Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsDiscussionReassessmentReport

↓ Skip to table of contents and archives ↓

Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria (GACR). GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. The GAR Coordinators — Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings — work to organize these efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the {{@GAR}} notification template, or make a comment on the talk page.

Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including not meeting the general notability guideline, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment can be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles can be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delist.

Good article reassessment instructions

Before opening a reassessment

1. Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
2. Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
3. Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
4. If there are many similar articles already nominated at GAR, consider delaying the reassessment request.

Opening a reassessment

1. To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
2. The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. 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).

Manual opening steps

1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
2. Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
3. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
4. The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
5. Transclude the assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste {{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}} at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion.
6. Notify major contributing editors, including the nominator and the reviewer. Also consider notifying relevant active WikiProjects related to the article. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.

Reassessment process

1. Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them.
2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
3. If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion.
4. If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.

Closing a reassessment

To close a discussion, use the GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).

1. GARs typically remain open for at least one week.
2. Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
3. If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time.
4. After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
   • If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.

Manual closing steps

1. Locate {{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page.
2. The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
   • If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
     • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
     • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
     • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (example)
   • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this,
     • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
     • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
     • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page, setting currentstatus to DGA (delisted good article). (example)
     • blank the class parameter of the WikiProject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment
     • remove the {{good article}} template from the article page (example)
     • remove the article from the relevant list at good articles (example)
3. Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)

Disputing a reassessment

1. A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect. A closure should only be disputed within the first seven days following the close.
2. Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
3. If discussing does not resolve concerns, editors should post at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the coordinators.

Articles needing possible reassessment

The Good articles listed below would benefit from the attention of reviewers as to whether they need to be reassessed. In cases where they do, please open a community reassessment and remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, remove the template from the article talk page.

• 03:34:39, 05/05/2023: Eagle Cash
  

• 09:39:21, 20/05/2023: Caligula
  
• 10:21:37, 10/06/2023: Current date for reference

The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a featured article candidate, please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed.

Articles listed for reassessment

Kefka Palazzo

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

Result pending

Article overrelies mostly on lists, and some of the cited sources do not entirely say what they are cited for. It is not broad on its coverage, and some of the claim were unsourced (mainly from appearances section). Only the GameSpy source were useful that was cited at the article [1], but thats it. It needs a heavy clean up to fulfill GA criteria. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 04:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Delist Article need some significant work, and it is a bit confusing to have both an analysis section with heavy quoting and a reception section. The way the references are set up for the article too make it really difficult to fix, not gonna lie.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
• Delist Needs a rewrite in places, such as the reception. Unusual separate "analysis" section can be merged with reception as it is essentially an aspect of the character's reception. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
  

---

Pikachu

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

Result pending

Article overrelies mostly on lists, and some of the cited sources do not entirely say what they are cited for. It also contains Refbomb, and some of the claim were unsourced. It needs a heavy clean up to fulfill GA criteria. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 12:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Delist Reception is really weak for such a massive cultural icon. You'd think it was just another random non-notable Pokemon. The article needs a cleanup and rewrite before it can start to meet GA standards. Less random listicles and clickbait articles saying "Fuck Pikachu" and more book sources denoting Pikachu's cultural impact. Page 38 of Pikachu's Global Adventure: The Rise and Fall of Pokemon has a whole section analyzing Pikachu's character design, but is not even cited in the article besides further reading. And so on and so forth. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  

---

DuMont Television Network

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

Result pending

GA from 2006. There's lots of uncited material, some tagged with citation needed tags, and some page needed tags. Bambots reports "Page number citations needed (April 2011, August 2020), ... (August 2012, August 2019, August 2020, October 2021), Dead external links ((dead link)) (August 2017, July 2021), Clarification needed (March 2018), CS1 errors: generic name" Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Canterbury

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

Result pending

GA from 2008. Article suffers from uncited statements, outdated statements, one sentence paragraphs, and some sections that could probably be expanded. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Keep: I've fixed the uncited claims by adding refs and removing text as necessary. Some outdated claims have been removed. Very short paragraphs and sections have been merged. On the "could probably be expanded", well, yes, that's usually true everywhere, but the criterion for GA is "covers the main points", and there can be no doubt that this article does that. If there are specific issues remaining, I'll be happy to address them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

---

LANSA Flight 502

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

Result pending

GA from 2006. Aside from the small amount of uncited material, this article is not broad enough. There is nothing in the investigation section and the article itself just looks smaller than it should be. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

You are right, the article seems to have deteriorated considerably since I left it years ago. I'll try to fix it up over the next few days, and hopefully return it to GA standards soon. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

