Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Main

Criteria

Instructions

Nominations

July Backlog Drive

Mentorship

Discussion

Reassessment

Report

Semi-Automated Tools User scripts for GAR: Opening: GAR-helper Closing: GANReviewTool

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

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

Before opening a reassessment

1. Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
2. Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
3. Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
4. If there are many similar articles already nominated at GAR, consider delaying the reassessment request. If an editor notices that many similar GARs are open and requests a hold, such requests should generally be granted.

Opening a reassessment

1. To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
2. The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment).
3. Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.

Reassessment process

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

Closing a reassessment

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

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

Disputing a reassessment

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

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78

Good article reassessment Talk notices given view edit
Treehouse of Horror VI 2024-04-10 Siege of Szigetvár 2024-05-05 Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow 2024-05-07
Find more: 2023 GA Sweeps Project

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

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

• 01:11:44, 18/07/2024: Stonyhurst College
  
• 15:12:31, 30/07/2024: Current date for reference

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

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

Result pending

This article has lots of uncited sentences, a "Further reading" section that should be examined for sources that can be used as inline citations, and a lead that should be reformatted. Z1720 (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

The lede is too short to summerise the contents of the article. There is a lot of uncited information, particularily towards the end of her career. Z1720 (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

There is uncited text throughout the article, some of which have been labelled with "citation needed" since 2020. There is also an extensive "Further reading" section that should be examined for inclusion as inline citations or removed from the list. Z1720 (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

There are lots of uncited statements throughout the article, and there's a yellow banner asking that information be displayed in a table, which should be resolved or removed. Z1720 (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

The article has not been updated much since its 2009 promotions, particularly notable in the "Economy" and "Government" sections. There are also uncited statements (particularly in the "Notable people" section) and one-sentence paragraphs that can be expanded or merged. Z1720 (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Many uncited statements, including almost the entire "Geographic distribution" section, many sources used in the bibloography are not used as inline citations, and there are many one or two sentence paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried going back to the originally reviewed version? Or removing the uncited sources? Or citing them? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maunus: The promoted version from 2009 also has uncited sections, since GA standards were lower back then. I do not have enough knowledge of the subject to evaluate what should be cited and what should be removed: if undertook a search for sources, it would take me hours (or even long) for me to properly evaluate, cite, and rewrite the information when necessary. This would take me away from other projects that I would like to work on. If another editor would like to improve this article, I am happy to re-review. Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

This 2006 promotion has MOS:LABEL issues, 2 citation needed templates, and also might have some tone/essay-like issues. Additionally, some of the information may be redundant or unrelated (e.g. why do we need to know the other books about 9/11 that were published during that time?) Spinixster (trout me!) 13:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

This article has many uncited paragraphs (and while some are potentially covered under MOS:PLOT, some information definately needs to be cited), the article, at 9,800 words, is longer than what is recommended at WP:LENGTH and the lede, at five paragraphs, is longer than what is recommended at WP:LEADLENGTH. Z1720 (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

There is uncited prose, including entire paragraphs, and the lede is too short. Z1720 (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

There are many uncited statements, and an orange banner indicating that the lede is too short, which I agree with. Z1720 (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just fix it instead? Johnjbarton (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the intro and added refs for each citation needed. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Johnjbarton: I do not have the expertise, nor the desire, to find sources, evaluate their usefulness, add prose, and ensure that the article has returned to fulfilling the GA criteria. If others are interested, they are welcome to improve the article and ping me when it is ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Z1720 Thanks for the reply, but I'm puzzled. On the one hand you're uninterested and lack expertise, but on the other you are evaluating and judging. Seems like an odd combination. Are you on some kind of assignment?

  In any case I'll try to fix citations needed if they arise in the future. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Johnjbarton: An editor does not need to be an expert on the topic to review articles, nor to bring up concerns about uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Z1720 Oh I agree completely. But still I'm puzzled. You are making a lot of work for other people. Is that work justified? If you came along and said "I'm curious about Zirconium, but the article has these issues:..." or "I read that Zirconium has 8 oxidation states but the claim is uncited and I don't understand it", then I would be motivated to improve the article. But "I'm uninterested" makes me think I should just ignore this altogether.

  And sorry, I'm not trying to pick on you. I just see these Good article things once in while and I'm curious about the process. If I announced a particular article has issues I am pretty sure the response from other editors would be "Well, fix it". Johnjbarton (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjbarton: An article does not have to have GA status. I do not care if this particular article has that status, but I care about maintaining the GA standards. When editors are improving articles, some will look at GAs to use as examples on what to do. If an editor looks an article which has fallen before the standards, they might incorporate bad habits into their article which would take reviewers longer to fix.

