago. Hog FarmTalk 06:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Delist - I have reviewed the article carefully. I agree with the reasons previously mentioned in support of delisting the article in this thread. Donner60 (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC) []
The article failed it's fourth and most recent FAC, because of one detractor (Fowler&fowler). While there will never be another FAC attempt at this article by me, I will nevertheless be satisfied if it at least maintains GA status. Because factual accuracy and coherence matter more. --Kailash29792(talk) 11:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I will do a thorough read-through of this article later in the week. I did a brief scan through the article, and I did not find anything that would take away its GA status. I would remove the "Accolades" section and incorporate that information in the "Reception" section as I would avoid having a one-paragraph section. I would also rephrase this note, " In the end Mohan's name only appeared in the opening credits.", to simply, "Mohan's name only appeared in the opening credits.". I found the "In the end" part to be confusing as when I first read it, I thought you meant at the end of the film. Those are my only notes for now. I hope you are doing well and having a great end to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I do not really see any other issues that would prevent this article from keeping its GA status. Aoba47 (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Are you done with the thorough read-through? Did you read any of Fowler's comments from the FAC and see if they must be addressed, or if he was just being overdemanding? I'll share with you pages of the book Pride of Tamil cinema, you please read them and tell me if I missed anything. The link is available only for 24 hours. Kailash29792(talk) 02:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Apologies for the delay in my response. I will leave this for another editor. I am currently in the middle of a few other reviews and I plan on taking a break from Wikipedia once my current FAC is completed, and to be completely frank, I do not really want to read through Fowler's comments from the last FAC. Again, I will leave this for another editor. Apologies for that and best of luck with this. Aoba47 (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC) []
Someone has commented on the talk page that the article is out of date but I don't know enough about the subject to reassess the article myself Chidgk1 (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC) []
I am not sure what to make of this article. The title is overly broad as any country could be a potential superpower. Emerging superpower would be better, but still carry many of the same problems. The opening sentence is vague in its definition (use of speculated). It is pretty much presented in a list format. I am not sure if this topic can be written about without getting into original research. The talk page showcases this with the discussions on whether Japan and Brazil should still be included. Is China a super power or potential superpower? Is the USA still a superpower? It just seems to be open to so much interpretation and not many sources seem to discuss the topic in in an overarching way. As it is the sources used seem to hold vastly different views on what constitutes a superpower that there is no overall cohesion to many of the statements.
Anyway as to the criteria, the lead contains a lot of information not found in the article and lacks an overview of the actual body. It is contradictory, calling USA the only country that fulfils the criteria of a superpower (sourced to a reference that does not mention any criteria) followed by a citation overkill of sources saying how it is not sole superpower. The set up of the articles is a list of views of people that see the country or entity as a potential superpower, followed by those who don’t. The trouble with this set up is that it is giving the same weight to all opinions, which is not really justified (especially when the sources vary so much “real truth” to “New York times”. Obviously the tags need to be resolved (Citations, updates etc) for it to remain a good article.
I feel this needs to be judged by more editors than me so I am putting it through a community review. @Chidgk1: as the gar requester. @OccultZone: as the nominator. Aircorn(talk) 01:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Delist I have no idea who would benefit from reading this rubbishChidgk1 (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Retain GA status There is absolutely no such issue with the article as it makes it certain that what really qualifies as 'potential superpower' through academia. We generally relied on the mainstream consensus to list who is a superpower and who would be a superpower, in line with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I think most of the issues cited here belong to talk page. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 06:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment The original research original research, undue, more citations needed and outdated tags were removed with this edit. I don't feel these issues have been adequately addressed, especially in light of a GA review. Aircorn(talk) 00:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It had to be removed in April, but I got busy elsewhere. The relevance tag regarding EU was wrongly added though. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 05:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Continue GA status: The article defined the term in a very concise and accurate manner. Speaking of facts, the U.S. is the only superpower in the world as of current. China and India are potential superpowers as they don't hold enough influence over the world. Russia and EU are other candidates but they are in decline. The article describes these facts accurately. I don't see any serious concerns with the article, and I think the tags at the top should be removed. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Where is this definition? There is no introductory sentence or explanation on what makes something a superpower or for that matter a potential superpower. It just jumps straight into a section on China. Like I said this is more presented as a list than an article. Even as a list it does not do a very good job of defining what can and cannot be included. The above comment emphasises the original research problems, where editors are using their own judgement to decide what is a superpower, a potential superpower or no longer a superpower. The retain !votes are moot at this stage anyway as the article has citation needed tags and clearly fails WP:LEAD. Aircorn(talk) 00:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Delist I haven't examined closely the individual country entries, but this article certainly fails 3a in that there is no discussion about what a potential superpower actually is. The very bare touching upon this topic in the lead was further soured by the first link I checked (Leika Kihara) having little to do with the sentence it supposedly supports. On criteria 4, I suspect the for and against article framing is also not a great way to structure each entry. CMD (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC) []
Due to the GA status being almost or even over 10 years old and the person who rated it is banned, it should be time to review it again. I said that it could be a C or even a B but it is no longer GA.
