Wikipedia:Good article 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.

• 03:57:17, 05/05/2024: Siege of Szigetvár
  

• 01:11:44, 18/07/2024: Stonyhurst College
  

• 06:13:05, 05/08/2024: Muammar Gaddafi
  

• 00:01:24, 13/08/2024: Asia League Ice Hockey
  
• 11:36:34, 15/08/2024: 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.

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

Result pending

The article may not be factually accurate, the sources for her current team and working as a dental therapist are from 2012. I can't find sources for current occupation and whether she is still playing. LibStar (talk) 03:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She is not still playing at an international level. She was on the Stingers team in Rio in 2016. She still plays in the AWL. [1] I will update the article to 2024. Meanwhile, you can provide your solid evidence to support your claim of factual inaccuracies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears she no longer works as a dental therapist. https://functionmattersphysio.com.au/our-team LibStar (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whut? "Our practice manager, Glencora actually graduated Curtin University in 2007 as a Dental Therapist. Still practicing today she now shares her time and skills with us.

"With 15 years of experience in the health care industry, she primarily treats children and adolescents. Her empathetic, caring approach and proficient attention to detail translates to skills that help our business run efficiently.

"Glencora not only shares her time between our physio practice and the school dental practice but she and Brett have 3 young children at home."

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, my mistake. Another question, is there any information about her international career between 2012 and 2016 Olympics? It's a gap in her playing career. LibStar (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the 2013 and 2015 World Championships to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Several uncited paragraphs throughout the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It's not as bad as the 1983 Pacific typhoon season, but it still isn't that good. OhHaiMark (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the issues I can see is the lack of weather agencies other than the JTWC, not to mention impacts. It is missing too much information to be considered "good" in my opinion. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

The "Census" information needs to be cited and updated for 2020 numbers. The Economy section's prose is too promotional, and there is other uncited text throughout the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

There is a lot of uncited paragraphs, sources that are considered unreliable used as inline citations, and the lede should be expanded, considering the length of the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of spec lit articles seem to suffer from this, where fans will just add these outlandish claims to make the genre seem more historically or critically significant than it is. History of fantasy is a very similar case. The lead should probably be rewritten in general. "LGBT readers identify strongly with the mutants, aliens, and other outsider characters found in speculative fiction." is pretty ludicrous to include uncontested, speculative has in general always been a very regressive genre so the article should either address that or avoid making the sweeping statements it makes now. Orchastrattor (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even a brief glance showed no citations in the entire history section DarkeruTomoe (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

There is a lot of uncited text, including an entire section, little information post-2021 and the lede can be expanded. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

An "additional citations needed" banner has been present since 2019 for his works. The "Death" section is uncited, and the lede could be expanded and reformatted into two paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Fifteen minutes to add the citations is a little easier than the whole GAR thing. The lead could be expanded, but it currently contains the core information, and anything added would be adding just for the sake of adding, which doesn't do anyone any favours. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pace SchroCat, I'm not sure MOS:LEAD is met -- I would put it a little more strongly and say that there's a great deal of key information in the body that isn't in the lead, meaning that the lead serves only as an introduction to, rather than as an abridged version of, the main article. However, I agree that this should be straightforward to fix. SC, do you plan to make some additions -- I'm happy to give it a go if not? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free, UndercoverClassicist! I have limited time this week, so your input would be valued. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be able to before Thursday or so, but will give it a go then if nobody else has. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

This article has a handful of unsourced statements and an unadressed maintenance template. lunaeclipse ⚧ ^(talk) 17:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide examples of the unsourced statements please? HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mid-2010s section, last sentence of first paragraph
• Beginnings section, first paragraph
• Final sentence in Name section.

— lunaeclipse ⚧ ^(talk) 02:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

I've added a source for the mid-2010s section.

The Name section had a source already prior to the quote, I've moved the source down so it's clearer.

The mid 2010s section I think was moved around a few times, the sources were there but further down than they should have been. The only sentence fully lacking a source was "By the late 2000s artists within the burgeoning scene were beginning to become stars across the continent", I've added one to accommodate this. I removed "The style of music had a variety of names which made it difficult to market outside of Africa." as I could not find the source for this edit.