When an editor says "Just fix it" they are stating to the reviewer "Go dedicate hours of your time, away from articles that you want to work on to fix up this article that the original GA nominator did not want to fix up themselves." This is why I get defensive when I read this comment. If someone wants to fix up the article, that's great! I'm happy to conduct a re-review once the article meets the criteria again. But I will not be the one who devotes hours of work to improve this article because I have other articles I want to work on instead. Z1720 (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Ok thank you for this information. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also trying to correct unreferenced statements. There are still some in Applications, Compounds and Production... working on it. Reconrabbit 17:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

This article has uncited prose, and sections that are undeveloped, leading me to think that this article is not complete. Upon posting concerns on the talk page, an editor addressed why there might be a short amount of prose, but also raised some potential MEDRS issues. Other editors agreed that GAR was necessary, so here we are. I look forward to additional commentary. Z1720 (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the gallery, redundant with main-linked List of apple cultivars, as plainly WP:UNDUE. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some checking of information and figured out where the information in at least one of the many uncited sentences came from. I was thinking of making a collapsed full table of synonyms like I did for Tetraneuris acaulis, but wanted to run that by other editors since this is a good article. Would it add or detract in this case? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The full table is probably out of the GAR's scope, so it must be a low priority item at the moment, though a brief subsection on taxonomic history, giving as the GA criteria state "the main points" would go well in the Taxonomy section, if that is one of those thought to be "undeveloped". Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Unreferenced sections, orange "updated needed" banners, sections that need updating of recent elections and events, and at over 9000 words it is recommended that the article be split off and information be summarised. Z1720 (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

This article contains a 5-paragraph bloated lede, numerous uncited sentences and paragraphs, and short, one sentence paragraphs in a very long "Legacy and honours" section. Z1720 (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article has lots of deficiencies. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has seen a flurry of activity since this GAR was opened. Could you provide additional feedback following recent edits? Zsinj^Talk 11:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

---

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

Result pending

several unresolved cn tags. ltbdl (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think I could get this done. What is your expected timeline? Matarisvan (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@matarisvan: don't have one. maybe 3 months. ltbdl (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that the Ludlum and Gibson quotations in the "Literature" section, as non-free content, probably do not meet the standards in MOS:QUOTE and WP:NFCCEG. I would recommend removing these. The Leung Ping-kwan quotation definately does not meet these standards and I will remove that myself. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure I can help with the cn tags, but I do own a copy of Girard's City of Darkness (2011 printing of the 1993 edition) and can look through that if needed. —Kusma (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  

---

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

Result pending

Numerous uncited passages (including a section with an orange "citations needed" banner since 2019) and a lede that is too short to summarise all important aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this. Hog Farm _Talk 19:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "Benedit Buckeye" section as unsourced and undue detail. If I can get ahold of "The Gettysburg Cyclorama: The Turning Point of the Civil War on Canvas." the rest of this should be doable (it definitely needs further work), if I can't, I'll probably need to let this one go. Hog Farm _Talk 01:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think I could get this back to GA level. What is your expected timeline? I've done some preliminary work on the 10th CAB article, but currently am on a work trip so can't do anything more on both articles till the 23rd. Is that alright? Matarisvan (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: - I'm in process of this (I should be able to access the necessary book now). Do you have any objections if I try to take care of this myself, since I was involved at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Battle of Gettysburg/1 as well? Hog Farm _Talk 23:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any objections. Looking forward to your rewrite of this article. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result pending

Information about later life (everything post-2010) uncited. Z1720 (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I believe I could get this done. What is your expected timeline for this? Matarisvan (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matarisvan do you still intend to work on this? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Z1720 and @AirshipJungleman29, I believe this article is back at GA level. Wdyt, any comments you would like to add? Matarisvan (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: Thoughts below after a quick scan:

• Any images of Rice? If he was an elected official, there should be a portrait somewhere that can be added.
• Any additional information post-2010 about his life? Has he been involved with anything?
• There is an uncited statement at the end of a paragraph.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Z1720, I'm out of town for a week and don't have access to my computer. Is it ok if we wrap this up after I return, let's say on the 22nd or 23rd? Matarisvan (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm fine with that. I might add a more thorough review below so that it can be declared "Keep" sooner. Z1720 (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Z1720, my responses:

• There are images from the Colorado Business Roundtable and the MSU Denver. However, both websites don't have any mention of copyright status. I think I'll have to upload either picture as non-free fair use.
• Rice's post-2010 life seems to be private. His position at Lockheed Martin Space has been listed here. Other than that, there is nothing notable enough for WP.
• I will try and get that uncited statement fixed.