2010 GA that has had an unsourced section tagged since 2018. I haven't looked too closely, but prose also seems like it may have promotionalism and excessive reliance on primary sources issues. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC) []
This was my first Good Article, and I am here now to say it does not deserve the honor. This article is a piece of crap, and I do not presently have the desire or resources to fix it. To tell the truth, I've wanted to smite this article for a long time now, but never summoned up the willpower. It does not have many sources, many are not quality, and the prose is lacking in depth and quality. The reviewer, a sockpuppet of a banned editor, did not seem to care. And it has a "popular culture" section. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 12:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I've nuked the "in popular culture" section out of existence, per comment above. Hog FarmTalk 18:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC) []
Page was promoted in 2016. Late last year, User:MADA245 made a substantial edit [1] that was near enough a re-write. The edit was tagged for introducing a deprecated unreliable source, though I don't know which one. The major problem is that MADA's edit stripped the page of references, I will lose count of how many unsourced Sections there are, never mind paragraphs. Due to the political nature of the article, and especially because he presided over an economic crash, sources are paramount. There is a lot of original research and opinions in the legacy section. I have half a mind to manually revert the page back to the version before MADA turned up, though I don't know if that would be allowed or would be disputed. But the page as it is, is so bad that it's not a GA, if it was submitted new today it would be rejected. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC) []
This 2008 promotion now contains a large amount of uncited text, including some very large chunks from Aleutian06, who has a CCI open for repeated copyright violations. The lead mentions it being in the MacArthur Park historic district, while this is not expounded upon in the body, while the article is not clear if its in the Camden Expedition NRHP batch listing or not. The structure is weird, with the modern history before the early history. I just don't think this meets the criteria anymore. Hog FarmTalk 01:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC) []
Assed in 2016, the has number of citation needed tags some going as far back as 2017. Has random information unrelated to the subject in question and with WP:UNDUE; i.e. 7 lines regarding a book, that he reportedly memorized as a kid. It also has problems with WP:TONE. Skjoldbro (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC) []
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have started this reassessment proposal not because I have any ill will towards the article as is, but because it has been 13 years since it passed its GA nom and thought it prudent for the community to reassess its state.
My rationale for reassessment is as follows:
It lacks enough depth discussing the highly publicized role it had in Franco's government, especially its war crimes and unique legal procedures [1][2]
The history section is quite short.
The criticism section reads more like a "he-said/she-said" (MOS:WEASEL). While I can understand how this balance of statements would help preserve neutrality, I personally feel that dividing the criticism sections into supporters and opponents rather than topic-by-topic means that the reader will not be able to gain a coherent understanding of the controversies surrounding Opus. By this I mean that the current section just floods the reader with various opinions and perspectives, meaning there is an overall sense of conflict but no actual understanding. For example, if the section was divided into:
Secrecy
Membership rules
Recruitment practices
Sexual abuse
Collaboration with dictatorships
etc.
it would be much better.
The members proposed for beatification part does not feel very relevant to the main article. I believe it should be linked within the history or spirituality sections.
Not going to lie I think the organization of the article makes for immensely dense reading.
The relations with catholic leaders should be in my opinion part of the history section. See point above.
Please do reply with your thoughts on the matter. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Controversy sections are not a great idea at the best of times: when they are of the form "Criticism - Rebuttal" they are particularly unhelpful at achieving NPOV.
WP:NPOV is, in my opinion, one of the most misunderstood of Wikipedia policies. I have said this here many times before: NPOV is not primarily achieved via a contest between pro- and anti- viewpoints, it is primarily achieved by writing and structuring the entire article from a neutral perspective.
While I dont necessarily agree with the first comment, I think their points are important to consider in this discussion.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Another important point I forgot to mention is the COI of major contributors to the article, especially Marax (15% authorship, second biggest), Lafem (7.2% authorship, 3rd biggest), Walter Ching (5.5% authorship, 4th biggest), Arturo Cruz (3.3% authorship, 6th biggest), StatutesMan (2.7%, 9th biggest), and so on. Just these examples alone (definitely not all the COI or possible WP:Sockpuppet edits) account for over a third of all authorship to the article.
This is positively insane. I have never seen such a massive COI situation. I honestly don't even know what to do. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 17:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Yeah I feel your frustration A.C. Santacruz... If I may paraphrase my thoughts when I first looked into the situation “F*cking hell thats a lot of COI.” Like you my conclusion is I honestly don't even know what to do. I personally don’t have the time to rewrite this clusterf*ck of a page and I’m genuinely concerned that I may have inadvertently killed Lafem by taking them to task so taking the rest to task is not high on my to do list. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Question What is the basis of the conflict if interest? Are these editors known members of Opus Dei? –Zfish118⋉talk 19:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
These COI seem minor at worst, especially if the content is otherwise acceptable. From a GAR perspective, however, I agree the article is not really there as noted below. –Zfish118⋉talk 14:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Delist: I agree with most of the issues previously stated about the article, particularly that controversy section should be arranged by topic, rather than defenders and detractors. Without substantial revisions to this section, the article cannot stay listed as GAR. Procedure wise, I don't see any substantial edits between the article being delisted in December 2007, and being relisted four months later in March 2008. If nothing improved after delisting, relisting would have been inappropriate. However the December 2007 decision appears to have been closed early before a consensus was reach, making it easy to challenge and reinstate. Other issues of concern I see: the list of members proposed for beatification should be limited to those where a case was formally opened by relevant bishop, and the list should include the date the case was opened and by whom. Otherwise it should be renamed as notable members, as many have an article (whether those articles are appropriate, I have not assessed). A list of canonized and beatified members would be appropriate as well, as it is a Catholic organization. The "Relations with Catholic leaders" section reads like a list of endorsements, with little substance. The history section is also weak, and redundant to the above list of proposed beauti. One notable issue is the claim that members were responsible for "babynapping". Such a serious accusation needs multiple citations and better explanation of relevance. –Zfish118⋉talk 14:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've listed my concerns on the article talk page, but in short there are serious issues related to the clarity, balance, and organization of this article. I have tried to fix some problems but I was not able to get it up to GA standard easily. (t · c) buidhe 10:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC) []