Would this resolve that particular point? HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing those issues Harry. However, the article has gone through major edits since it was listed as GA, it has been through some traumatizing edit wars which led to ANI. Therefore, I do believe a careful and thorough reassessment is required before the article can be listed again. Prose, spot checks, references, plagiarism and so on must be reexamined   Thank you again, and you too for spotting this. dxneo (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I agree with that (most of the article hasn't been changed all that much since then), but I am obviously bias so I guess I'll leave it up to consensus. But from my recollection, the edit conflicts where about whether "afro-fusion" could be listed as an alias, and the details of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrobeats#Nigerian_afro_house section, both of which are pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. There was a side debate about whether it could be said "afro-rave" was created by Rema, but I believe that was settled. HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's entirely true. See this revision, this, this and this just to mention a few, where the latter revision states that the information was incorrect and irrelevant. It was not only on one sub-section but throughout the entire article. I also noticed that the article is REFBOMBED which is not a good thing. I myself have previously removed wrong information cited to reliable sources here, they just write wrong some stuff that does not cross match with the sources and I truly believe that it has happened more than once. Another thing, some sub-genres are "user coined", to clarify, they just mix two genres and list them as sub-genres of Afrobeats, and if I'm not mistaken, even amapiano and Afropop were listed as such. The background of Afrobeats does not check out. Was it founded in Nigeria, Ghana or where? And why is it referred to as the umbrella term? Last time I checked, there were no sources to support that statement. The lede/opening statement of this article needs to be rewritten to highlight important keys only (and maybe move all the cited parts of the lede to its background section and relevant sections so that it can comply with WP:CITELEAD). dxneo (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I am now looking into this, this is not just a matter of reassessment anymore but if whether the article pass the GA criteria/requirements at all. Here is the version of the article that passed GAC. However, its information does not check out. "Afrobeats, also known as Afro-pop, Afro-fusion," cited to this and this, this does not match the content in any of the cited sources and that's just the first line of the then-article, and the prose is also not good.

Question is, how did it pass its first GAN? dxneo (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree there's more citations than there perhaps needs to be, in some sections. This is the biggest issue with the article, if you were to ask me. I also agree that the Lede could perhaps be improved, it's maybe a little awkward after the first paragraph (the last paragraph is well suited there too, though, I think).

The sources supporting "afro-pop" / "afro-fusion" being listed as /aliases/ were discussed previously here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Afrobeats/Archive_1#Afropop_/_Afrofusion but I've accepted it's best to move on from trying to re-add that information. But, for the record, it was definitely supported by a number of sources.

"Was it founded in Nigeria, Ghana or where?"

Why not all of the above? Abrantee (from the UK) coined the term and the UK played an important role with its popularisation outside of Africa, but it was an amalgamation of sounds flowing out of both Nigeria and Ghana that formed what we know of as Afrobeats. This is, in my opinion, covered thoroughly in the History section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrobeats#History (with regards to how all three countries played important roles in the development of Afrobeats). Afrobeats as a term was basically marketing (from the UK) to group all this stuff together (which included sounds/genres from both Ghana and Nigeria), hence the multi-national origin. Would you not agree that this is supported within the #Name and #History sections and if not, how could this be expanded on in your view?

"why is it referred to as the umbrella term?"

It originated as an umbrella for a fusion of sounds, see Abrantee's quote for example,

" For years we've had amazing hiplife, highlife, Nigerbeats, juju music, and I thought: you know what, let's put it all back together as one thing again, and call it Afrobeats, as an umbrella term." https://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/jan/19/the-rise-of-afrobeats

This is straight from the guy who named the sound.HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a discussion but your POV, no one responded to that and beside, there was no consensus reached and again why were those sources not cited there? The intel still not check out even now because no sources support that claim in the article. I got multiple DYKs, GACs, and GAs I have to review, so I am lacking time to personally re-review this but I'll try. One thing we can all agree on is that a whole lot of cited information from the article was removed because it did not check out with the references, and what does that tell us? Sure we/you may try to rewrite the lede and cite a few source but this is a very big article, it needs a lot of time to be rewritten and for it's content to be cross matched with the sources. I'm sorry, but I do think delisting is the way to go here. I'll definitely help rebuild the article. dxneo (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This archive is full discussions on blunders and inaccuracies. A lot has to be addressed here. Few days wouldn't be enough to solve all of this. dxneo (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is implied unless otherwise debated WP:EDITCON. That was the original state of the article so it did not need an explicit consensus until that point. It's not my fault nobody responded to me when I provided more sources.