---

2000 CECAFA Cup

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

Result pending

GA from 2014. While there are some citation needed tags, what shocked me was how much "nothing" there was. The article has ZERO information on the actual tournament. It's genuinely astonishing how much this fails broadness. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• De-list it quick fails good article criterion 3a, as it's not broad enough in its scope. At a minimum, I'd expect some sort of tournament summary for each phase, like in 2022 FIFA World Cup#Group stage. The "Background" section is about different tournaments and so is barely relevant, and thus falls foul of criterion 3b. There's also almost no referencing, the whole set of stats is sourced to one article (which doesn't verify some of the tables), thus it also fails criteria 2b and 2c. Can't believe it was ever listed as a GA in the first place, the standards in 2014 must have been ridiculously low back then for this to be considered good. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  

---

Ralphie the Buffalo

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

Result pending

Good lord this article is horrifically bad. There is so much unsourced material. Entire sections are just unsourced. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Speedy delist - there was also a sizable history section that recently got nuked for copyvio. Probably best to delist and then someone can make a fresh GAN out of it if it's rewritten. Hog Farm _Talk 23:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
  

---

IOS 10

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

Result pending

GA from 2017. While the only issue with citations is a refimprove tag at the version history section, i have to call out the prose here. Maybe this is unwarranted but over half the article's prose is just one sentence paragraph after one sentence paragraph after one sentence paragraph. I'm nominating this to see if the prose is enough to warrant a delisting or a rewrite. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Matt Hardy

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

Result pending

GA from 2008. Contains quite a lot of uncited material including an uncited filmography. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

---

History of Minneapolis

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

Result pending

GA from 2007. There's lots of citation needed tags or unsourced paragraphs. There's page needed tags and a WP:FORUM tag. The great mill disaster and freeways sections are unsourced. Bambots reports "Page number citations needed (December 2017), Style editing needed (October 2018), Unsourced passages need footnotes (January 2021), ... (July 2022)" Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Given that I lost FA status for History of Minnesota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and good article status for I-35W Mississippi River Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I'm not holding out any hope for fixing this article either. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: and SandyGeorgia have been at work at Talk:Minneapolis, and have greatly revamped the main article. If Susan has interest, it should be possible to carryover some of the improved content at the main article to this one. Hog Farm _Talk 23:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry my hands are full at Minneapolis and this summons is a serious, inoportune distraction. We tried hard to save History of Minnesota and all agreed that we failed. Like Elkman, I don't have any hope this article will make it. We should surrender the star now before any more time and effort is wasted. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as SusanLesch says, for quite a few reasons I shall not go in to here, everyone's hands are quite full at Minneapolis and the hope that someone can restore this article is dim. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Edmund Andros

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

Result pending

GA from 2012. Has been tagged for needing more citations. Also, I'm quite surprised to see barely anything about his govenorship of Maryland. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Walls of Dubrovnik

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

Result pending

GA from 2009. Tagged for single source usage, needing better sources, and also having a why? tag in there. Bambots reports "Clarification needed (July 2018), CS1 errors: missing title, Dead external links ((dead link)) (November 2021), Cites unreliable sources (February 2023), ... (February 2023)" Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Superman (1978 film)

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

Result pending

GA from 2008. Nominating this because of the two refimprove tags. Numerous citation needed tags, and a failed verification tag. Bambots reports "Unsourced passages need footnotes ((citation needed)) (December 2015, February 2020), Dead external links ((dead link)) (September 2017), ... (February 2020), Failed verification (September 2022)" Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

---

NBN (TV station)

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

Result pending

GA from 2007. This article is really poorly cited with numerous paragraphs that just have no citations. Bambots reports "Dead external links ((dead link)) (January 2016), Unsourced passages need footnotes ((citation needed)) (March 2016, July 2016, July 2021), ... (July 2021)" Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Battle of Torvioll

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

Result pending

GA from 2011. Has been tagged for refimprove since 2020. But its main problem is the numerous non-primary source tags on the article. Would like someone to look and see if the primary sources are an issue. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I read the introduction of the linked Moore 1850. It seems to be largely a reworking of a 1596 translation of a prior (to 1596) book by Jacques Lavarin (in French). Lavarin's book relies heavily, according to Moore, on a history by Marinus Barletius but is itself constructed from a list of twelve sources. If not largely a mirror of Barletius – a direct comparison with a modern translation of Barletius may be needed to establish whether that is the case – I would think it obsolete. Ifly6 (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Many of the tags were added by Phso2 in Special:Diff/813213605. Tagging for possible explanation or context. Ifly6 (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Moore says his "business has been to concentrate Lavardin's history" (i.e. to concentrate the 1596 English translation of Lavardin's 1576 book); Lavardin says his book is "drawned for the most part" from Barleti. As noted by Ifly6, if the result of this Latin->French->Bad English->Good English successive translations may not be a mirror of Barletius, I doubt it can be qualified as a reliable source. That doesn't mean that academic modern history differs from this account (perhaps not, since Barleti is perhaps the only primary source - I don't know), but the sourcing is questionable at least.--Phso2 (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Even if modern academic history does not differ from Moore's account, it should the main thing cited regardless; people use Wikipedia's references as a starting place for research. We shouldn't lead them into 19th century dead ends. Ifly6 (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Starkiller

