Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 77

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← (Page 76) Good article reassessment (archive) (Page 78) →

2008 Jerusalem bulldozer attack edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: No consensus ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fails criterion 2c: The article is overwhelmingly sourced by primary sources, which is an original research issue per WP:PRIMARY.
  • Fails criterion 3a: The article provides little coverage outside of news-style reporting of the actions involved. No meaningful analysis or study is covered.
  • Fails criterion 3b: The little content outside of that is a list of tangentially related events that go out of scope Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
re 2c: Your interpretation of 'primary sources' is kind of a stretch here - Everything is properly sourced to reputable news sources, the majority of which could not be considered "breaking news" as it wasn't even published on day of the attack.
re 3a, 3b: Not to be rude, but you're making up criteria here. 3a states that "it [the article] addresses the main aspects of the topic" (which it does), and 3b "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail", kind of the opposite of what you're implying here. Rami R 11:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thebiguglyalien, have you seen the above from Rami R? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have. I felt that no response was warranted to the claim that new information cannot be primary after something had been ongoing for more than 24 hours. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • News sources are secondary sources. So primary sources is not really the correct complaint here. Are there any secondary sources you think should be consulted? I did a Google search + Google Books search, and saw almost entirely 2008 articles coming back from Google, and nothing substantive on GBooks (references the attack happened, mostly, not in-depth dives). It's not great to be mostly sourced to at-the-time coverage, but if that's all that exists, then that's all we have. (But if something else can be found...) SnowFire (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PRIMARY: For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources.
    • WP:RSBREAKING: When editing a current-event article, keep in mind the tendency towards recentism bias. Claims sourced to initial news reports should be immediately replaced with better-researched and verified sources as soon as such articles are published, especially if original reports contained inaccuracies. All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution
    Also, if all of the sources are from 2008, then this isn't a GAR issue, it's an AfD issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not temporary. This topic would obviously be kept at AFD, so I wouldn't suggest bothering. The matter reached the attention of both the PM of Israel at the time and the Attorney General, who had to respond to it.
    • Checking... that line in NOR was added just a few months ago. Granted, it's been at the RS guideline for longer, but I'm not sure it's ever come up much there. Regardless, suffice to say that this is just a case of a policy being poorly phrased IMO. It's not worth quibbling on this too much, since I agree that heavy sourcing to contemporary news reports is not ideal, but IMO calling them "primary" sources dulls the meaning of just what a "primary" source is. Primary sources would be, like, interviews with people at the incident or the like. Breaking news stories might be inaccurate and outdated, but that doesn't make them primary, in the same way that a published book by an independent amateur on a topic who makes factual errors might be unreliable, yet still secondary.
    • Back to the merits: So are you saying by the AFD comment that you agree no better sources exist than what's currently used? The best outcome is just to find the better source and save the article, after all. I checked the Hebrew WP article and it seems its sources are from 2008 as well (although, to be clear, not all breaking-breaking news, i.e. stuff from the day after, but rather the weeks after). It's possible there's a better source in some unknown Hebrew work, but it might be worth verifying whether such source exists. SnowFire (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Han van Meegeren edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never done anything related to a good article reassessment before, but I'm interested in crime, so I'll give it my best shot to bring it up to snuff. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PARAKANYAA, do you intend to continue working on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 Yes I do, and will get back to working on it now. I acquired some of the book sources and am looking through them. I'm unsure if I can get it good enough to maintain its status but I will try. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey PARAKANYAA, are you planning on returning still? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 Yeah I don't think I can save this. I could probably fix the citation needed issues with enough time but after reading some of these books there are more severe structural/content issues with this article that I can't fix in any reasonable amount of time. Should probably be closed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Cultural depictions of dinosaurs edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisting, a week has passed and no clear interest in fixing the major issues of this article. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The GA status of this article is very old, dating all the way back to 2008. As a result, it's not up to standards in a couple of ways. For one, there's a glaring lot of uncited paragraphs, which fails criteria 2 of the Wikipedia:GACR criteria. Another is that there is clearly much more that could be written about the impacts of dinosaurs on culture and vice versa, as the ~169,000 results on "culture" plus "dinosaurs" on Google Scholar demonstrate. This article needs to be improved drastically to meet the GA criteria again. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article has the same problem as the parent dinosaur article - everything from 1980 onward is given such a brief and rushed treatment that it does the subject matter zero justice. But, more fundamentally, where should and shouldn't this article overlap with paleoart? It's really many of the same key players and events with both. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it proves to be especially important to cover cultural depictions of dinosaurs in the 1980s onward considering that they've gained increased relevance and interest amongst public audiences, and it looks as if such high interest is here to stay for the time being. I think this article can stand if it extensively discusses dinosaurs in literature (writing, fictional media, public engagement with science, etc.), but this article currently does that very poorly which proves highly problematic. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under the current state of the article, if it receives no interest for GAR by other editors by the 10th of April and there is no opposition, I will mark it off as a Delist for GA for major unaddressed issues of the article. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Sue v Hill edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Issues unaddressed; delisting. Hog Farm Talk 16:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant unsourced text. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Multiple sequence alignment edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. Hog Farm Talk 16:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to substantial uncited text, the lead of the article is a bit too difficult and the body contains large numbers of external links. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A request to make the lead image smaller from GA1 doesn't seem to have happened. It is still too big for MOS:IMGSIZE. As well as the unsourced sections and inappropriate extlinks there is a lot of material that appears to be primary-sourced and promotionally worded about individual research projects or implementations, rather than being based on published works by disinterested parties surveying and reviewing the methods that are available, I think maybe problematic with respect to WP:GACR#3b (going into excessive detail). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to make time to go over this article this weekend, and I'd appreciate the reassessment remaining open for just a few extra days. Thanks ― Synpath 04:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and removed external links in the body of the article and adjusted the lead, but that only amounts to cosmetic changes to the article. I can see now that handling the citations and removing the conversational tone of the article is more editing than I'm willing to spend time on. Thanks for keeping the discussion open. ― Synpath 06:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Astronomical Observatory (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign) edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Issues unaddressed; delisting. Hog Farm Talk 16:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite significant unsourced text, especially in the history section. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Kansas City Chiefs edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Issues unaddressed, delisting. Hog Farm Talk 16:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My pre-GAR notice on the article's talk page listed specific concerns with uncited text and source-text integrity issues. These issues are substantial and have not been addressed; in fact more uncited text has been added to the article since my notice. Hog Farm Talk 18:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Traditions of the Georgia Institute of Technology edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few unsourced or semi-spurced paragraphs. Hasn't been kept up-to-date: for instance the jargon section is largely based on 1996-2007 sources, and it's unclear these terms are still in use. There is a private YouTube video link in the middle of the text. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A 2009 GA that currently has numerous citation needed tags, too many quotations, and a tag stating so in critical reassessment. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there. Igordebraga (talk · contribs) and I are fixing up the citation errors (including the dead ones) and maintenance tags where needed. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect thank you! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The citation needed tags have now been addressed and the legacy section has been rewritten. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game) edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While not an article needing the most dire work, this article has clearly rotted since first being listed back in 2008. My following concerns are:

  • Some sources I'm also unsure on the reliability of, such as " classicgaming.com" (not listed at WP:VG/S). There's also a not verified in body tag in the lead (which was previously a citation needed tag from 2023 before being replaced mere minutes ago).
  • The entire Master Collection version section is unsourced.
  • Some unsourced statements that aren't marked as such right now, but are still unsourced.
  • I don't think the "Related media" section has very encyclopedic writing.
  • Reception could easily be expanded upon for a game that was so influential and got as many reviews as it did. It doesn't necessarily explain very much of why critics liked the game, and rather just focuses on the headlines. An example is below.
  • Just extremely weird writing throughout that I can't see being very beneficial to a general reader. For example, "Next Generation reviewed the PlayStation version of the game, rating it five stars out of five, and stated that "rest assured that this is a game no player should miss and the best reason yet to own a PlayStation." is its own line. λ NegativeMP1 05:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just look at the reception and found how bad it's layout for example, the legacy section could be it own section similar to Banjo-Kazooie, and some of paragraph in the reception could easily be merged with other and be expanded in which I agreed with you so. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some comments from a cursory review that may be of value:
    • The lead section for the Gameplay could benefit from a more general description that it is an action-stealth game and generally what this encompasses, given this is a genre-defining game.
    • There's an overuse of leading sections and paragraphs in passive voice (Despite, Except) etc.
    • The reception section really needs a thematic rewrite as per the WP:VG/MOS. Listing the praise from every review source, one by one, is not really best practice or organised to read.
    • The 'Windows version' section is crufty. The reception should be integrated with the main section, and given there isn't much sourcing for it, it does not stand to reason to provide technical details on the nuanced differences. The executable files are not really worth discussing! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per nom. There's also a problem with WP:LEAD. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 13:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Jos Buttler edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article hasn't been updated recently, and so fails criteria 3a, as it isn't broad enough in coverage. And also fails 3b by being overly detailed in places. Domestic career section has too much coverage of 2010-2013 and almost nothing since (and absolutely nothing about the 7 seasons he's played for Lancashire). International career section hasn't been updated since 2022. There are numerous sentences of unsourced text, some of the teams listed in the infobox aren't mentioned in the text at all (e.g. Paarl), or with more than one sentence (Originals). Also, the T20 franchise sections have way too many headers for one paragraph, which aren't needed, and looks to be bordering towards IPL excessive stats and focusing only on incidents too, rather than encyclopedic, WP:NPOV content. So in conclusion, it fails criteria 1b (MOS violations), 2b (unsourced content), 3a and 3b (lacking details in places, overdetailed in others), 4 (IPL section is POV). Looks like it just about survived a GA review in 2018, but the article has got significantly worse in quality since then, and cannot be considered a GA anymore in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified everyone who participated in either the GA promotion and/or first GA re-assessment in 2018, as well as WP:CRIC, and mentioned this on Talk:Jos Buttler where I raised some of these concerns earlier this year. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - article is nowhere close to GA status on a number of criteria. I did some work on it in 2017 but it was hard going and it's much, much worse now. Huge amounts of over detail, far too many subsections, many of which are unnecessary and entirely unsourced - it would be easy to do so, but there's just far too much detail. The lead and domestic section are fine and the playing style bit is probably OK as well. They'd make the basis of a decent article - with a bit of an update in the domestic bit. But the rest is a pretty epic fail as Joseph says above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Keeping any article of a current player of such prominence to GA/FA standard is virtually impossible. Currently, it falls a long way short of the standard required, having been hijacked by IP's and editors of poor competence. AA (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Riya Sen edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was assessed 16 years ago and it underwent a lot of edits since then. There are a lot of citation-needed templates, along with unsourced filmography sections, a lot of grammatical, (especially punctuation and wording errors), as well as factual discrepancies and poor sourcing. For example, as of this nom, it incorporates her birthday being on two different dates and years. In the lede and infobox, it is listed as 24 January 1989, but in the personal life section, it is listed as "Born on 24 January 1981." It also does not follow conventional section ordering and manual of styles. Right after the lede, there's the "Acting career" section, wherein, it should've been another section, such as Early life and family. But these details are listed sporadically in the latter sections.

It is also generally not well written.

Anyone with a cursory look can tell this does not meet the standard of Good Article we have set here. X (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Arrested Development edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons four and five, which premiered after this became a GA, are not meaningfully covered Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist. Fails criterion 5b "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". Not in the worst shape though; it could probably be kept as a GA with the right attention. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the plot summary. A lot of the article is frozen in time. Production is about the production of seasons 1-3 with one paragraph tacked on to the end just mentioning that seasons 4 and 5 exist. Characters and reception don't acknowledge that they exist at all. Right now the article looks like it was written in 2012 and then a few season 4/5 details were added on after the fact, which is exactly what happened. If I were reviewing the article at GAN, I would also take issue with the "controversies" section, giving undue coverage to certain events during production solely because they are controversies. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OlifanofmrTennant do you intend to continue addressing the issues? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was planning to but my focus has shifted to my ongoing GA. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Centennial Light edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

short lead. several outstanding inline cn tags. ltbdl (talk) 06:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problems appear fixable. I'll take a stab at it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have expanded the lead and chipped away at the missing citations. Also added a new section based on more recent sources that weren't available at the time of original promotion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Remaining cn tags dealt with. This should be kept. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Fortress of Klis edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant amount of the article, including almost the entire "Importance" section is uncited. Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 it looks like most of this "Importance" section is uncited because it was in the lead section, as it had been added in edits like [1] or [2] decades ago, but was then broken out in this unexplained edit in 2013, by an account that was later indefinitely blocked for other abuse (I found this using the "Who Wrote That?" extension). Maybe the logic of that needs to be reassessed first. --Joy (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've re-integrated the old lede into the lede and edited it mildly for concision. The nomination does not appear to be correct that a "significant amount of the article is uncited" - can you clarify where exactly these uncited parts are, if you're standing by that?
  • While I'm not sure if it's GAR-worthy, the prose is not particularly tight, and it seems to have some Croatian nationalist vibes in parts (which I'm sure is in the sources, but it doesn't mean that has to be transmitted here - I removed a "Turkish menace" for example). I'd argue that would be a more productive area to examine and spruce up in this. SnowFire (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing I noticed as well was the quality of the supporting materials - I swapped out the top image immediately. The laundry list of historical years in the infobox also doesn't strike me as well documented or a good use of screen-estate. --Joy (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed now that @Edgars2007 noticed this in 2015 (!). I've moved it around a bit, is this better? --Joy (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to SnowFire's recent edit, I had a look at one of the main sources, the municipality's history page:
  • Listeš, Srećko. "Povijest Klisa". klis.hr (in Croatian). Službene stranice Općine Klis. Archived from the original on 2011-07-21. Retrieved 2010-05-16.
This archive link implies that the text was taken from a 1998 book called Klis: prošlost, toponimi, govor published by an NGO called Croatian society Trpimir Klis. It would be better to get this referenced to the actual work, which seems to be ISBN 953-96751-3-8, with page numbers.
At the same time, the current website's history link goes to this:
--Joy (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would request that this GAR not be closed too aggressively - I do think that this article could use a tune-up, even if not for the reasons the nominator cited, but it will probably take more time. SnowFire (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I haven't had the time to come back to this like I'd hoped. I think this article has the bones of being in great shape and only needs some minor work to get back to GA quality - just some rereading of the sources and rephrasing, mostly. @Joy:, would you have time to take a go at this? If not, I suppose I'd be fine with a reluctant delist-by-default. SnowFire (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Bristol Harbour edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. Contains quite a fair amount of uncited material. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Thom Darden edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This passed as a GA in 2009, and it definitely does not meet the standards of a 2024 GA. In fact, I'm not sure if it should have passed in 2009 either. The pro section is sorely lacking for someone that had a 10-year career, and reads rather disjointed as written even if the prose was long enough. Wizardman 15:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do see some expansion was done so I'll make some time and look to see if it was sufficient. Wizardman 22:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have a look Wizardman? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's better now so I guess it'll suffice. Wizardman 13:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to close this?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how to do closures so I'll let Airship handle it. Wizardman 20:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Hull City A.F.C. edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Regardless of whether Untitled740's edits were disruptive, there is massive amounts of uncited material in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2009. Just a disgusting amount of things to fix according to the multitude of notifications in the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Onegreatjoke: There are a lot of false positives, I see the hand of the disruptive editor Untitled740 and frankly I don't trust this editor, there are probably a lot of things to be fixed. One of them is to remove all the crap that Untitled740 added which ruins the enjoyment to the reader. So I am not sure about a reassessment is truly needed at current, the vandalism needs to be fixed first. Govvy (talk) 10:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Mohanlal edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article still has numerous "citation needed" tags in the "2016-present" sub-section of the "Film career" section that are still valid. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Slender Man edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is reliable sourcing (2b) and due weight in the "References in media" section, where the listings seem to include every media reference regardless of importance, and include unsourced statements, primary sources, and fanwiki sources.