Anyway we're side-tracking a bit but I do want to address this point. If we look at the last revision where this content was intact https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afrobeats&diff=prev&oldid=1187682282 - those two specific pieces are supported by sources at the end of the paragraph. For example,

https://www.villagevoice.com/sound-culture-fests-afro-caribbean-rhythm-mission-this-goes-deep-into-roots/ "new Afropop is part of a family of club-friendly mainstream African music often packaged for export as Afrobeats."

https://www.redbull.com/gb-en/the-evolution-of-afropop "But if Afrobeats as a term doesn't serve the style, what can we call it? With its constant genre-blending and reinvention, the most accurate term to describe the wave of music flowing out of Nigeria and Ghana is Afropop" and "While specific artists have chosen their own titles – Wizkid, Davido and Burna Boy have referred to their sound as Afrofusion"

If you checked the version that passed GA, these sources are also there at the end of the paragraph. Hence, this information /was/ sourced, albeit the sources were perhaps placed later than they should have been (but, at the time, I felt like placing them at the end of the paragraph was apt as they covered the entire paragraph. If this was less than helpful, then I apologise, but I am just addressing the suggestion that this content was unsourced).

In my opinion, this content should never have been removed from the article to begin with. It was (and is, if you google for more) always supported by sources (both originally and later on, via the talk page) and consensus should be built about why those sources were inadequate, if they are at all and if the content could be better sourced elsewhere, but ultimately I had to give way to revision or end up fighting an edit war over two words.

Say what you want about later additions that you have removed, but when I wrote this article I meticulously made sure every single piece of it was sourced. I know, for certain, that the bulk of this article is well supported (and the stuff that has been added since then has been vetted by me, you, and other editors to ensure it is since then). I, and I do say this respectfully, do not agree with the characterisation that the article is in a poor state outside of (perhaps) an excessive use of sources in some areas. HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, another inaccuracy. Redbull was suggesting, that's not a fact. Not sure about Davido and Wizkid but Burna Boy never referred to Afrobeats as Afro-fusion, this is what he said in an interview with Billboard. Burna Boy is actually implying that he created the genre, not the other way around. By the way, every statement must be adequately sourced, if I don't find a reference after the punctuation then I'm safe assume that it is definitely original search. Meaning the article was actually never in "Good Article" state. In between the time of it's GA promotion and now, it has gone through major changes. Again, what worries me the most is the above-mentioned archive and the fact that cited content was removed because it was believed to be wrong. dxneo (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

There is little post-2013 information in the article. There is uncited text, including entire sections. The lead, at 5 paragraphs, is more than what is recommended at WP:LEADLENGTH. Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I shall return from my break momentarily to fix the lack of citations absent throughout the article. Please allow me some time to gather them. I won't be able to help with the lede nor the lack of content in the shootout era. Perhaps another editor would be willing to crack at that. Conyo14 (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to help trim the lede. As for post-2013 - the article notes cup winners and notable outdoor games, as well as some tourneys. I'll add a little blurb on future award winners' debuts, perhaps, but besides that I'm not sure there's much we realistically can add that's not unnecessary bloat. The Kip ^(contribs) 21:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I believe the uncited sections are now complete. Please let me know if there is more on that front that needs to be addrssed. Conyo14 (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Conyo14: I added a cn tag. I do think the article needs more post-2012/13 lockout information. What were the ramifications of the lockout in terms of finances? What rule changes appeared because of the collective bargaining agreement? The article focuses a lot on the earlier years of this article's scope but neglects post 2012-ish, in my opinion. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed the cn tag. Conyo14 (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

Much of this article is uncited, and the lede is too short to summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nom comments. The unsourced information is too much. Also some issues with MOS:OVERLINK. seefooddiet (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

seefooddiet, your !vote has no meaning. You're supposed to give the reassessment time to give traction. 750h+ 09:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • This article definitely needs some love and an update, but overlinking is a trivial and easily fixed complaint. I found a mere two instances of it being broken and simply fixed them (hatamoto is still linked twice, but it's relevant in both places and in greatly spaced sections, so allowed by the OL rules). SnowFire (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It may be good to list up most uncited areas. Cutting down on unsupportable claims and sticking references from jawiki, along with finding sources in Japanese may work? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 12:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    

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

Result pending

There is lots of unreferenced text and entries in lists. The lead is also too short, and there is a lot of promotional language throughout the entire article. Z1720 (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more. It needs quite a lot of work. Just a few quick observations:

• The Projects section contains way too many examples, many of which are unreferenced.
• The Awards section needs to be chronological and again every entry should be referenced.
• There's a lot of spammy / promotional content, some of which I have already removed.
• Lots of acronyms/initialisms used without explanation.
• I haven't done an accurate count, but based on the first 20 or so it looks like around a third of the references are to the company's own website - see both WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:PRIMARY

10mmsocket (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Eek. Queen of Hearts ^talk 20:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

This 2007 addition has 8 citation needed tags and might also contain questionable/unreliable sources and need cleanup. Spinixster (trout me!) 08:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems interesting and there are two fully unused books in the further reading; please delist if I don't return within a week. Queen of Hearts ^talk 21:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