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

Result pending

Article contains a lot of primary sources, especially at the fictional history, while some of the claims are unsourced. Article also overrelies on lists, and some of the cited sources do not entirely say what they are cited for. Overall the whole thing needs a vast rewrite. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• Delist Does he need a rewrite, or simply a merge? I am not certain he is notable and can't find evidence he is. Looking for "Starkiller" only comes up with Luke Skywalker's original name. But even if he is, the article is actively in need of cleanup, not GA material. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  Also Terra (Kingdom Hearts) and Sniper Wolf (has been recently nom'ed for afd). GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  @GlatorNator: Would recommend nominating Terra for a merge or deletion rather than GAR, similar to Sniper Wolf. It's an unnecessary step when the article is ultimately not notable. (I almost thought it was FF's Terra, and was about to argue, but no it's not.) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  Alright. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 04:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Delist Per nom, and honestly may be a good idea to merge it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  

---

CS gas

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

Result pending

GA from 2006. The uses section has been tagged for needing additional citations since may 2021. listed with "Unsourced passages need footnotes ((citation needed)) (September 2011, March 2012, September 2013, November 2013, October 2019, June 2020), Failed verification (September 2013), Dead external links ((dead link)) (November 2018), ... (May 2021)" on the bambots page. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Beside the issue of many unsourced paragraphs, I think the long and indiscriminate laundry list of incidents of usage is problematic with respect to WP:GACR #3(b). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I wonder. The list was a mess, and inappropriate for a text article, so I've split it off as List of uses of CS gas by country and linked that in "See also". I've gone through the "External links" and removed the dead items. Those actions clear all the issues raised above. The rest of the article is fully cited and honestly not too bad (not my cup of tea, but never mind). It covers "the main points", is quite readable (given the subject matter), and is appropriately illustrated. I think it's probably a Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, before I close this, are all the details in the infobox cited somewhere in the article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I've removed some uncited names from the infobox. AFAICT the hazard statements are acceptable in their current form. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Samus Aran

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

Result pending

Extremely bloated and out of date reception section, and inconsistent referencing, among many other issues. Consensus from both talk page and WikiProject Video games that the article no longer meets GA standards. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Delist article still needs a lot of work, update and clean up.l despite sone editors attempted to clean up. Hold. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment Not opposed to delisting, but I'd like to ask that it not be rushed to desliting. Kung Fu Man and I are working on both cleaning up the reception and finding strong reception to add, as well as addressing sourcing issues. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Hold As long as it is actively being improved. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Improvements have been very impressive so far. I also recommend holding for now. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• @Cukie Gherkin:@Zxcvbnm:@GlatorNator: Improvements seem to have stopped. The reception section is magnitudes better, but the issue of inconsistent reference formatting remains, and there's also citation requests. If this article was nominated for GA for the first time now and I was the reviewer, I wouldn't pass it until those issues was addressed. But since it already is a GA article and improvements have been considerable, I can't say I'm overly opposed to the article retaining its status for the time being and this GAR closing. I'm happy to hear the thoughts of others. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Not stopped, just slowed down. I'm doing it bit by bit. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  No worries, I understand. In that case I won't check in again for a while. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  BTW, I took care of the citation needed tags. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
  

---

Iron Maiden

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

Result pending

At the time of this article's 2011 listing, it had 7000 words of prose. Now it has over 22,000, a clear failing of GA criterion 3b) and WP:PAGESIZE.

The image and legacy section is one of the best (or worst) examples of indiscriminate trivia sections I have ever read, while there have been comments on the talk page about incorrect grammar and spelling. This article doesn't need a trim to remain a GA-it needs a chainsaw! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I raised the question about the Image and Legacy cruft section above, and so far it's been ignored. I've worked through a chunk of the article making grammar and language corrections, but it's hard to keep up with the cruft that is being continually added. Intothatdarkness 18:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