Besides that, the article structure is unorthodox. The "History" L2 contains the entirely-unrelated-to-history "Description" L3. "Folkloric qualities", "Copyright", and "References in media" are all at least unusual L2 headings. ~ A412 talk! 16:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restructured. As for the media section, how does one decide which inclusion is worthy? Serendipodous 19:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the improvements to the article structure.
Regarding the media section, it's an essay, but WP:IPCEXAMPLES is a good guide on this stuff, and basically says that the work should be significant, the mention should be significant, and that the mention should have been noted by reliable sources. ~ A412 talk! 20:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concretely going through a couple examples from the article, if that helps:
  • Minecraft Endermen: This one is probably fine, as a significant element of a popular game, but ideally we'd have better sourcing than igxpro.com, which appears to be a blog reposting social media speculation. [3] [4]
  • Lost Girl: This one is fine, seems to be a major element of a popular television episode, sourced to RS.
  • "Sympathy for Slender Man": This one's very shaky. A filler short; the cited source doesn't actually say anything other that hosting the short.
  • My Little Pony: This isn't a significant mention. As the text indicates, it is a "brief cameo". ~ A412 talk! 20:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • +Article doesn't even have reception section; which is important for every fictional character articles. Same issue with Michael Myers. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is extremely outdated. At least four academic works (Chess and Shira, Peck, Asimov, Slender Man is Coming) dedicated to Slender Man exist, none of whose content are adequately covered in the article. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 00:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Links? Serendipodous 12:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A "reception" section would have been easier ten years ago. Nowadays the Slender Man is a forgotten and discredited meme tied forever to an act of senseless violence. Serendipodous 15:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then the references in media title should be renamed as "In popular culture". Also, that section shouldn't be written like that. Article a little bit outdated as it seems? and there are still unsourced claim. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What unsourced claims? And outdated in what way? Also, while your sources do make the connection between slenderman and enderman, igxpro is the only one that explains how the connection was made. Serendipodous 23:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have rewritten it. Looks good now. There are still some cn tags at development section and it might need a bit expansion I think; the quote in history sec seems to be a bit messy? Also, try removing citations on the lead and cite it in the body. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 01:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vortex3427:, @Greenish Pickle!:, could you please sort your comments? There seem to be a couple threads here, but they're all broken up between indents. ~ A412 talk! 01:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just felt like some were not covered yet (like what Voltrex said) for such a popular character like this, but for now, my concerns were from the history section that I replied to above. I'll leave it to Vortex since he is more familiar with this than I am as a video game character editor. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 01:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A412, Serendipodous, Greenish Pickle!, and Vortex3427: are the issues resolved to your satisfaction? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issues I raised (bloated, poorly sourced "References in media" / IPC section), and section organization, are resolved to my satisfaction. I don't know about the outdatedness concerns. ~ A412 talk! 23:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the folklore qualities should be renamed "reception"? and then moved it into the last section. I also feel like it should be expanded more with scholar sources. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 12:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we were going to call it reception I would have to split it, since it isn't all about reception. And reception by whom? The parents of Waukesha, Wisconsin? I also think it is where it needs to be, because the idea that it's folklore should be above the fact that it is not public domain. As for more sources, well, there's a book apparently. Almost everyone in said book is already cited in the article, but if you want it, I suppose I could buy it. I'm not exactly rolling in cash, does anyone want to go halvsies on it? Serendipodous 13:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Hmm. Then the remaining issues for you would be to fix the refencing issues and add authors like ref 66 and ref 67 then replace the ref 71 into better one. After that I don't have problem with article keeping its GA status. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Serendipodous 11:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

George Rogers Clark National Historical Park edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on the talk page back in March, this 2009 GA promotion contains significant uncited text, as well as lesser source-text integrity issues. In addition, the material on the administrative history of the site seems underdeveloped. Hog Farm Talk 14:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

London, Ontario edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. The Sydney Morning Herald 07:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2009 listing includes numerous unsourced paragraphs, some punctation errors, and some single-sentence paragraphs.  750h+ | Talk  08:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Clementine cake edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed it from the recent AFD, where I also mentioned that it needs a reassessment. The article is surprisingly so brief for a GA. It has just 3 sections, the last 2 (History and In Popular Culture) are tiny. I understand that for an article of a cake, this one's above the average quality, sure, but I'm not sure that it merits a GA status. Speaking on technical terms, it fails criteria 3: "Broad in its coverage" - for the reasons mentioned above. NB: It was assessed 8 years ago X (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • During the process of creating and expanding the article, I pretty much used up all of the reliable sources that were available online at that time (e.g. from Google Books, Google News, Highbeam, etc.) Personally, I don't view the article or its sections as short or "tiny". For a cake article, it is very comprehensive as well as informative, relative to the actual sources available for the topic. Regarding the In popular culture (IPC) section, extensive listings are actually discouraged. There's even a template for overly long IPC sections in articles: {{In popular culture}}. See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections and Wikipedia:Handling trivia. North America1000 05:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC) (Article creator)[reply]
  • I think over the years -- and especially during the recent AfD, when there were multiple edits including additions from now-available sources -- the narrative flow has suffered. And the images could be improved. But the coverage isn't incomplete, it's all cited and verifiable, other than the recent AfD and those edits it's stable, it's neutral. Agree with NA1000 that we don't actually want any pop culture section to be longer than is strictly needed. And that applies to the article in general -- broad coverage doesn't require a certain length. I'm not sure this is a fail, it's just a GA that needs to tending to. Valereee (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've improved the images and narrative flow. Valereee (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. Contains expansion needed tags and numerous uncited areas. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Kaunas Fortress edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs major work to meet the broadness criteria:

(t · c) buidhe 04:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

California Southern Railroad edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2006 promotion was last reassessed in 2009 and is so old the initial promotion was literally just "I trust the printed sources are sound" [5]. Substantial passages are uncited and the article's prose is not really up to modern standards. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Citroën C3 Picasso edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: All users involved have declined to improve the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article is an advertisement. Much of the article focuses excessively on the trim levels and violates WP:NOPRICES. Lead is five paragraphs, and some parts do not summarise the article. Also, some of these references do not seem reliable.  750h+ | Talk  13:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the vehicle is encyclopaedic then so are the differences - the trims in this case. I have no opposition to the prices being taken out, and included them only as they seemed valuable at the time for historical information. They certainly weren't added for sales, since the vehicle was discontinued long long ago. The original GAA had no issues with any of this. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 15:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of that content wasn't in the article at the time of the original GAA - here's the diff between then and now. I'm not expressing a view on that content btw, just pointing out it wasn't part of that GAA review. WaggersTALK 11:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The prices were clearly in the article at the time it was passed as a GA without any issue, and that's present in the link above. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 19:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then, Jenova, please go ahead and remove the prices. I would also recommend removing the "Full model line-up and engine availability" table since that's literally just an advertisement in itself, ensure the lede summarises the article (some parts of the lede are not in the article itself), replacing references of questionable quality with those of good quality. By the way, when this article was promoted, it fell well short of GA standards. Given the tightening regulations, the articles should maintain a high level of quality. Best,  750h+ | Talk  05:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to edit it as you see fit. I'm semi retired, and not here to obstruct - rather i'm here to see what the result of the assessment is. Giving detailed or technical information isn't the same as an advert, or everything would be considered an advert - and the vehicle hasn't existed for sale since 2017, so that just strikes me as an odd line to take. I gave historical information that was available to state what variants Citroen offered worldwide - a common practice with vehicle articles, and a thorough attempt to stop the article from becoming centric to just the US - which is prevalent throughout all of Wikipedia. The article isn't different from any other vehicle article. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 12:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jenova20, I'm sorry but this burden isn't on me. Unless you or another editor would like to help bring this back to GA status, this will see a delist. I understand your point about trying to make this article comprehensive, but if a buyer would like to buy one, they would go to a catalogue territory--which no offence, but is what some of this article looks like. Eg this Code Red/Code White was released in January 2012. The limited edition C3 Picasso Code Red and Code White replaced the Blackcherry in the UK. The Code has the same engine as the Blackcherry and has been finely tuned for a marginally increased fuel economy and lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. It features obsidian black bumpers and 17-inch (43 cm) Polar White or Cherry Red "clover" alloy wheels, and can be equipped with extra features, which include roof bars, curtain airbags, cruise control and a speed limiter. Body colours exclusive to the trim are Belle Ile Blue, Shark Grey and Cherry Red. sounds like an advertisement to me. Pinging @WP:GAR coordinators: to see their opinion.  750h+ | Talk  12:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I have seen this ping. I will need to get back to you once I've had a chance to look over the article fully (hopefully tomorrow). There is also the caveat that I am not carsandotherthings but I'll try my best. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing immediately stands out to me as advertising as I know it, could you pick out examples of passages you believe are advertising? I'm not familiar with trims as a concept (in the train corner of the encyclopedia I deal with people obsessing over locomotive paint schemes in unencyclopedic manner all the time, not sure if that's an equivalent or not) but far as I can see everything there is cited appropriately, so it's a question of is the content appropriate for inclusion. I could definitely see an argument for trimming (pun not intended) the text in that section particularly for trims where it appears only minor changes were made. Clever reorganization could likely convey the same basic information in fewer sentences. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:NOTPRICE.  750h+ | Talk  03:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am taking the time to engage with your concerns. I asked you for examples, and all you do is link some policy pages. Please meet me halfway. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I will supply some instances alongside other things I found wrong.
Examples:
  • "C3 Picasso went on sale in France in February 2009 for €14,950"
  • "The LX was the most basic and least expensive model, with a 71 kW; 96 PS (95 bhp) VTi engine, priced at €12,590, while the Exclusive model was most expensive with a 82 kW; 110 PS (110 bhp) HDi Airdream engine at €18,650. The C3 Picasso was launched in the United Kingdom on 9 April 2009, where it went on sale for £11,495 for the 1.4-litre VTi, the most basic model with 6.4 L/100 km; 37 mpg‑US (44 mpg‑imp), while the most expensive was the 'Exclusive' with a 1.6-litre HDi engine and 4.6 L/100 km; 52 mpg‑US (62 mpg‑imp) at £15,595."
  • "As bonus, it came equipped with £1,000 of extras and was released..."
  • "..comes with a free white Samsung Galaxy Tab 16 GB.."
  • "...the least expensive being the Attraction with a 95 bhp (71 kW; 96 PS) VTi engine at €12,250 and the most expensive being the Exclusive with a 115 bhp (86 kW; 117 PS) HDi engine at €18,475."
  • "In September 2010, Citroën do Brasil launched the Citroën C3 Aircross in Brazil and Argentina. The car is a C3 Picasso-based mini SUV with styling differences including: raised suspension, chrome roof bars and mirror covers, side skirts, and a rear spare tyre." isn't sourced
Prose is fine in my opinion. Self-published sourcing, I believe, is okay every once in a while. But this article excessively uses it, as well as some unreliable sources.  750h+ | Talk  10:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it's blatant advertising, but I can see where the impression comes from. The prose could be shaped up, especially with regards to writing the WP:LEAD as a summary. CMD (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not blatant, a lot of the content just feels more catalog-ish than encyclopedic, I think.  750h+ | Talk  06:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your comment but didn't reply because i thought it was ridiculously arrogant and hostile for a public forum. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 08:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jenova, I then apologise if I've used an aggressive tone and will try to keep it mild for the rest of this conversation. I'm not actually trying to sound arrogant or hostile, but if is to you, then I will milden my tone.  750h+ | Talk  10:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of that doesn't seem to have aged well at all. I don't think it's worth mentioning that it came with a free tablet for example. Not sure how that was ever worth mentioning. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 11:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
750h+, do you intend to remove the material you find objectionable? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about this. I'm not the main editor of this page and I'm not particularly interested in this car either, so probably not, but maybe in the far future. I'd be willing to stay and watch the page's issues get rectified though. 750h+ 15:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Patrick Omameh edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: No consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger is citing the status of this article as a GA to justify submitting subpar GANs like Talk:Heath Irwin/GA1 and Talk:Michael Schofield (American football)/GA1. However, it's clearly not at GA status today. It was perhaps a defensible promotion back in 2013, before Omameh's football had progressed. But it's far short of the GAC in 2024. His professional career is inadequately summarised in choppy prose – tiny sections detail little more than the dates he signed for and left his various teams. – Teratix ₵ 02:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at the moment, the article violates MOS:OVERSECTION; that is easily fixed, but a quick couple of searches on newspapers.com and Google shows that there has been large amounts of coverage on Omameh's professional career, especially in its early years, which the article eschews in favour of endless statistics and all-star team inclusions. Thus, the article does not meet GA criterion 3a) as it stands. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teratix do you feel that the issues are resolved? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the basic problems with paragraph structure and comprehensiveness remain unfixed. The article really speaks for itself on this account. – Teratix ₵ 05:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the issue was deficient content. I'll revisit this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Structure has been fixed. As noted above, there is not any significant content missing.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All you did was mash the tiny one-line sections into one big chunk. That doesn't actually fix anything. I mean, come on, you look at a section like:
Omameh was signed by the New Orleans Saints on July 29, 2019. On May 14, 2020, Omameh re-signed with the Saints. He was released on September 5, 2020. Omameh was signed to the Las Vegas Raiders practice squad on September 19, 2020, and was promoted to the active roster four days later. He was waived on December 14, 2020. On December 15, 2020, Omameh was claimed off waivers by the New Orleans Saints. He was waived on December 24, 2020.
You honestly think "structure has been fixed"? You honestly think "there is not any significant content missing"? You honestly think that's a well-written summary of Omameh's career that adequately addresses its main aspects? – Teratix ₵ 04:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Teratix, what I am hearing is the encyclopedic content that you (me) have summarized is very heavy on roster transactions and little else, but there surely must be other interesting stuff. Otherwise, this can't be a GA. Please be advised that my role is to summarize encyclopedic content from secondary sources. There are some people who are not in the public eye for their entire lives and thus only portions of their life will be fleshed out in a WP biography. Others may be in the public eye with limited exposure for parts of their lives. It is my current understanding that Omameh is no longer the feature of original secondary source research beyond transaction detail and rehashing his WP bio. I am not aware of new stories regarding his biographical summary. I am well aware that this biography trails off in terms of biographical intrigue. Unless, you can explain to me that I am overlooking biological topics of intrigue, the fact that what I am presenting is boring transaction stuff, is not really a big strike against comprehensiveness. WP is a tertiary source and is only responsible for summarizing encyclopedic content of reliable secondary sources. A comprehensive summary of boring sources is still comprehensive. Telling me what I present is boring content of limited depth is not a mark against comprehensiveness unless there exist secondary sources that contain encyclopedic content that I am not summarizing. I do not believe oversight to be the case.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are five substantive sources on Omameh that are completely unused in the article.[1][2][3][4][5] They were all on the first page of a basic Newsbank search.