There are a lot of sources listed in the "Further reading" section, and the prose looks like it is underdeveloped. The lede does not summarise the impact/aftermath of the partition, and the Background section needs to be split up. There are other prose problems caused by small, one-or-two line sentences. Z1720 (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by prose being underdeveloped. The article can certainly be expanded, and some references should be replaced by more reliable works (and copyedited). Lead can be expanded easily, and adding some headings to Background shouldn't be hard. Whether the article is more B-class or GA-class is pretty blurry; it would not pass in the current form a GA with an experienced reviewer, but it is relatively complete and reasonably referenced. Still, as our standards improve, it is shifting more towards B-class, yes. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I'll ping some folks interested in Polish history who may have more time than I and perhaps could work on this: @Marcelus @Orczar @Merangs _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article writes very honestly about the Partitions of Poland it contains a good WP:NOTE, WP:RS is well written, the only thing missing that you can agree with is WP:LEAD which is too short, also the background, but in itself the article deserves to be good. Keep it Czekan pl (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Large chunks are cited to Encyclopædia Britannica, which is not in keeping with current expectations around sourcing. It also does read as oddly short given the topic, in addition to the prose issued mentioned. CMD (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: - The topic is brief as there are three related and continuous articles that are part of a series - Second Partition of Poland and Third Partition of Poland, not even mentioning the main one outlined by user Czekan pl above.

• The quality of the writing is good enough and the topic is brief due to the split between first, second and third partitions, however, the references are somewhat untidy. I think it is best to utilise the Harvard citation template for in-line citations and the Template:Cite book for a reflist. Merangs (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

Result pending

Article has degraded since its original review in 2010. Concerns about unsourced content have been expressed on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the un-sourced stuff, but I will read the whole article in a moment and maybe I will find more errors such as lack of sourcing or poor encyclopaedic content because yesterday I joined wikipedia and read the rules and instructions all the. Koncerz777 (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a few not to tighten up already with the beginning missing a better sentence completion or missing something:

The tribe of the Polans (Polanie, lit. "people of the fields") in what is now Greater Poland gave rise to a tribal predecessor of the Polish state in the early part of the 10th century, with the Polans settling in the flatlands around the emerging strongholds of Giecz, Poznań, Gniezno and Ostrów Lednicki. Accelerated rebuilding of old tribal fortified settlements, construction of massive new ones and territorial expansion took place during the period c. 920–950. The Polish state developed from these tribal roots in the second half of the centuryhere. ^{Here there is a need to clarify for what reason it ceased to be a tribal state, because it is true that in the middle of this century it ceased to be but it had many factors that would be worth taking into account}. According to the 12th-century chronicler Gallus Anonymus, the Polans were ruled at this time by the Piast dynasty. In existing sources from the 10th century, Piast ruler Mieszko I was first mentioned by Widukind of Corvey in his Res gestae saxonicae, a chronicle of events in Germany. Widukind reported that Mieszko's forces were twice defeated in 963 by the Veleti tribes acting in cooperation with the Saxon exile Wichmann the Younger. Under Mieszko's rule (c. 960 to 992), his tribal state accepted Christianity and became the Polish state. ^When? Koncerz777 (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please also compare with the last reviewed version linked at the top. Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

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]

I agree that this article has lots of deficiencies. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 07:27, 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? Zsinj^Talk 11:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to keep working on this article to address the issues raised. Other editors are active and making improvements. I welcome further feedback, review, or support at the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zsinj and Firefangledfeathers: Since reviewer time is limited, please post below when the article fulfils the GA criteria and someone will conduct a more in-depth review. Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

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]

@Dobbyelf62: I am happy to provide a review after the article is fixed up, but I am not willing to clean up the article myself. Z1720 (talk) 22:47, 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]

@Dobbyelf62: do you still intend to work on this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I am unfortunately away from my computer and will not be able to make extensive edits until the end of the month. My apologies for the inconvenience. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead now looks fine for length, but uncited passages are a major concern. @Dobbyelf62: are you in a position to keep working on this? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will place some attention on sourcing certain passages later today. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I am unlikely to add further content to this article, so the review process can proceed. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We still have some uncited material, so if this means that nobody is going to step in to cite it, the only option seems to be a delist, as the article does not meet the criteria. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be able to take on much work with respect to this article, but I do have most of the cited sources and can look things up and review if necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist; valiant effort by Dobbyelf, but this article still has a citation needed tag, two "page needed" tags, and cites the deprecated NNDB. Queen of Hearts (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  

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