This page should be restored to , January 22, 2023 before all the junk was added. Moxy- 19:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I've been too busy fixing the actual functional part of the article to get into the cruft in a serious way. Adding every single mention of every single musician who ever mentioned Iron Maiden adds nothing to the article at all. I see no good reason why this section should be so much longer than, say, the actual section about Maiden's own music and influences. Intothatdarkness 19:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Moxy and Intothatdarkness: that version is hardly better—21,000 words, with every person of some notability given an entire paragraph for their quotes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a collaborative process, so we need a solid starting point to work from. I'd actually prefer using what we have now, simply because I've cleaned up earlier parts of the article. It's the one section that has been and remains seriously problematic, although there are issues (mainly a fixation with stages and lighting rigs) in the other parts. Intothatdarkness 20:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Speaking of collaboration, even though I've already notified RALFFPL on their talk page, I thought it best to do so again, so any undiscussed reversions become a conduct issue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I've been working through the article in sequence, and had made it to the last album section before the reassessment was launched. During that time users have been continually adding content of uneven quality to the Image and Legacy section (cruft, stuff with grammar and spelling issues, and so on). I'd suggest everyone STOP adding content until we determine a way forward here. For my part, I think most of the Image and Legacy section should either be moved to its own article or deleted. You don't need to list everyone who's ever worn a Maiden T-shirt or listened to one of their songs. Intothatdarkness 20:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

A lot of it is pretty obvious WP:TRIVIA. I think I'll remove the section about celebrities who wore t-shirts if I don't see a policy-backed response in 24 hours or so. ~UN6892 ^t_c 23:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I have begun removing huge amounts of cruft and trivia, in addition to unused references. Just wanted to note that if anyone worries about those comments which say that "these figures have been agreed on the talk page, don't change them" or some such bullshit nonsense, it turns out that RALFFPL added them in edits like this without any talk page discussion at all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

You might want to moderate your language a bit. Intothatdarkness 16:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to stop making grammar and language corrections until there's a stable version of the article in place. It's annoying to fix stuff in a section and then come back and find it's been removed. That's part of the reason I stayed away from the Image and Legacy section...it's such a dumpster fire I didn't want to waste time on it until something had been decided. Intothatdarkness 16:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I think I've used enough of the chainsaws and hedge trimmers on the article, Intothatdarkness if you want to start fixing/copyediting. I apologise for the language, but fabricating consensus or the words of other editors is one of the worst things you can do on Wikipedia, and were it not for the fact that I think the editor is just about acting in good faith, I would have called in an administrator immediately. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll start back in within the next couple of days, just in case there's another flurry of activity. And to be clear, I don't think the other editor was fabricating consensus as much as they misunderstood the difference between talk page discussion and notes added to reverts. There was a flurry of these maybe a year or so ago, and the majority as I recall related to album sales figures. For some reason that seems to be a hot button thing in this article. Intothatdarkness 16:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see, no flurries have happened Intothatdarkness. Do you want to get back in? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll start back in when I have some free time. Maybe this week. Intothatdarkness 11:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Keith Miller

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

Result pending

In the honourable tradition of early-Wikipedia articles on mid-century Australian cricketers, this 2009 listing is detailed to the point of insanity, with exhaustive statistics on pretty much every international match Miller ever played.

This leads to a total word count of 14000+ (not counting quotes, image captions, or tables) and a pretty certain failing of GA criterion 3b ("it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail").

Relevant non-GA guidelines include WP:TOOBIG. Shouldn't be that hard for a cricket expert to trim down to a better length. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Noting here that there is a merge proposal on the article's talk page, which involves a featured article. This can quickly get messy, so I suggest that the merge proposal be dealt with first, then this GAR can be discussed. Z1720 (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 17:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that the issues with the article are regardless any change from merge. (t · c) buidhe 02:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh my god, the Australian cricket obsession went deeper than I thought. Early life of Keith Miller, really? Regardless, the issues with this article are palpable and I don't think we should put this on hold while waiting for that merge to happen. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with buidhe and TaOT, there's no way this article is going to get better following a merge so the GA reassessment will be needed regardless. Might as well address it now. JoelleJay (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

+1, pinging @Dweller and Z1720: for thoughts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that there is a possibility that the article could get better after a merge, so I would rather evaluate the article for GAR after the merge vote is closed. If editors want to proceed with the GAR now, I'm not too bothered. Z1720 (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Zoe Arancini

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

Result pending

Article was listed for GA 11 years ago. Missing info on career post 2012 with the exception of 2020 Olympics. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Not a reason for GAR. WP:SOFIXIT applies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

 Do not close until June, to prevent topic overload for willing editors.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Holly Lincoln-Smith

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

Result pending

Article listed for GA 11 years. Article is not up to date. Missing information from career (if any) post 2012. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Not a reason for GAR. WP:SOFIXIT applies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

 Do not close until June, to prevent topic overload for willing editors.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

---

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