References

  1. ^ O'Halloran, Ryan (4 June 2017). "Omameh plays better than he practices". The Florida TImes-Union.
  2. ^ Johnson, Luke (15 May 2020). "Patrick Omameh is happy to find some continuity by re-signing with the Saints". The Times-Picuyane.
  3. ^ Lombardo, Matt (20 October 2018). "Giants to bench Patrick Omameh, start Spencer Pulley at center". The Star-Ledger.
  4. ^ Dunleavy, Ryan (10 November 2018). "Giants cut free agent bust Patrick Omameh". The Star-Ledger.
  5. ^ Just, Amie (26 November 2019). "Saints' OL Patrick Omameh 'prepared for anything' as he's the latest to fill in after injuries". The New Orleans Advocate.
Note these are intended as representative examples to demonstrate how much this article is missing, not to be exhaustive. You could include all five and that wouldn't fix the problem. So yes, you are overlooking significant secondary sources.
But I shouldn't even have to pick these out. It should be blindingly obvious, when two full years of Omameh's career is mechanically summarised as:
Omameh was signed by the New Orleans Saints on July 29, 2019. On May 14, 2020, Omameh re-signed with the Saints. He was released on September 5, 2020. Omameh was signed to the Las Vegas Raiders practice squad on September 19, 2020, and was promoted to the active roster four days later. He was waived on December 14, 2020. On December 15, 2020, Omameh was claimed off waivers by the New Orleans Saints. He was waived on December 24, 2020.
...that the article is evidently missing coverage. – Teratix ₵ 06:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Be advised that at 18:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC), I pinged Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Patrick_Omameh/1-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a ton that could be added about those portions of his career, although Tony, you probably could add things in between like, e.g. Omameh was signed to the Las Vegas Raiders practice squad on September 19, 2020, and was promoted to the active roster four days later. He appeared in six games for the team before being waived on December 14, 2020. (See PFR). BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That paragraph is also very poorly written (even relative to the rest of the article) and fails GA criterion 1a). I really don't know why constantly repeating the years is necessary, nor why three sentences with an average length of nine words are necessary to describe a ten-day period. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know why constantly repeating the years is necessary, nor why three sentences with an average length of nine words are necessary to describe a ten-day period. – while the years may not be necessary, the second part you mentioned is definitely necessary as it explains important details / transactions of his career (something all modern football player articles have), although it could be combined into less sentences. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tail end of the careers of pedestrian players is often a lot of choppy content like you see here. It is rare that anyone is ever asked to pay such close attention to the content of this portion of the biography for as mediocre of a player. It seems quite unnatural to me. There are many much more worthwhile expenditures of my editorial time. I am not above delving into the biographies of mediocre players. However, I consider it far more worthwhile to flesh out a redlink into a decent biographical picture than it is to spend time detailing precisely how mediocre a player is who already has a biography that gives a decent picture of that mediocrity.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's perfectly alright to say "I don't care enough about these players to justify spending my time on fixing their articles. I'm going to spend my time on other things instead."
But taking this stance means accepting the possibility that these players' articles will degrade over time as their careers progress, that other editors will notice this and put the articles up for reassessment, and thus that if not enough is done, they will lose their GA status.
Ultimately, you can't have your cake and eat it too. There's no GAC exception saying "articles must be well-written and adequately address the main aspects, except if they're on mediocre NFL players". – Teratix ₵ 07:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teratix, you no doubt have shown that content is missing. The question is what is considered encyclopedic. I don't know what the football term is, but baseball statasticians (I have a Masters Degree in Statisitcs, BTW) use a term called replacement player. It is a generic term that star players are compared against in a statistic known as Wins Above Replacement. It is used to statistically assess how valuable a player is in comparison to the average player that would replace him if he could not play. What we see in Omameh is someone who is basically the embodiment of a replacement player, which is a bit of a digression. Certainly, if WP:V secondary sources that are WP:RS present content, it is our duty to summarize that content at some level. However, we must keep in mind WP:NOTEVERYTHING, which says "Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". We need to consider WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which says "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". I view expanding upon mediocrity as a violation of WP:ROUTINE. I generally spend time seeking out content examples of excellence. Facts that document excellence are encyclopedic. A haystack of facts that are verifiable and sourced to document that which is run-of-the-mill is not what I use my time for. The vast majority of facts that I include in athlete biographies demonstrate things distinguishing a person from a replacement player. Documenting facts that further solidify a player's status as an embodiment of a replacement player seems ROUTINE and unencyclopedic to me. Furthermore, many athletes who are fairly pedestrian play positions in sports where they can have a great game that can be reported. Even a scrub basketball player who finally achieves double digit scoring in a game is an interesting element of content. However, for an offensive lineman there are not really any stats that if he has a decent day that we can present. If Omameh had a game where he played 50 snaps with any quarterback hurries, sacks, pass deflections, or penalties, it would be hard for me to write about it. Basically, if a guy is good enough to start in the NFL, we can give his article some facts. So for a lineman, we might end up with signings, releases and starts. Explaining his mediocrity is a waste of time, IMO.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Teratix, I'm not seeing precisely what more is needed here? IMO, "adequately addresses the main aspects" does not mean "include every detail known to man" – the article doesn't look that bad to me. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see Tony has expanded the article a bit having done some Newsbank searches of his own. This is good! For instance, the section on his 2016 season at the Jaguars:

Omameh signed with the Jacksonville Jaguars on June 2, 2016. Despite not looking that good to coach Doug Marrone in practices, Omameh made the roster over Mackenzy Bernadeau and others. When left guard Luke Joeckel had season-ending surgery in October, Omameh took his place. He was placed on injured reserve on November 21 after sustaining a left foot injury in Week 11 against the Detroit Lions. According to Ryan O'Halloran of The Florida Times-Union, despite his mediocre pass protection performance, in Omameh's six starts (453 snaps) at left guard, he performed superior to the other 4 people who started in 2016 at that position for the team.

now at least references some actual analysis of Omameh's performance. This is the standard I'm thinking of when considering whether a main aspect has at least been "adequately" addressed. Now if we can get the rest of the sections on his NFL career to at least this standard, the article would be well on the way to a retention. – Teratix ₵ 01:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding Newsbank, the Chicago Public Library has a different set of sources than whomever your Newsbank subscription is through. So our search results will overlap but differ. I have added one source that you listed above. We do not seem to have access to The Star-Ledger at this time, so I have found a source from the time frame of your TSL sources. You do not seem to be hearing me. Omameh is a biography that could be cluttered with WP:Run-of-the-mill content. I have shown with the edits since you listed sources to pursue that the content in those sources is Run-of-the-mill. As per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, & WP:ROUTINE, I will not clutter his article with further ROTM content. User:BeanieFan11 has opted observe this on behalf of WP:NFL. I consider the ROTM content that I added describing how mediocre he is to be unencyclopedic and do not want to add more ROTM content. We are at a point where "Find more stuff" is not acceptable. I think Beanie is impartial. Unless substantial facts that are known to you are missing, you need to explain why you wish to disregard WP:Run-of-the-mill, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, & WP:ROUTINE.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you don't understand what those essays mean. "Run-of-the-mill" is a concept that relates to notability – it's about whether a particular subject is different enough from the ordinary to deserve an article in the first place, not about what is covered within that article. "Routine" is another concept that relates to notability, not article content – it's about whether something like a wedding announcement, a criminal charge or an everyday sports match deserves its own article.
    Similarly, you don't understand what WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:NOTEVERYTHING means. "Indiscriminate" is a concept that relates to things like articles that log every single software update for a particular app. An indiscriminate article on Omameh would be something like analysing every NFL match he ever appeared in. When I ask, e.g. that the article use the many secondary sources available to say a little more about his stint with the Saints than Omameh was signed by the New Orleans Saints on July 29, 2019. On May 14, 2020, Omameh re-signed with the Saints. He was released on September 5, that's not "INDISCRIMINATE".
    I've lost my patience here. I've been very clear about the article's obvious failures to adequately cover Omameh's NFL career and the ample secondary sources that haven't been incorporated, even to the point where I had to go out and explicitly pick out five examples for Tony. This GAR has been open for over a month now and there has been every opportunity for interested editors to get it back to a decent standard.
    Barring some substantive improvement, the article should be delisted for failing GAC (3a), adequately addressing main aspects. – Teratix ₵ 04:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am done. Thanks for your time. Of course a GAR is not an individual effort so others may want to take up the slack.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have the relevant Wikiprojects been notified of this GAR?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The GAR automatically shows up in WikiProjects' article alerts and you notified WikiProject NFL yourself (not exactly in a neutral fashion, I might add). – Teratix ₵ 15:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      BeanieFan11, do you think this should be kept or delisted? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Leaning keep, but I want to take a further look later today. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I added a few extra details. I think its probably good enough to be kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no comments on the overall broadness of the article, but the lead needs expansion to fully cover the (new?) body content (GACR1b), especially the College and Personal Life. I'd also suggest dividing the Professional Career section into a couple more paragraphs for readability, although this isn't something I'd hang a GAR on. CMD (talk) 06:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Fallout: New Vegas edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: With thanks to Famous Hobo ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently has lots of unsourced content and issues with prose (the gameplay section is one long paragraph). The page also displays too much content on fan-made mods, as posted about here by an IP in January of this year. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro: To address that IP's comments, the mods that are mentioned are the mods were covered by reliable sources. I could see an argument for creating an article titled Fallout: New Vegas modding, splitting most of the current info there, and making a small summary in this article, as was done with Skyrim. No comment yet regarding the other issues mentioned. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is the similar Skyrim modding so if there is enough content to warrant a separate modding page for New Vegas I don't see why we couldn't split. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zmbro I took a stab at shortening the mods section on my sandbox. Frankly I'm not sure what else to include. Yes the mods themselves have received media attention, but considering the article is about Fallout New Vegas itself and not the individual mods I wanted to keep the section short. Also, this article says that the modding scene was instrumental in turning the perception of New Vegas into a beloved classic, so I could merge the mods paragraph with the reappraisal section. Famous Hobo (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they shouldn't have individual sections. If the mods were integral to the game's lasting reception I think that should surely be discussed in reappraisal. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Famous Hobo- I'm biased since it's a part of my username but the mention of Tale of Two Wastelands had more than enough reliable sources, including an article by IGN on it two weeks ago. I'll leave it up to you on how to re-add it but I think it definitely should be mentioned. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HadesTTW: So the mods section was the first thing I rewrote simply because it was one of the main issues brought up at the beginning of the good article reassessment. But after reading through some other info about Fallout: New Vegas I can across this article, which among other things, talks about how the active modding scene was integral to making the game the beloved classic it is today. Whether or not that's actually true, I have no idea, I play on console. Regardless I plan on expanding the reappraisal section to include info about how important the modding scene was, and I want to include info about the bigger mods like New California, The Frontier, and Two Wastelands. You're right that the Two Wastelands mod does deserve to at least have a brief mention. I'll get around to it eventually, I'm just slowly but surely working my way through the article. I plan on rewriting the initial reception section next. Famous Hobo (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, you are doing great work with the GA rewrite so far. I just wanted to make sure that the mod was kept since it's definitely notable for inclusion.
I will have to say in regards to the notability of other mods- I would love to write an entire article on New Vegas modding as its a subject that I know a lot about, but reliable sources are sparse and oftentimes recommend poor quality mods (Project Nevada is mentioned in a lot of publications, but it has been deprecated by the community and largely been replaced by non-notable mods that aren't buggy and broken). I definitely would write an entire "Fallout: New Vegas Modding" article if there were more sources- but as it stands, the best and most reliable information on modding are all self-published sources or guides on GitHub. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sadly I just don't think there are enough sources available to write about the modding scene as a whole. Your best bet would probably be to focus on some of the individual mods like New California. I'm honestly shocked there isn't an article about The Frontier mod considering how much was written about it when it came out. Famous Hobo (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah this looks like a very, very clear Delist. The article as a whole is hard to read and there's citation needed tags/unsourced content throughout. λ NegativeMP1 16:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking my delist following the improvements made by Famous Hobo. I think the article should be good enough to keep the GA status of. λ NegativeMP1 03:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There seems to be a lot of unsourced material, and a decent amount of it is questionable in terms of its objectivity. I also think the quality of the writing in general could use improvement. I personally find it a bit awkward, but that’s a secondary issue. Cleaning up the information is definitely more of a priority.
I don’t meet the requirements to edit protected articles yet, but should I propose specific edits if I want to add/delete content? I see some things that could be cut out or restructured, but I don’t want to upset anyone (I’m very new to Wikipedia editing so I’m not familiar with the social norms here). FlookieBee (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FlookieBee I'm interested in saving this article from losing it's GA status, and copied the entire article onto my sandbox. You should be able to freely edit on there. Just a heads up I am also editing on the sandbox so some of the text will change over the next couple days, but I don't mind you editing there. Also you can't include copyrighted images on a sandbox, which is why the cover art and gameplay screenshot have been removed (surprisingly none of the other images are copyrighted). Famous Hobo (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as GA Hobo did a great job streamlining the article and removing unsourced material. I'll look into creating a separate article for New Vegas modding although I expect to run into problems with sourcing and the like. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 15:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro: Just an update on what's going on. The gameplay section has been completely rewritten (although you might want to read through the second paragraph to see if it makes sense. I'll admit it's a very simplified explanation of how skills work in this game). The plot section mostly seems fine, although I'll make a few touch ups here and there to make it seem more encyclopedic. I'm almost done rewriting the development section with new information. From there, I'll expand on the remaining sections. The nice thing about the TV series is that more information is being rewritten about New Vegas than ever before. In its current state, I think this article passes the GA requirements, but regardless I'll keep working on it. Famous Hobo (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great to hear! I'm glad there's actually editors dedicated to cleaning it up and bringing it back up to standard (especially considering, like you said, the TV series has brought renewed interest to this game more than ever). Now if only Bethesda will make a damn remaster... – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zmbro: Update 2. Pretty much every part of this article has been rewritten. The one exception is the initial reception section. I'll be blunt, I fucking hate writing reception sections for video game articles, so I've been heavily procrastinating writing that section. But as it stands now, even if the reception section is left as is, I firmly believe this article passes modern GA standards. Famous Hobo (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I think the improvements have brought the article back up to GA standards. Thanks again for the great work! Famous Hobo – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Louie Caporusso edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article was reviewed as a GA in 2009 (by me). While it did pass GA standards in 2009, at the time he was still a college hockey player, and in the meantime he has had essentially his entire professional career. As a result the article has atrophied, with 2013 to present in particular lacking in depth. Wizardman 21:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article has not really attrophied. Nothing encyclopedic has been written about him as the feature since 2013. Pull him up on Newspaper.com and click on the 2020-24 articles and you will see what I mean. Proquest had 143 articles on him in 2013. No year since has had 10% of that number and the stories usually just mention something like he scored a goal.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are you using newspapers.com and ProQuest, two sites focusing primarily on the United States, to search for coverage of a player who has spent most of the past decade in Europe TonyTheTiger? Also pinging Wizardman, who may not have seen the above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am only fluent in English. I don't speak the languages of any of the foreign countries he has played in.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • This one I did see, but I guess we're at am impasse because I can't say I agree. Wizardman 22:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you familiar with missing content?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do any of the other language versions of his article give us reason to believe via cited content that content is missing on EN WP?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • You clearly did not bother to have a look yourself; a quick glance shows [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and [11]. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • That is correct. I do not visit foreign language WPs to read articles in languages that I do not speak. Never have for any subject on WP. I consider myself to be a fairly hard working editor. However, I don't research in foreign languages. That is a bar no other reviewer has ever asked me to clear. If you isolate pages like these, I can try to make sense of them with google translate, but as you are surely aware a lot gets lost in translation. I would welcome any German-English fluent editorial assistance. As you may have noticed at Thom Darden, I am not averse to reopening the research on a subject. I just don't research in foreign languages. The only foreign language that I might have a chance with is Spanish, but I don't even trust myself to be able to adaquately summarize a Spanish article in English. If you want me to try to expand from Google translate, I can do that. I will need a few days. Give me 4 or 5 days.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have used Google Translate to help with several GAs and FAs. These days, the machine translation is astute enough that if you're reasonably astute, you can realise the minor inaccuracies yourself. In the case of this article, I am slightly staggered that you think looking up sources about a player who has spent the majority of his professional career playing for non-American teams "a bar to clear"—that is basic stuff. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                • Not really "basic stuff". Been through dozens of GA biography reviews of athletes who have played overseas and never been asked to track down foreign language sources beyond contract signings and releases. Non of my four bio FAs have had relevant international experience. This will be an adventure.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding MOS:NUM, it is quite a challenge for me. Single digit numbers are written as numbers for sports scores and stats. Then, since so many are written as numbers, I wrote others as numbers. Not really sure.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