Matarisvan (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a quick look, I see Rice and Sonnenberg ultimately combined their efforts and integrated the two bills, both of which became law is uncited, but perhaps that's the same issue Z1720 noted? RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feh, fixed ping. RoySmith (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RoySmith, I'll try to fix the issues you have listed below, perhaps in 2-3 days, if that is ok? Matarisvan (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I (strongly) encourage you to take these as examples of problems and examine the every citation in the article to verify they don't have similar problems. Based on the extent of the issues I found, I am dubious that 2-3 days is all it will take to fix it. RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the sourcing seems to be the major issue here, I'll do a random spot-check:

• Rice and his wife, Dr. Kendall Kershner-Rice, were married in 1990, and have three children — twins born in 2000, and a younger son born in 2005. [7] [8]
  • Partially verified. Neither source says "Kershner-Rice". Neither source says 1990; you can get that from WP:CALC, but only to about +/- 1 year. Neither source says the third child is a son. Also, both sources are 18 years old, so I'd either find something newer to verify they didn't have any more children, or at least throw an {{asof}} in there.
• and received the John V. Christensen Award from the Denver Regional Council of Governments in 2004. In 2003, Rice resigned from his post as mayor during the last year of his second term after being called up to active military duty in Iraq . [23]
  • Unable to verify due to technical reasons. The original site no longer up and the archive.org copies look corrupted (or, more likely, just grabbed after the original was gone). I'd be wary of citing campaign material for stuff like this, so I'd reccommend finding a better source.
• and is a member of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council . [28] [29]
  • Partially verified. 28 says he's a member of the Democratic Leadership Council, but neither source characterizes that group as "centrist". It's also not entirely clear who wrote 28, but based on wording like "Our framework", I'm assuming it was campaign literature, so not the best source. Also, given the age of these sources, a statement like "is a member of" is likely to be outdated, so needs a newer source or at least {{asof}}.
• and by both union groups (including the local chapter of the teachers' union Colorado Education Association , and the Colorado Association of Public Employees, a branch of the Service Employees International Union ) and business interests (including the Colorado Subcontractors Association and the state Chamber of Commerce , the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry). He was also endorsed by Colorado Conservation Voters and the Colorado Medical Society . [31]
  • Partially verified. As above, this is from his campaign site which no longer exists and the Internet Archive copies are a mess. I found an older archive which verifies most of these endorsements, but not all. I'm a little concerned about how much of this article is cited to campaign material.
• During the 2007 legislative session, Rice sponsored 16 pieces of legislation, including 11 as the primary sponsor in the House of Representatives. Among the most prominent of his bills was a measure to set up a cold case unit within the Colorado Bureau of Investigation [34]
  • Does not verify. The source mentions on bill he sponsored, but the rest isn't there.
• to investigate Colorado's 1200 unsolved homicides. [35]
  • Verified.
• and plans on introducing legislation to make aggravated rape of a child under 12 a capital crime, eligible for the death penalty . [58]
  • Verified.
• Besides chairing the House Business Affairs Committee during the regular legislative session, [69]
  • Verified.
• OK, I've done my part, I'll let Z1720 take it from here. My general impression however is that the sourcing isn't up to WP:GACR standards. A few minor details here or there would be fine, but this is more than that. More fundamentally, I have deep concerns about how much of this is sourced to campaign publicity material. Some of that will be inevitable in an article about a contemporary politician, but this seems like too much. The general tone of the article does not comply with WP:NPOV, extolling minor acomplishments and trivial honors like "his seat was decorated with yellow ribbons, and his children were invited to lead the Pledge of Allegiance".
  

---

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

Result pending

Numerous uncited passages, bloated lede, reliance on block quotes, and unused sources in the "Further reading" section. Z1720 (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is to trim the lede by at least one paragraph and reincorporate into another section, cut down some of the block quotes and change them into regular prose, and look into some of the works found in the Further Reading section to determine if any of the unsourced claims can be found there. I was able to find a Los Angeles Times reference for one of the unsourced claims and I might be able to assist further with the article. Are you available or willing to clean up the article? If so, can you provide a timeframe? Dobbyelf62 (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dobbyelf62: I am happy to provide a review after the article is fixed up, but I am not willing to clean up the article myself. Z1720 (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: That's fine. While I might not be able to heavily overhaul the article, I am willing to make various improvements. I have made a couple of changes in the interim, including the addition of references and the elimination of a few block quotes in favor of prose, but I'm hoping that I did not remove any necessary context in doing so.

Could you provide more specific examples on some of your grievances with the article? You mentioned that the lede is too lengthy, but are there any particular paragraphs that are worth trimming or removing? Which ones are absolutely necessary for the article and should be retained? I can address some of these requests once I have additional context, but I will also exercise some discretion when making these changes. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dobbyelf62: According to WP:LEADLENGTH, it is suggested that an article of this length should be two to three paragraphs. Typically, the lede is a summary of the most important aspects of the article. I don't have enough knowledge of the prose to know what should be cut from the lede, and I don't have the time or desire to obtain that knowledge. Z1720 (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

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