SR Lord Nelson class edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple passages missing citations. Several existing citations are missing page numbers. I am not convinced that "Southern Railway E-mail Group" is a reliable source. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Columbia University edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a CCI request that includes as evidence some diffs leading up to this article's original GA promotion. It appears that widespread copyright issues were introduced at that time and unfortunately not caught, with the result that the present article includes some direct and some derivative copyvio from multiple sources. Examples:

  • Current article: "The university is governed by 24 trustees, customarily including the president, who serves ex officio. The trustees themselves are responsible for choosing their successors. Six of the 24 are nominated from a pool of candidates recommended by the Columbia Alumni Association. Another six are nominated by the board in consultation with the executive committee of the University Senate. The remaining 12, including the president, are nominated by the trustees themselves through their internal processes. The term of office for trustees is six years. Generally, they serve for no more than two consecutive terms. The trustees appoint the president and other senior administrative officers of the university, and review and confirm faculty appointments as required. They determine the university's financial and investment policies, authorize the budget, supervise the endowment, direct the management of the university's real estate and other assets, and otherwise oversee the administration and management of the university."
    • Source: "The University is governed by 24 Trustees, customarily including the President, who serves ex officio. The Trustees themselves are responsible for choosing their successors. Six of the 24 are nominated from a pool of candidates recommended by the Columbia Alumni Association. Another six are nominated by the Board in consultation with the Executive Committee of the University Senate. The remaining 12, including the President, are nominated by the Trustees themselves through their internal processes. The term of office for Trustees is six years. Generally, they serve for no more than two consecutive terms. The Trustees appoint the President and other senior administrative officers of the University, and review and confirm faculty appointments as required. They determine the University’s financial and investment policies, authorize the budget, supervise the endowment, direct the management of the University’s real estate and other assets, and otherwise oversee the administration and management of the University."
  • Current article: "McKim, Mead & White invited French to build the sculpture in order to harmonize with the larger composition of the court and library in the center of the campus. Draped in an academic gown, the female figure of Alma Mater wears a crown of laurels and sits on a throne. The scroll-like arms of the throne end in lamps, representing sapientia and doctrina. A book signifying knowledge, balances on her lap, and an owl, the attribute of wisdom, is hidden in the folds of her gown. Her right hand holds a scepter composed of four sprays of wheat, terminating with a crown of King's College which refers to Columbia's origin as a royal charter institution in 1754. A local actress named Mary Lawton was said to have posed for parts of the sculpture. The statue was dedicated on September 23, 1903, as a gift of Mr. & Mrs. Robert Goelet, and was originally covered in golden leaf. During the Columbia University protests of 1968 a bomb damaged the sculpture, but it has since been repaired".
    • Source: "Draped in an academic gown, the female figure of Alma Mater wears a crown of laurels and sits on a throne. The scroll-like arms of the throne end in lamps, representing Doctrina and Sapientia. A book signifying knowledge, balances on her lap, and an owl, the attribute of wisdom, is seen in the folds of the gown. Her right hand holds a scepter composed of four sprays of wheat, terminating with a crown of King's College which refers to Columbia's orgin as a Royalist institution in 1754.... Architect of the Low Library, Charles Follen McKim of the firm McKim, Mead & White, invited French to execute this sculpture which was to harmonize with his larger composition of the court and library. The base was designed by McKim, Mead & White. The sculpture was a gift of Mr. & Mrs. Robert Goelet, Jr. Originally, the sculpture was coated with gold leaf. During a student demonstration in 1968, a bomb damaged the sculpture, but it has since been repaired. The actress Mary Lawton was said to have posed for parts of the of the sculpture."
  • Current article: "With a design inspired by the City Beautiful movement, the steps of Low Library provides Columbia University and Barnard College students, faculty, and staff with a comfortable outdoor platform and space for informal gatherings, events, and ceremonies. McKim's classical facade epitomizes late 19th-century new-classical designs, with its columns and portico marking the entrance to an important structure."
    • Source: "With a design inspired by the City Beautiful movement, the steps of McKim, Mead, and White's Low Library provides Columbia university and Barnard College students, faculty, and staff with a comfortable and spacious outdoor platform and space for informal gatherings, events, and ceremonies. McKim's classical; facade epitomizes late 19th century new-classical designs, with its columns and portico marking the entrance to an important structure."
  • Current article: "The InterGreek Council is the self-governing student organization that provides guidelines and support to its member organizations within each of the three councils at Columbia, the Interfraternity Council, Panhellenic Council, and Multicultural Greek Council. The three council presidents bring their affiliated chapters together once a month to meet as one Greek community. The InterGreek Council meetings provide opportunity for member organizations to learn from each other, work together and advocate for community needs."
    • Source: "The InterGreek Council (IGC) is the self-governing student organization that provides guidelines and support to its member organizations within each of the three councils at Columbia, the Interfraternity Council, Panhellenic Council, and Multicultural Greek Council. The three council presidents bring their affiliated chapters together once a month to meet as one Greek community. The InterGreek Council meetings provide opportunity for member organizations to learn from each other, work together and advocate for community needs."

Etc. It also appears that there may have been some copyvio predating the GA run, particularly in the history section compared to this archive. I do have other concerns wrt the GA criteria, but the copyvio issue will require a significant rewrite anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nominator. Article has a significant amount of plagiarism/copyvios, failing GACR 2d. 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 14:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Capitol Limited (B&O train) edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 promotion has a number of uncited passages, severe sandwiching throughout the article, and a lead of insufficient length to summarize the body of the article. I also question the relevance of the schedule table which seems like excessive and inappropriate detail to me. One might also expect some basic detail on Amtrak's version of the train; the current article says almost nothing about it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've axed the schedule table. I have no comment on the other points raised, which do seem valid. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Field Spaniel edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: No improvement; has two citation needed tags and an SPS tag. Closing as delist. Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13 years since original review, now contains self-published/unreliable citations which I've removed. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So are the issues resolved Traumnovelle? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the citations, not the content. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Primer (film) edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: No comments or improvement in two weeks; closing as delist Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

promoted in 2008. among other things, cites imdb and amazon, and has out of place sentences like The American director Steven Soderbergh is regarded as a fan of the film and one of the more fantastical elements of science fiction is central to the film. ltbdl (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

LNER Gresley Classes A1 and A3 edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the article is uncited, including the entire "Wartime service" section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was just a GA reassessment in 2022. @Redrose64 and Whiteguru: Do you have any thoughts or input on this? SnowFire (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is a GA reassessment, and Talk:LNER Gresley Classes A1 and A3/GA1 is also a GA reassessment, why are their names so different? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whiteguru used the individual reassessment process, which is now deprecated. Beats me if that was the right location for an individual reassessment. But I don't think GAR page location is the most relevant concern here anyway - do you have any comment on the quality of the article? SnowFire (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist; sourcing issues and shouldn't've been kept in 2022. Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Michael Myers (Halloween) edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: There seems to be consensus that the article does not cover essential aspects of the character in enough detail. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive usage of primary sources, aritcle isn't broad in coverage (lacking scholar sources, copy the article like Slender Man), unsourced statements, lack of Folkloric qualities or reception section, and the usage of some unreliable sources in the concept/creation section like Youtube and Reddit and primary sources in the popular culture section. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 03:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:

1. Excessive use of primary sources? Are you referring to the plot section being sourced to the films? If you're referring to interview books and documentaries, they would be the best sources for information pertaining to the creation of the actual character.

2. Broad coverage is defined as "main aspects of the topic". The main aspect of the topic would be the creation of the character and his impact on popular culture. The article covers those (the former in great depth). This is a GA article, not an FA article. The criteria for "broad" certainly didn't change between 2008 and now. What I can tell you from going through the history is that sometimes in 2009 some IP vandal successfully deleted a huge section of information and it was never caught.

3. What unsourced statements? The only unsourced part of the article is in the plot section, and it isn't technically required to have an in-line citation for a film summary. It's a fixable issue.

4. Lack of folkloric qualities and reception? I don't know what you mean by folkloric qualities. Michael is a film character, not an urban legend.

5. Youtube and Reddit were used for one source as confirmation of a Halloween film appearing in another film. the entire thing is removed because it's not relevant. That was a single instance for both Youtube and Reddit (as it was the same source). Your statement makes it seem like the article was riddled with the use of Youtube/Reddit pages.

If you're going to request a reassessment, you need to provide more specific issues and not vague statements that force people to guess at what you're referring to.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that my statement is kinda exaggerating, I'll redo again. Oh btw, I already raised my concern here [12] before, so I wouldn't even know that the IP removed a lot of content way back from 2009. So, if this article wasn't sent out to GAR does it mean that the content will never be restored? This is the problem with some Old GA articles being forgotten. I also disagree with "the criteria for broad certainly didn't change between 2008 and now", the article easily passed the GA process before unlike now. There are some sources doesn't have author's name that should be implemented. ref51, ref53 ,ref55, ref56, ref58 sources should be replaced into reliable, ref 57 dead source, and instead of using unreliable source like ref61 just remove it and add other merchandise instead with these sources [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. There are some recent sources that could potentially expand the article [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] and maybe this two also? [25] [26] Note: I understand your frustration, but I'm not here just to destroy the GA icon. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 04:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+ There were no mentions about the novelizations of Halloween: The Official Movie Novelization (2018), Taking Shape: Developing Halloween from Script to Scream (2019) and Halloween 3 - “Where the Hell is Michael Myers?”: A definitive history of horror’s most misunderstood film (2022). The lead should also be updated + the infobox image rationale should be improved. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 05:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue there are several statements in the article that are not backed up by their respective sources. The infobox lists several actors (Chris Durand, Brad Loree, Tyler Mane, etc.) who are not mentioned anywhere in the prose. Other infobox details like his "choice weapon". Some statements such as being seen in a commercial in Halloween III are unsourced. Halloween H20: 20 Years Later says it ignores the events of the first three films, but is that stated on the DVD? There are curious highlighted information about the differences between the novel and the book (i.e: Myere's having an erection) that just cites the book, but if this is a big deal or notable, we should have a source discussing the character variations from the novel and film. Some of the more specific video details sourced to dvds in the creation section have no time stamp, which is kind of expected nowadays in sourcing for this kind of material. The statement "Michael Myers is regarded as one of the most recognizable and most iconic horror villains, alongside..." is cited to just a dozens of "Top 10" or "Best---" lists, which isn't quite stating what the sources say. All the trivial mentions of him appearing on tv shows that cite the show itself are basically trivial and feels like a bulleted list written out as prose (Michael Myers is seen in this show. He's also been sold as prop from Spirit of Halloween. Michael appears in...") we can't list every piece of outside media citing Michael, so why hunt and choose? I would agree with Greenish Pickle that there is no reception section and it's mostly down to top 10 lists that summarize "oh he's one of the most iconic of all time", which, no matter how many lists you find, doesn't quite state that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at work, but when I have time I'll go through the article line by line and see what's there. I've only monitored the page for basic vandalism (which, obviously, I didn't do a good job of back in 2009) and haven't paid that much attention to what's been added over the years. That said, "broad coverage" is NOT "comprehensive coverage", which is an FA criteria. So, listing things that aren't used in the article doesn't mean that it isn't broad in its coverage. There doesn't need to be a source in the info box for actors that have portrayed the role, as basic IMDB credits have always been accepted for essentially demographic information about a film. Again, I'll go through it line by line to see what doesn't make sense (I'm not sure why someone put anything about an erection in there for example, but random editors will be random editors).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue definitely need sources for material like that. Even going beyond WP:RS and WP:OR, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article." And yeah, this is what I mean by some trivial mentions. I'm not expecting a featured article content as I barely touch those, but based on the information I suggested, if this was being submitted as a good article today, I think it would be close to passing, but its reception section and infobox material would hold it back for me. No rush on getting back to me if you are at work, I'm definitely not in the market to try and say remove the good article status for this article within a day, week, etc. There are just some things we could definitely work on. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have been watching this article for a while now, I have noticed that the scope of the article is incomplete. There is not a lot of information going into the creation and the development of the character. I see a lot of information on the people that played him and some characterization that could be associated with the creation of the character. I do agree that there are plenty of sourcing issues and the article is long overdue for an update and expansion.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. You said there is NOT a lot of information going into the creation and development of the character? Are we reading the same article? There are 3 rather extensive sections on his creation and development. Not having information from the last 3 films (which is probably on their respective pages...I haven't looked at them), does not mean that there is "not a lot" of information. What sourcing issues? So far, this GAR has been a lot of vague ideas of problems and not real, specific issues. The only sourcing issues that existed that have been pointed out were a deadline (which isn't as relevant because it was a journal article, the link was for ease of access), the use of primary sources to cite an episode of a show (nothing wrong with this, so long as the information isn't an interpretation and in those cases it was not). I think people are confusing "unreliable" with "primary" and thinking that all primary sources are either unreliable or unusable. I would point you all to WP:PRIMARY. The problem that exists is that when you're talking about fictional characters, movies, tv shows, etc. you're going to use a lot more primary sources than a normal article because that's where the real world, behind the scenes information is going to come from. It isn't going to come from secondary sources. Secondary sources would be used for interpretive, analytical information that is being used to support the article. Context is important when it comes to the breakdown of the categories for sources in an article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What @Paleface Jack: is saying isn't complicated to understand. There is a ton of information about what actors brought into the role (paragraphs upon paragraphs), but little about what was involved with creating the character from the writers or anyone else involved on the set. You also just said it's lacking information on the last three films. And yes, third-party sources would be interpretive, but that is art and we require more third-party interpretations of the character. There is a ton of material here from the people who made them, but barely anything outside the bubble of people who made it. As for your citing WP:PRIMARY, dont' forget "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. While a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere, do not put undue weight on its contents." In short, you need more input from outside sources. The journal link is a good start, but just saying "he's one of the most recognized and iconic horror villains" means nothing when you just cite a bunch of top 10s. These kind of statements need context, and you can add a dozen more "best of" lists, but that doesn't really help much here. How does he fit into the pop culture? Why is he iconic/recognizable? Were there tests done? These part needs a re-buff. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I wad meaning. we have some of the lore but a lot of information going into the creation of the character is absent. I always look to the article on Jason Voorhees as a shining example of how to structure articles like this and have used that as a template for my own contributions. Michael, being the influential slasher villain that he is, there needs to be balance and consistency with how the article is structured and written without going overboard with the information. As to the sources, there are a lot of new sources both literary and web that can be used here. Video and periodical citations are good too if they are reliable enough. As it stands though, the article, I am sad to say, is not GA material as it once was. I am certain though that is will be in the future. just not in into current state.Paleface Jack (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Crusading movement edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: I am closing this with a consensus to delist. I count three editors in favor of a delist, versus one opposed, and most editors who have weighed in are not convinced that the article has been fully cleansed of close paraphrasing. Let's not get into a WP:FIXLOOP situation here - the article may be renominated for GA status when involved editors are in agreement all copyvio has been removed and any other issues precluding GA status have been addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

During the article's FAC review, it became apparent that the article does not meet all GA criteria: 2c. it contains original research; 2d. it contains copyright violations and plagiarism; and 3a. it does not address the main aspects of the topic. Furthermore, its prose is not clear and concise as a consequence of copyright violations and plagiarism. Although the article could be delisted without further review because it is a long way from meeting criterium 3a, and contains copyright violations, I think giving a last chance for improvement is a better approach. Of course, the article should be cleaned of copyright violations and plagiarism as soon as possible, because copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues. Borsoka (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This discussion was closed as delist by Borsoka; I have reverted the close as a WP:NACINV-breaching action which contravened the WP:GAR instructions. I suggest, to avoid a WP:FIXLOOP, that Norfolkbigfish attempt to eradicate all plagiarism from the article and ping Borsoka when they feel this is done; if Borsoka feels that the article should still be delisted, they can simply !oppose and their !vote will be taken into account by an uninvolved closer. This will not only avoid excess use of other's time and energy, but will also demonstrate if Norfolkbigfish properly understands the copyright policies, which may be helpful in deciding whether the other articles they have contributed to need immediate reviewing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To begin the process, I copy my remarks from the FAC review page here:

General remarks edit

  • A general remark on sourcing: more than 30% of the article is verified by references to individual articles from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. Our relevant policy says, "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. ... Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." I think the use of a tertiary source goes beyond this boundary, and the rationale beyond the selection of individual encyclopedic articles is unclear. As a consequence of this approach, the article looks like an encyclopedia with individual articles following each other without much connection between them. I am not sure that this method can secure that the movement is presented in WP as it is presented in relevant scholarly literature. Could we write an article about "Humanity" based on arbitrarily selected articles from Encyclopædia Britannica?
The Encyclopedia is WP:RS. Where particular facts are insufficient this can be addressed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the encyclopedia is a reliable source. I have never questioned its reliability. However, we need a coherent encyclopedic article about the crusading movement, not an abridged version of The Crusades: An Encyclopedia, with individual articles within it. Right now, this article could hardly be regarded more than a collection of individual articles on topics like "Penance and indulgence", "Knights and chivalry", etc. Even the seemingly chronologicaly organised "Evaluation" section is a mostly incoherent mixture of texts from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia (often with texts copied from its articles about indvidual popes). For the time being, the article does not introduce the crusading movement as it is presented in scholarly literature: arbitrarily selected articles from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia placed one after another can hardly be regarded as an encyclopedic article. Therefore, sourcing must be changed radically. Not only because the extensive use of tertiary sources contradicts our relevant policy, but also because editors' task is to present an article's subject as it is presented by scholars writing of the topic. Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • While an issue for FA, I am not sure this is as important for GA. If 30% of the article is sourced to a tertiary source, 70% is still cited to secondary sources. I am uncertain how an article 70% based off secondary sources can be described as "arbitrarily selected articles from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia placed one after another". Could you please clarify? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are no separate policies for FA and GA, we need to meet the same standard. If you review the article, you will find that it is structured around the encyclopedic articles arbitrarily selected from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. These are placed one after another, and all other information is organised around them. The encyclopedic articles form this article's backbone. This contradicts our principal logic: we write articles based on high-quality comprehensive studies, present topics as they are presented in these studies, and in some cases we add some supplementary information citing encyclopedias. Borsoka (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • "There are no separate policies for FA and GA, we need to meet the same standard." That is undeniably incorrect, Borsoka; you may wish to acquaint yourself with the GA criteria, the FA criteria, and the difference between them. You have perfectly outlined the reason why this article is not an FA, but over-reliance on tertiary sources is not a reason to remove GA status. Copyright, on the other hand, is. If your next argument is that by "policies" you refer to the formal policies and guidelines, please point to where we write articles based on high-quality comprehensive studies is in WP:CONTENT.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • With regard to secondary and tertiary sources, we do not have separate policies. GA requires reliable sources, FA high-quality reliable sources: The Crusades: An Encyclopedia is without doubt a high-quality reliable source, so it could be cited in a FA, but only in accordance with our relevant policy: "Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight...". How randomly selected articles from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia could provide broad summaries about the whole crusading movement? For instance, the encyclopedic articles "Finance of the Crusades" and "Women" are ignored, although these are two major themes in books about a crusading movement. On the other hand, each encyclopedic article about an individual pope is cited, even his original name is sometimes mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A point on the first sentence, there are 35 citations to the Encyclopedia in this article out of a total of 169, a fraction over 20%. None of these citations are particular contentious and all are written by academics who quote their own sources. There are 41 citations to the Oxford Illustrated, so the the Encyclopedia is not even the most popular source. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are more than 169 citations: for instance, citation 2 verifies two statements, citation 12 three statements. Borsoka (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sudden changes in tone and vocabulary and redundant content suggests that significant texts may be closely paraphrased. Has the article been reviewed from this perspective? I have only reviewed about one fifth of the article, but I have found several cases of close paraphrasing and copyvio. Borsoka (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can be dealt with on an incident by incident basis. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is an extremly urgent task. For the time being, I cannot exclude that the whole article will be deleted for plagiarism. I think you know which texts were copied from the cited sources, so you are in the position to solve this problem. Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you think the article is eligible for WP:G12 speedy deletion or WP:AFD, you should nominate it there at once Borsoka; as you have kindly pointed out, copyright is a serious issue, so playing around with GA reassessments is like passing the buck. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it is a serious issue. You may not remember but it was me who first raised it about a week ago during the FAC review. However, I have not reviewed the whole article, so I only assume that it will be deleted due to plagiarism. After reviewing about one third of the article (or rather collection of texts), I need some time for recovery to continue this exceptionally irksome work. Moreover, I would give a chance to the nominator to clear the article, because a version free of plagiarism could be kept. Borsoka (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Borsoka, the versions of the article you believe are irrevocably tainted will still reside in the page history even if a version free of plagiarism is created, and will need to be WP:REVDELled. As someone who has nominated many pages for CSD, it is easier to nominate now then later. I will not do this myself as I personally believe there is 0% chance of either G12 or revdel deletion, but if you really think it's needed, it is legally proper to do it now and not later; otherwise, you are knowingly cooperating to keep copyrighted material on WP. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I am not knowingly cooperating to keep copyrighted material on WP, because I have listed several cases of probable copyright violations during the FAR review. I shared all my knowledge with the community, including yourself. I assume that Norfolkbigfish's other articles, like the House of Lancaster also contain copyvio, because I have more than one time had to remind him to the dangers of plagiarism since the first time we met during a FAC review years ago. Should I review that article as well because of my assumption? Could you quote the relevant policy? If there is an obligation, I will do it but I sincerely hope that Norfolkbigfish will be cooperative and achieve the deletion of versions filled with plagiarism. Sorry, I do not understand the terms "CSD", "G12", and "revdel deletion". Sometimes links are helpful for stupid people like myself. Borsoka (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just for curiosity: if you "felt that there was substantial close paraphrasing" during a previous review[27], why did not you investigate it? When I feel close paraphrasing, I always compare the texts in the article and the cited sources during a review. Borsoka (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • I did: see Talk:Crusading movement/Archive 2#Recent Edits, a discussion you were very much part of Borsoka. The reason I did not take it further then is that it took place in April 2022, and I had begun to edit WP a couple of months earlier—I was still unsure of many of the finer details. Ignoring the "stupid people"—you are well aware that I think you precisely the opposite—CSD refers to WP:CSD: criteria for speedy deletion, of which one is WP:G12 (Unambiguous copyright infringement); if not all versions of the article contain close paraphrasing, we might need WP:REVDEL (revision deletion), where versions in the page history get deleted for copyright infringement.
            • Right now, the close paraphrasing is far less blatant than it was in April 2022, when I provided this link as an entire paragraph which was plagiarised. From what I can see below, the close paraphrasing is now restricted only to sentence fragments—as such, G12 deletion is out of the question. Hope that helps. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @Borsoka-I appreciate, as you say, the chance to clear the article, thank you for that. Will work through this from the top, line by line, and ping you when complete Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secondary sources cited in the article dedicate several pages to the Muslim world and the influx of the Turks in the politics of the Middle East [Asbridge (pp. 17-29), Jotischky (pp. 40-47), Lock (pp. 3-19), Madden (pp. 1-5), Tyermann 2019 (pp. 33-45). Several other sources that follow the same path could be listed. Why does the article ignore this usual scholarly approach?
This article is not about the crusades, it is about the crusade movement e.g. the ideology and institutions of crusading. For this reason there is no MILHIST is this article, as suggested by another editor. It is a Latin Church institution.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not suggest that MILHIST should be added. The development of the crusading movement should be presented as it is presented in reliable sources. Right now, readers who consult with this article will not understand why the crusading movement began. The presentation of one single scholar's PoV does not solve this problem (I refer to Latham). Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above named works are narrative histories of the crusades and go on to detail numerous campaigns in the Eastern Mediterranean. It is natural that they give background on the political and military situation in the East. This article is a subtly different topic, it is about the institutions and ideology that was developed to support crusading that almost entirely occurred in Western Europe. Bull for one saw no need to mention the Turks in any detail when discussing the Origins of crusading because they weren't relevant. Christian Muslim warfare existed for hundreds of years prior to the crusades and would have continued for years even if the crusades did not exist. By definition the instituition of crusading only came into effect because of reformists within the church. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really say that rhe article's non-encyclopedic sources do not cover the article's topic? Why are they cited? Borsoka (talk) 06:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources cited, are cited because they contain valuable information on this article's topic. That does not mean or imply that everything written in them is relevant to this article's topic. Equally, just because information is not included in those works should not be taken to mean or imply that it is not relevant to this topic. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bull's perspective differs from your above summary: "What the Mediterranean theatres of war [between Muslims and Christians] had in common ... was that formerly Christian lands were being wrested from infidel control. Consequently the Holy Land, which had been overrun by the Arabs in the seventh century, was bound to attract the Church's attention sooner or later. ... The perspective of a Mediterranean-wide struggle was visible only to those institutions, in particular the papacy, which had the intelligence networks, grasp of geography, and sense of long historical tradition to take a broad overview of Christendom and its threatened predicament, real or supposed." [Bull (1995), p. 19] Jonathan Riley-Smith - who is the editor of the book to which Bull is a contributor - emphasizes, after mentioning Pope Urban II's call for the First Crusade, that "The crusading movement had begun in the melodramatic fashion which was to be typical of it thereafter. ... Now about 60 years old, [Pope Urban II] had embarked on a year-long journey though southern and central France. The summoning of an expedition to the aid of the Byzantine empire had probably been in his mind for several years and it had been aired at a council held at Piacenza in March which had heard an appeal from the Byzantine (Greek) emperor Alexios for aid against the Turks, who for over two decades had been sweeping through Asia Minor and had almost reached the Bosphorus." [Riley-Smith (1995), pp. 1-3]. We can conclude, there is no book cited in the article that ignores pre-Crusades Muslim-Catholic clashes or the Turks' expansion in the Levant. Borsoka (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, all this does is rather proves the original point. Rather than an idepth summary of several centuries of military history Bull and Riley-Smith feel only a reference or two is necessary. And only the regarding events during or subsequent to the Gregarian reform. This point remains irrelevent and against consunsus on this article. An aricle that has successfully passed both a GAR and a ACR without a single other editor raising this point. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus on this article. That a point was not raised during the article's reviews does not indicate that it is not relevant. Bull dedicates about 1 page to both pre-Crusades Muslim-Christian conflicts and the Gregorian Reforms. Again, the article should present the movement's background as it is presented in the cited sources. Borsoka (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1 page on Muslim-Conflicts demonstrates an appropriate weight for this. You have rathered made my point. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my above remark again. In a chapter containing nineteen pages, one page is quite significant, or at least as significant as the one page about the Gregorian Reforms in the same chapter. Borsoka (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or rather 1 page in a book of 436? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not counted the pages about pre-Crusades conflicts between Muslims and Christians, but there are at least two pages in two chapters. The Gregorian reforms are mentioned also on two pages in the book, according to the Index. If you think pre-Crusades conflicts can be ignored, you should also ignore the Gregorian Reforms. Can we agree that it would be a quite original approach? Borsoka (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely, Riley-Smith in his chapter "The crusading movement" in "War, Peace and World Order" didn't think to mention those pre-Crusades conflict at all. What is novel is you thinking you know more about the subject than he did. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite unusual that you are referring to a source you do not cite in the article. Nevertheless, Riley-Smith neither mentions the Council of Clermont or the Gregorian reform in his chapter. Do you suggest that references to the Council of Clermont or the Gregorian Reform should be deleted from this article? I rather think that he does not refer to the origins of the crusading movement because from the perspective of "War, Peace and World Order in European History" this is irrelevant. No, I am not thinking that I know more about the subject than Riley-Smith does. Above, I quoted a text from his work cited in the article proving that he also emphasises the Turks' invasion of the Byzantine Empire when writing of the beginnings of the crusading movement. Borsoka (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except this is not the case. Riley-Smith emphasises Alexios I Komnenos requests for military support against the Turks, that is not the same. Neither he nor Bull consider the military history of the Levant in the earlier centuries relevant. Whereas the reforms, the reformers and their institutions are mentioned and relevant. It was they who invented the crusading movement, and without them there would have been no movement. Simply put this is covered in sufficient detail. Unless there is something specific that you can identify as missing, but unless I have missed something that is not the case. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read more carefully the quote from Riley-Smith's work, it refers also to the decades before the crusades. I have never suggested that you should present the military history of the Levant in this article. However, our readers need a complex background to understand the beginnings of the crusading movement. For instance, Thomas F. Madden, Professor of History and Director of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Saint Louis University, goes as far as stating that the Reconquista—the "reconquest" of Iberia from the Muslims—"was the training ground for the theological and moral justification of the crusading movement". (Madden, Thomas F. (2013). The Concise History of the Crusades. Critical Issues in World and International History (Third ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-4422-1575-7.)
As you point out Madden makes a good point. I would add this to the Christianity & War section, but I am using the First Edition and it doesn't seem to be there (or a page 4 for that matter). Does he make the smae point anywhere else? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote is from one of the last paragraphs of section "Holy War". I think Madden's PoV nicely fits into a Background section. Right now, the article does not distinguishes developments occurring before the beginnings of the movement, and features of the movement itself. Borsoka (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found it, thank you, agree and added. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's structure is diffuse, and seemingly lacks any detectable logic: several elements of the flourishing crusading movement are mentioned in section "Background". (For instance, why are the military orders or the development of the crusading ideology in the 13th century mentioned in this section?)
These are cross topic themes, a narrative structure would mean that detailed commentary would be lost.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not say that we should follow a narrative structure (even if the article, incoherently, follows it in section "Evolution"). I only said that background to the crusading movement should clearly be differentiated from its features, elements and consequences. Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The use of Background seems to cause some confusion, I will amend to Features as you suggest. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, a major restructuring is needed, but without a background one could hardly understand the development of the movement. However, I suggest you should concentrate now on copyright issues. Borsoka (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another nonsensical point. Structure is only a perceived issue to you. Consensus, GAR and ACR indicate that it makes sense to a consensus of editors and reviewers. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the principal problems is that the "article" is actually a poorly edited, extremely abridged version of The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. One can delete subsections from the article without having an effect on any other (sub)section. This is not an encyclopedic article but a collection of individual encyclopedic articles. Borsoka (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is you and only you who is making this point. Almost by definition PoV pushing. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop this approach. It leads nowhere. Borsoka (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Godtres, Hawkeye7, Peacemaker67, and Donner60: as Norfolkbigfish is always referring to your reviews, I would be grateful if you could share your thoughts especially about two issues: 1. I think the article ignores several important aspects of the crusading movement (especially its background, but also important elements of the flourishing crusading movement, such as finances, women, arts, etc.) 2. I think the article is diffuse, its structure reminds me an encyclopedia with subsections as equivalents of encyclopedic articles that follow each other without any connection between most of them. Borsoka (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that at least is progress. What exactly do you think is missing regarding finance, women & the arts? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearing the article from plagiarism would be a progress. All other issues are less relevant for the time being. I think the article should summarise the principal points of the movement as it is presented in its sources. Borsoka (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is wip, thank you for pointing that out. The article pretty much matches Riley-Smith's view of the subject, as his definition of a crusade is now pretty much universally accepted it would be fair to say that the pricipal points are presented. The topic is, as it has always been the crusading movement. Not the crusades, not Muslim/Christian relations in the 7th/8th/9th/10th centuries, not the Orthodox church and not campaigns in the Eastern Mediterrean or anywhere else for that matter. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To which works by Riley-Smith are you referring? Interestingly, in his work cited in the article (What were the Crusades?) he mentions both pre-Crusades conflicts between Muslims and Christians, and the Turks' advance in Anatolia. Borsoka (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am referring to Riley-Smith's essay titled "The Crusading Movement", it is the Further Reading. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read my answer to your similar remark above: [28]. Borsoka (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In most cases, the article does not explain the events, but mentions facts or PoVs without making clear the connection between them, or providing our readers with a coherent (or incoherent) story: "Pope X said this, Pope Y told that, and Pope Z said another thing, etc".
This article is about the ideology and institutions. As such PoVs are key, as are facts. The facts relate to changes to this. The events mentioned here are probably outside the scope of the topic.
  • Yes, but ideologies and institutions rarely develop ex nihilio. Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article contains original research and original synthesis. Several examples can be found in the "Specific remarks" section. Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If so, this is unintentional and can be remediated as part of the review. Nothing here is WP:OR, everything comes from academic writing. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not say you had intentionally filled the article with original research. I only referred to the fact that it (or at least its first major section) is filled with sentences that are not verified by the cited source or cobtradict it. Borsoka (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything in the article has come from WP:RS Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, quite often word by word. However, also quite often the sentences do not reflect the cited source, sometimes because you failed to copy an important word from the cited book or encyclopedic article. Many examples are listed below. Borsoka (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
specific FAC comments

Specific remarks edit

  • The Crusading movement's beginnings were propelled by a significant shift in the western Church during the mid-eleventh century. Reformers, supported initially by Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor and later opposing his son Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor, assumed power over the papacy around 1040. They astutely perceived the papacy as the optimal vehicle for their mission to eliminate corruption in the Church and strategically took control of it. 1. The cited source does not verify the two sentences. 2. The texts in italics repeat the same information. 3. The date is not around 1040 but in the late 1040s [Barber (2012), p. 84] 4. Link to Western Church? 5. Consequency: "mid-eleventh century" vs. "mid-19th century". 6. The "reformers" were specifically reformist clerics. 7. Why did they perceive the papacy as the optimal vehicle?
—  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Crusading movements origins can be found in the significant changes within the Latin church during the mid-eleventh century. In the 1040s church reformers gained control of the papacy. This was with the initial support Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor, but later in conflict with his son Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor. The reformers viewed this as the most effective method to eliminate what they saw as corruption in the church. 1. The cited source does not verify the three sentences. (Bull writes of debates about the concept of mutation féodale, and the use of the term miles.) 2. Link to church reformers? 3. What did the reformers view as the most effective method? The conflict with Henry IV?
  Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partially done. Bull does not verify the statements, and we still do not know why reformers regarded the papacy so important. The article makes no reference to the preeminent position of the papacy within Catholic church hierarchy, although billions of our non-Catholic and non-Christian readers should not be expected to know it by heart.
  Done—cited to Barber. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They believed in Papal primacy. That the Pope, as heir of St Peter, was the hierachical leader of all Christendom, including Byzantium. Secular rulers were only appointees who could be removed. 1. The text in bold is not explicitly verified by the cited source which refers to the Byzantine Church in this context. 2. There have always been many secular rulers who are only appointees. What is the novelty?
  • Who is Augustin Fliche?
—  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain "simony" with two or three words.
—  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eventually, the reformist faction within the Roman Church took the lead... This fact is mentioned twice in the section's second and third sentences.
—  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite this, this faction created an ideological framework and a cohort within the clergy who viewed themselves as God's agents for the moral and spiritual renewal of Christendom. The cited source (Latham) does not verify the sentence. (Latham writes of the Cluny Reform, not about the Gregorian Reforms.)
  • Is Latham's PoV about the preconditions for the crusading movement widely accepted by medievalists who have published general works on the crusading movement or monographies about its origins?
—  Not done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was the reference to Latham deleted if his PoV is described? Even if he is not mentioned, the relevance of his thoughts should be verified as per WP:DUE.
—  Not done This and the above. Latham is WP:RS, the view is uncontentious and one of several touched on,Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure that Latham's PoV is widely accepted by historians who write of the crusades. Nikolas Jaspert, a German historian lists more than three preconditions for the crusades (Jaspert, Nikolas (2006) [2003]. The Crusades. Routledge. p. 32-33. ISBN 978-0-4153-5968-9.). Jaspert "widely published on the crusades", according to the back cover of his books. Latham often refers to the "feudal revolution", a concept no more universally accepted by historians (comp. Bull p. 22).
Yes, Jaspert is interesting on this. He doesn't contradict Latham who is applying International Relations Theory to the same facts, and as a specialist is WP:RS in this. Jaspert's 8 elements, all of which are touched on in the Major Features section are describing features that supported the enthusiasm for the first crusade, not the development of the movement itself. Even so he supports Latham's first two points in that all his factors are either related to reform of the church or the creation of crusading as a social institution. He does not touch on the third point about the creation of war making capability, but this is because he is not talking about the creation of a movement. Only the enthusiasm. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Actually, Jaspert does write of the making of the war making capability in his last point: "the view that it was possible to find forgiveness for these sins through a special act of penance before God, and even to win remission of all temporal penalties for sin by taking part in a sanctified military expedition." Jaspert and Latham are discussing the same issue (why did the crusading movement begin), but they did not come to the same conclusion. 3. Is Latham's PoV widely cited by historians who study the crusades? I think the article's over reliance on Latham's PoV is not fully in line with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE.
  • Three initiatives were necessary before this could be but into action. Firstly, this reform of the Latin Church into an independent force that was motivated by the belief it had divine authority for religious renewal. This belief would lead to conflicts with the Holy Roman Empire, Muslim states, other Christian groups, and pagans. Secondly, the creation of crusading as a social institution through which the church could act militarily supported by armed nobility considered Knights of Christ. Could you quote the text from Morris' cited work verifying the statements? Morris writes of chivalry, not about the crusades/crusading movement on the cited page.
Morris is literally describing the enlistment of knights for the crusades, the point in question and throws in a description of the meaning of milites Christi. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • So Morris does not verify the whole quote; consequently the quote still represents Latham's PoV without a reference to this fact.
  • Reform of the Latin Church identity:... Does "Latin Church" differ from "western Church" mentioned in the section's previous paragraph?
—  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Latin Church underwent a significant transformation, becoming an independent force motivated by divine authority for religious revitalisation. Was the Latin Church indeed motivated by divine authority?
—  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This new identity led to conflicts with various entities, including the Holy Roman Empire, Muslim states, other Christian sects, and pagans Who and why was brought into conflict with these groups? Does the article suggest that relationship between the Christian communities/polities/leaders and Muslim polities, heretics "sects" and pagans had been peaceful before the Gregorian Reforms? Can the Eastern Orthodox Church be described as a sect?
—  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This belief would lead to conflicts with the Holy Roman Empire, Muslim states, other Christian groups, and pagans. What about the previous conflicts between the papacy and the Holy Roman Emperors, Muslim states, Byzantines, and pagan Magyars?
  • ...milites Christi or knights of Christ... The cited author (Morris) does not verify the translation. He describes "milites Christi" as an "expression which until then had been the monopoly of monks had been extended to knights".
—  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section "Background" implies that solely the Gregorian Reform (or Cluniac Reform?) was responsible for the Crusades. I think this approach is quite unusual. Borsoka (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
—  Not done Not the crusades, the crusading movement Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section "Christianity and war" is quite confusing from chronological and logical perspective: Augustine is mentioned in at least three separate paragraphs, so the section does not clearly summarise his views. The section obviously mixes Augustine's views with his high medieval interpretators' thoughts (I will add at least one example below). As the section does not point at the differences between the classical just war theory and Augustine's views, and between Augustine's views and the high medieval theology of Christian holy war, the development of this important aspect of crusading ideology remains unclear.
—  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section is a little bit clearer, but it is still unclear who came to what conclusion and when. (For instance, you write of bellum sacrum and religious war in two sentences without clarifying the relationship between the two terms.)
  • Erdmann documented in The Origin of the Idea of Crusade the three stages of the development of a Christian institution of crusade:... 1. Erdmann's work published in 1935 should be cited instead of Latham. 2. Is Erdmann's PoV still widely accepted by historians? For instance, Pope Gregory I is not mentioned in connection with the development of just war/holy war theories in other works cited in the article.
1) Erdmann anda Latham are using different techniques and describing different things. Even so they do not contradict each other and both are valid. 2) Tyerman writes that "Erdmann's thesis survives" and quotes H. E. J. Cowdrey, an academic expert on the Gregorian reforms as "all subsequent enquiry has in the last analysis sprung from " Erdmann on page 191 of the 2011 work cited in the article. He also mention Gregory I in God' War, as does Barber, Morris, Madden and Riley-Smith. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Sorry, I do not understand your reference to Latham. I did not mention Latham in this context. 2. Gregory I is not mentioned in connection with the crusades/crusading movement in any of the books you refer to above. 3. Consequently, could you quote text from the cited sources confirming that Erdmann's three stages of the development of the crusades are still widely accepted? Borsoka (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Church defined crusading in legal and theological terms based on the theory of holy war and the concept of Christian pilgrimage. The Church defined crusading in legal and theological terms based on the theory of holy war and the concept of Christian pilgrimage. The theology developed from a merger of two themes. Firstly, the wars fought by the Israelites in the Old Testament. It was believed these were instigated and assisted by God. Secondly, the Christocentric concept of forming an individual relationship with Christ that came from the New Testament. Holy war was based on bellum justum which was the Greco-Roman just war theory. This was Christianised by a 4th-century theologian called Augustine of Hippo, and canon lawyers developed this further in the 11th century into bellum sacrum. This is what became the paradigm of Christian holy war. Maier writes of four principal elements: holy war theology, the model of pilgrimage, Old Testament history, and New Testament theology, thus this and the subsequent sentences do not reflect Maier's thoughts.
—  Not done all are covered Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. However, their presentation in the article differs from Maier's approach. 2. Tyerman's cited work does not verify the sentence in context, because Tyerman writes of the development of Christian just war theory centuries before the crusades.
  • Theology merged Old Testament Israelite wars that were instigated and assisted by God with New Testament Christocentric views on forming individual relationships with Christ. What does this mean? I doubt that Israelite wars were any time merged with Christocentric views, first of all because of chronological reasons.
—  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Israelite wars that were instigated and assisted by God... Were these wars indeed instigated and assisted by God?
—  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...canon lawyers developed it from the 11th century into bellum sacrum, the paradigm of Christian holy war. Maier mentions theologians as well. Could you name some of the theologians and canon lawyers?
—  Not done too detailed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the text in the article does not reflect the cited work. Perhaps, you could clarify that Anselm of Lucca is one of the canon lawyers, to introduce him.
  • ...his supporter Anselm of Lucca consolidated the just war theories. Whose just war theories? What is the outcome of this consolidation?
—  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the new text (Later, Anselm of Lucca consolidated the writing on just war theories into Collectio Canonum or Collection of Canon Law.) is still unclear.
  • In the 11th century, the Church sponsored conflict with Muslims on the southern peripheries of Christendom, including the siege of Barbastro and the Norman conquest of the Sicily. Absolutely out of context statement.
—  Not done Yes it is in context, that of a church reformed involving itself in warfare. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it relevant for the crusading movement? Above you argued that pre-Crusades conflicts are not relevant. Without a proper Background section the article is bombing our readers with fragmentary pieces of information without context.
  • Augustine's principles formed the basis of a doctrine of religious war that was later developed in the 13th century by Thomas Aquinas, canon lawyers, and theologians. In the 13th century these principles formed the foundation of a doctrine of religious war developed by Thomas Aquinas and others. Redundant with the exemption of its reference to Thomas Aquinas. Tyerman writes that Aquinas is responsible for "producing a codified theory of Christian just war".
—  Not done he was not alone Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Perhaps, but the statement does not reflect the cited source. 2. What is the difference between bellum sacrum mentioned in a previous sentence, and religious wars?
  • This movement's influence is apparent in Pope Urban II's speeches... Why are Urban II's speeches relevant?
—  Not done it is the foundation of the movement Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the connection between Latham's three pre-conditions for crusading (mentioned in section "Background") and Erdmann's three stages (listed in section "Christianity and holy war"). Why is Latham cited instead of Erdmann? Is Erdmann's PoV is widely accepted by medievalists who published general works on the crusading movement or its origin? I think the three bullet points could be distributed in the text in chronological order to better understand how the Christian ideology of Holy War developed.
—  Not done Similar related but alternayive view. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Church viewed Rome as the Patrimony of Saint Peter. This enabled the application of canon law to justify various Italian wars waged by the church as purely defensive crusades to protect theoretical Christian territory. Absolutely out of context. Borsoka (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
—  Not done absolutely in context, Political crusades Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put yourself in our readers' shoes. They will not understand the statement, for them it is absolutely out of context.
  • By the 11th century, the Latin Church developed a system that provided for the remission and absolution of sin in return for contrition, confession, and penitential acts. The Latin Church had formulated a system enabling forgiveness and pardon for sins in exchange for genuine remorse, admission of wrongdoing, and acts of penance. 1. Why? 2. Perhaps "contrition, confession, and penitential acts" could be rephrased to avoid close paraphrasing. 3. The term "confession" could be linked to the more specific "sacrament of penance".
—  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Done— rephrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Done— rephrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...in support of his causes, if selflessly given. Gregory VII resolved this with the offer of forgiveness for sin resulting from supporting him in Church-sanctioned violence as long as service was altruistically given. Could you quote the text verifying the words in bold?
—  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gregory VII offered all who fought for his cause, in whatever fashion, absolution of their sins and the prospect of eternal salvation. Provided their motivation was grounded on selflessness and faith not gain, such soldiers could combine penance and violence.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this from one of the cited works? Borsoka (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
—  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Latham does not verify the statement in the cited work, and Tyerman's cited work (according to its preview) does not contain similar statement in the cited pages.
  • Is reference 11 necessary? (Furthermore, Tyerman explains Erdman's PoV in the cited page.)
—  Not done no longer ref 11?? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Done::— rephrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was developed by subsequent Popes into the granting of plenary indulgence that reduced all God-imposed temporal penalties. In time subsequent Popes developed this into the granting of plenary indulgence that reduced all temporal penalties that were considered God-imposed. Could you quote the text verifying the statement, or fix the page in the citation? Did indeed God impose temporal or any other kind of panalties?
  • At the Council of Clermont in November 1095, Urban II effectively founded the crusading movement with two directives: the exemption from atonement for those who journeyed to Jerusalem to free the Church; and that while doing so all goods and property were protected. Why is this in the "Background" section? Why is the protection of property mentioned in section "Penance and indulgence"?
  • The weakness of conventional theologies in the face of crusading euphoria is shown in a letter critical of Pope Paschal II from the writer Sigebert of Gembloux to the crusader Robert II, Count of Flanders. Sigebert referred to Robert's safe return from Jerusalem but completely avoided mentioning the crusade. The weakness of conventional theology when confronted by crusading excitement was evident in a letter critical of Pope Paschal II from the writer Sigebert of Gembloux to the crusader Robert II, Count of Flanders. Sigebert referred to Robert's safe return from Jerusalem, but completely avoided any mention of the crusade. The text in bold represent copyvio; the remaining text is not verified by the cited source (it does not mention to whom Sigebert addressed the letter); The two sentences make no sense, because they ignore the cited source's main message: "Sigebert attacked the idea of penitential war". Furthermore, why is something happening years after the First Crusade mentioned in section "Background"?
  • It was Calixtus II who first promised the same privileges and protections of property to the families of crusaders. Later, Calixtus II promised identical privileges and protections of property to the families of crusaders. 1. Reference 22 Riley-Smith does not verify the statement. 2. The text in bold is not verified by any of the two sources. 3. Why is something happening decades after the First Crusade mentioned in section "Background"? 2. Not the pope, but the council promised privileges and protection for the crusaders' families. 2. Why is the protection of property is mentioned in section "Penance and indulgence"?
  • Under the influence of Bernard of Clairvaux, Eugenius III revised Urban's ambiguous position with the view that the crusading indulgence was remission from God's punishment for sin, as opposed to only remitting ecclesiastical confessional discipline. Eugenius III revised Urban's more ambiguous position by viewing the crusading indulgence as remission from God's punishment for sin, not only remission of ecclesiastical confessional punishment. 1. The text in bold is not verified. 2. Urban's ambifious position is not previously mentioned. 3. What is Eugenius's conclusion. 4. Why is something happening nearly a half century after the First Crusade mentioned in section "Background"?
  • Innocent III emphasised crusader oaths and clarified that the absolution of sins was a gift from God, rather than a reward for the crusaders' suffering. 1. Reference 25 Tyerman does not verify the text. 2. Why is something happening more than a century after the First Crusade mentioned in section "Background"?
  • With his 1213 bull Quia maior, he appealed to all Christians, not just the nobility, offering the possibility of vow redemption without crusading. In the 1213 bull, Quia maior, he appealed to not just the nobility but to all with the offer of vow redemption without crusading. In this a precedent was set for the trade in spiritual rewards which became a practice that scandalised devout Christians. 1. Could you quote the text verifying that indeed the bull Quia maior offered the possibility... 2. Did he appeal to the Orthodox, Nestorians, Copts also? 3. Which vow? The crusading vow is not previously mentioned in the article. 4. Why did he do this? 5. Are we sure that the payment did not constitute as an act of crusading? 5. Why is something happening nearly a half century after the First Crusade mentioned in section "Background"?
  • This set a precedent for trading in spiritual rewards... No spiritual rewards are mentioned in the previous sentence.
  • ...a practice that scandalised devout Christians and became a contributing cause of the 16th century Protestant Reformation. Could you quote the text verifying the statement?
  • As late as the 16th century, writers sought redemptive solutions in the traditionalist wars of the cross, while others – such as English martyrologist John Foxe – saw these as examples of papist superstition, corruption of religion, idolatry, and profanation. 1. The text in bold is not verified, the text in italic is closely paraphrased. Texts in red represent copyvio or are closely paraphrased. 2. Why is Tyerman's encyclopedic article about "Historiography, Modern" (one of the cited sources) revelant in connection with "Penance and indulgence"? 3. What is the relevance of Foxe's PoV in connection with "Penance and indulgence"? 4. Why is something from the 16th century mentioned in section "Background"? Borsoka (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critics blamed the Roman Church for the failure of the crusades. War against the infidel was laudable, but not crusading based on doctrines of papal power, indulgences, and against Christian religious dissidents such as the Albigensian and Waldensians. Justifying war on juristic ideas of just war to which Lutherans, Calvinists, and Roman Catholics could all subscribe, and the role of indulgences, diminished in Roman Catholics tracts on the Turkish wars. Alberico Gentili and Hugo Grotius developed international laws of war that discounted religion as a cause, in contrast to popes, who persisted in issuing crusade bulls for generations. 1. Original synthesis? 2. Why are events happening in the 16th and 17th centuries mentioned in section "Background"? Borsoka (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fighting of wars against the infidel was considered laudable. Crusading based on doctrines of papal power, indulgences, and against Christian religious dissidents such as the Albigensian and Waldensians was decried. War could be justified on grounds to which Lutherans, Calvinists, and Roman Catholics could all subscribe, which led to a decline in the role of indulgences in Roman Catholics tracts on the Turkish wars. Alberico Gentili and Hugo Grotius developed international laws of war that discounted religion as a cause, in contrast to popes, who persisted in issuing crusade bulls for generations. 1. Texts in red represent copyvio or are closely paraphrased. 2. Whose PoV is mentioned in the first sentence? 3. What are the Turkish wars? 3. Who are Gentili and Grotius?
  Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If chivalry was in its infancy at the beginning of the crusading movement (as the article states), why is "Knights and chivalry" mentioned in the "Background" section?
  Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the beginning of the crusading movement, chivalry was in its infancy; but it went on to define the ideas and values of knights, and was central to the crusading movement.}} The reference to Flori's article should be fixed to verify the statement in italics.
  • When crusading began chivalry was in its infancy, but in time it played a central role in the crusading ethos, by shaping the ideals and principles of knights. Texts in red represent copyvio or are closely paraphrased.
  • Texts from the 11th and 12th centuries portray a class of knights who were comparatively closer in status to peasants within the preceding generations. 1. The text is still unclear: were their fathers peasants or only close to peasants. 2. The texts in italics is not verified. (I think the cited encyclopedic article simply says that there were knights of peasant/humble origin.)Borsoka (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 13th century knighthood became equated with nobility, as a social class with legal status, closed to non-nobles. The texts in italics contradict the cited source (Flori).
  • It was only by the 13th century that knighthood became equated with nobility and was a social class with legal status, no longer open to non-nobles. The text in bold contradicts the cited source (Flori).
  • Chivalric development grew from a society dominated by the possession of castles. The sentence makes no sense and is not verified by the cited source (Flori): development cannot grow from a society, and possession of castles cannot dominate a society.
  • Those who defended these became knights. Copyvio. Some explanation?
  • Society was dominated by the possession of castles and those who defended these became knights. Texts in red represent copyvio or are closely paraphrased.
  Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...coupled with the growing naval capability of Italy's maritime republics,... Could you quote the text from the cited sources verifying that there is any connection between the naval capability of the maritime republics and knighthood?
  • Contrary to the representation in the romances... Which romances?
  • Instead, raids and sieges predominated, for which there was only a minimal role for knights. A previous sentence claims that those who defended the castles became knights.
  • Knighthood required combat training, which created solidarity and gave rise to combat as a sport. The cited source (Flori) writes of special forms of combat.
  • Crusade preachers used tournaments and other gatherings to obtain vows of support from attending dignitaries, begin persuasive campaigns, and announce a leader's taking of the cross. 1. This happened from the Second Crusade. Why is it mentioned in section "Background"? 2. Close paraphrasing and original synthesis (Lloyd mentions church synods when referring to the "attending dignitaries", and church synods can hardly be associated with "Knights and chivalry".
  • ...medieval institutions were immature in feudal Europe... The statement makes no sense.
  • ...the crusades in the Levant were typically unimpressive. PoV statement by a 19th-century historian. Is his view accepted by modern historians?
  • Developing vernacular literature glorified the idea of adventure and the virtues of valour, largesse, and courtesy. This created an ideal of the perfect knight. Chivalry was a way of life, a social and moral model that evolved into a myth. The texts in bold represent copyvio.
  • The chivalric romantic ideals of excellence, martial glory, and carnal—even adulterous—love conflicted with the spiritual views of the Church. Texts in italics are unverified, in bold represent close paraphrasing/copyvio.
  • These ideals of excellence, martial glory, and romantic love... The adjective contradicts the cited source (Flori).
  • WritersLiterature lauded those who fought for the Church; others were excommunicated. Writers? 1. Literature? 2. The text in italics is not verified by the cited source (Flori).
  • By the 11th century, the Church developed liturgical blessings sanctifying new knights. The Church developed liturgical blessings to sanctify new knights, The text in italics is not verified by the cited source. (Flori's text could be summarised as "By the 11th century, new knights were blessed at their investiture by priests." or something similar.)
  • In 1100, kings depicted themselves as knights to indicate their power. 1. Texts in italics are not verified by the cited source. 2. Where did they depict themselves? 3. I think this sentence contradicts the section's third sentence: "11th and 12th century texts depict a class of knights that were closer in status to peasants...".
  • Reference 43 is obviously wrong. Borsoka (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you list scholarly works verifying tha the the military orders can be mentioned in the background to the crusading movement?
  • The section about the military orders lacks any inner coherence.
  • The crusaders' propensity to follow the customs of their western European homelands meant that there were very few innovations adopted from the culture of the Crusader states. Three notable exceptions to this were the military orders, warfare, and fortifications. Is this a good introduction for the military orders? Why were the military orders established?
  • The Knights Hospitaller were founded in Jerusalem before the First Crusade but added a martial element to their ongoing medical functions to become a much larger military order. The cited source (Asbridge) does not verify the statement.
  • In this way, knighthood entered the previously monastic and ecclesiastical sphere. 1. The texts in bold represent copyvio.  DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 2. Prawer's PoV about the Hospitallers' role as pioneers of the military orders is quite marginal. Other authors cited in the article make it clear that the Knights Templar were the first military order (Asbridge pp. 168-169, Barber p. 135, Tyerman [2019] pp. 151-155). 3. If the Knights Hospitaller were indeed established before the First Crusade, what is the connection between the origin of the military orders and the Crusader states?[reply]
  • Military orders – like the Knights Hospitaller and Knights Templar – provided Latin Christendom's first professional armies, to support the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the other crusader states. The cited author (Asbridge) does not verify the stament.
  • These orders became supranational organizations with papal support, leading to rich donations of land and revenue across Europe. The text in bold represent both close paraphrasing/copyvio and original research. (Asbridge does not associate the development of the military orders into supranational organizations with papal support.)
  Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In time, the orders developed into autonomous powers. 1. When? 2. Asbridge is more specific.
  • After the fall of Acre,... Some explanation?
  • Section "Common people" mainly presents facts from the period when the crusading movement flourished. Why are these facts presented as belonging to the background to the crusading movement?
  • Women also formed part of the armies. Were all women who joined the crusading armies commoners as the section's title suggests?
  • Historians have increasingly researched the motivations of the poor who joined the early crusades in large numbers and engaged in popular unsanctioned events during the 13th and 14th centuries. Text in italics belongs to historiography.
  • ...amongst the poor, Christianity and crusading were aggressive. Texts in bold are not verified.
  • An emphasis on popular preaching, developed in the 12th century, generated a wealth of useful resources. 1. The text in bold represent copyvio/close paraphrasing. 2. Does the statement imply that the Church started to urge commoners to join the crusades? If not, why the commoners were targeted by preachers?
  Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most popular example began in 1268,... The text in bold contradicts the cited source.
  • The popular but short-lived outbreaks of crusading enthusiasm after Acre fell to Egypt were largely driven by eschatological perceptions of crusading amongst the poor rather than the advanced, professionalized plans advocated by theorists. The sentence is not verified.
  • Pilgrimage was not a mass activity. Copyvio and original research. (The cited source specifically writes of pilgrimages to Jerusalem.)
  Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this way, what was known as the remotest place in 1099... The text in bold is not verified.
  • The literate classes were hostile to this particular unauthorized crusade but mytho-historicized it so effectively that it is one of the most evocative verbal artefacts from the Middle Ages that remained in European and American imagination. The texts in italics are not verified. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Humbert of Romans?
  • Chroniclers used the ethno-cultural terms "barbarians" or barbarae nationes, which were inherited from the Greeks of antiquity, for "others" or "aliens", which were thus differentiated from the self-descriptive term "Latins" that the crusaders used for themselves. The texts in italics does not present the views of the cited author, Jubb. 1. Jubb specifically writes of the chronicles of the First Crusade. 2. She specifically writes that the Greeks used the term for 'others' "alien to their urban civilisation". 3. She does not say that "Latins" is a self-descriptive term used by the crusaders for themselves.
  • Jubb's work is not properly listed among the sources: isbn and pages are needed, and the doi points to another study from the same book.
  • Although there are no specific references to crusading in the 11th century chanson de geste Chanson de Roland, the author, for propaganda purposes, represented Muslims as monsters and idolators. The text in italics is not presented as a fact but as a possibility in the cited source.
  • Visual cues were used to represent Muslims as evil, dehumanized, and monstrous aliens with black complexions and diabolical physiognomies. 1. Texts in bold represent copyvio. 2. The sentence does not summarize the main message of the cited author (Jubb). She says that a "black/white dichotomy" was used in medieval literature, especially in popular works, but it symbolised "religious and cultural difference, as much as race". She mentions "diabolical physiognomies" only when writing of the Song of Roland.
—  DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This portrayal remained in western literature long after the territorial conflict of the crusades had faded into history. 1. The sentence is closely paraphrased. 2. The cited author (Jubb) specifically writes of the medieval period following the age of the crusades.
  Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "Saracen" designated a religious community rather than a racial group, while the word "Muslim" is absent from the chronicles. 1. Texts in bold represent copyvio/close paraphrasing. 2. Which religious community?
—  DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The conflict was seen as a Manichean contest between good and evil. 1. The text in italics is not verified by Jubb. 2. Who saw "the conflict" as a Manichean contest?
—  Not done 1) it 2) Christian clergy Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historians have been shocked by the inaccuracy and hostility involved in such representations, which included crude insults to Mohammad, caricatures of Islamic rituals, and the representation of Muslims as libidinous gluttons, blood-thirsty savages, and semi-human. Texts in bold represent copyvio/close paraphrasing.
—  DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historian Jean Flori argues that to self-justify Christianity's move from pacifism to warfare, their enemies needed to be ideologically destroyed. 1. The article does not refer to Christian pacifism in previous sentences. 2. Flori's work should be cited or at least mentioned in a footnote.
—  DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • From where did Christianity move to warfare? Or why did they need to destroy their enemies ideologically for this move?
  • Poets often relied on the patronage of leading crusaders, so they extolled the values of the nobility, the feudal status quo, chivalry, martial prowess, and the idea of the Holy Land being God's territory usurped and despoiled. 1. The text in italics contradicts the cited author (Routledge) who does not make connection between patronage and statements in the second part of the sentence. 2. Text in bold is not verified (actually, Routledge writes of the restoration of status quo ante.)
—  DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reformist Church's identity-interest complex framed Islam as a particular form of heresy. The text in bold represents copyvio.
—  DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muslim rule in formerly Christian territory was an "unjust" confiscation of Christian property, and this persecution of Christians required repayment. 1. The text in italics is closely paraphrased. 2. The text is bold is not verified by the cited author (Latham), since he does not define the persecution of Christians as the unjust confiscation of Christian property.
—  DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Islamic polities' own identity-interest complexes led them to be equally violently opposed to the restoration of Christian rule. Copyvio.
—  DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have to call for a delisting of this article. If the issues were only editorial, I'd be willing to give time for those to be addressed (FARs—as a similar example—go on months!); there's no deadline after all. The issue that demands immediate attention is the copyright/close para issue, one which not only negatively impacts other policies such as WP:N (also itself a pillar), but has legal implications. While G12 may not apply (i.e., when there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety, and maybe revert to an earlier version), #2 of WP:QF is clear that if It contains copyright violations it will be discounted. Multiple editors have established these issues. So: if this was a new nomination, it would literally never get off the starting blocks.
    Revert to last version and let more recent stuff be revdel'd? ——Serial Number 54129 14:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am working through all raised incident at present. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume the older versions contain even more plagiarism. AirshipJungleman29 mentioned at the beginning of the FAC review that "I believe that the last time I looked at this article, I felt that there was substantial close paraphrasing. I do hope that issue has been adequately looked at and resolved—because that of course is a reviewing dealbreaker." ([29]). Norfolkbigfish answered that "I remember, this has been rewritten repeatedly since then so I am expecting/hoping this is no longer an issue." [30]. Borsoka (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Borsoka: I don't care where the bloody thing was put in, only that if there is a relatively clean version—and frankly, since it's from 2003, it's almost impossible that there isn't, even if it's only a stub—going back a few years, the GOCE did a copy edit—then we revert to that and then revdel delete. I mean, there must have been a time when there was minimal plagiarism unless it's been overlooked for 20 years. Or is it being suggested that NBF was responsible for their insertion when he augmented the article? I note, you see, that a previous FAC failed promotion over much the same problems(the source reviewer stated, the article needs a complete source check ... Too many issues I found with things not matching what they were sourced to. Mind ye, that had been resolved to the point of promotion six months later (non obstante, though, that it never got the source-integrity spot-check Ian Rose asked for...) ——Serial Number 54129 15:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think only Norfolkbigfish knows when he began copying texts from the cited sources. I have not monitored the development of this article for years. Norfolkbigfish's remark here suggests that the article was originally a redirect, which was developed into a separate article on or before 4 October 2020. No, I did not see the FAC review of House of Lancaster (sorry, Plantagenet). I referred to this article because I know from one of his remarks (saying that his article is one of the best WP articles about a dynasty, or similar), that he developed it. Based on my experiences, I would not be surprised that it would also contain plagiarism but I would not like to review it. Borsoka (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The earlier comments to which I referred at FAC can be found at this diff, and the links therein, from April 2022, when the close paraphrasing was far more blatant than it is now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am in the process of redrafting again, any remaining close paraphrasing, of which it is only now fragments of sentences, will be excised as part of this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Norfolkbigfish has continually insisted that plagiarism has been resolved, but as demonstrated on the talk page, substantial plagiarism still exists. I am too involved to close this as I normally do for GARs, so I might as well !vote. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist In addition to plagiarism (GA 2d), the article contains unverified claims (GA 2c.), does not address the main aspects of the topic (GA 3a), and the article's reliance on specific scholar's views remained unverified (GA 4). My detailed arguments are listed above. Borsoka (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per Borsoka's forensic analysis. ——Serial Number 54129 09:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • List on the basis that all issues identified have been addressed, Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the time being, let's forget other issues than blatant plagiarism. Do you guarantee that you cleaned the text of plagiarism? Borsoka (talk)
  • I detected new cases of plagiarism in two further short sections of the article. I think the article should as soon as possible be delisted and restored into the redirect page it used to be before Norfolkbigfish filled it with texts copied from copyrighted material. Borsoka (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All now addressed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:GAR coordinators: this is not going anywhere, and I am too involved to close. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not going anywhere because it is a particularly malformed GAR. Nominated, flooded with comment by the nominator who has a history of trying to get the article deleted, and then even closed by that nominator. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What a helpful comment. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Compliance requirements edit

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Consensus to delist. Queen of Hearts (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 addition has 5 citation needed templates. I am also concerned on the broadness of the article; currently it is like a summary of the directives, no history of how it was created or necessary background information, updates to the directives throughout the years, etc. Spinixster (trout me!) 10:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist as overwhelmingly primary sourced. There's maybe three trivial secondary sources used inline currently? SnowFire (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_77&oldid=1223290082"