Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/International Aerial Robotics Competition/1

International Aerial Robotics Competition

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/International_Aerial_Robotics_Competition/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Delisted. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This 2009 listing contains significant uncited material, much of which may be excessive detail; thus, the article does not meet GA criteria 2b) and 3b). &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The International Aerial Robotics Competition (IARC) article has maintained GA status for over 14 years without any challenges to its GA status. Every section contains at least one, and often several citations that are relevant to the material in that section.  The IARC is the world's longest running aerial robotics event, now entering its 10 Mission.  Each mission is described and the results for each mission summarized without excessive detail-- just enough to describe the mission and how it was technically demonstrated by the winning team in accordance with GA criteria 2b) and 3b).  Complete details for each mission are given at the Official IARC Website (which is referenced in the External links section) for those wishing to see full details.       If there are instances where material is thought to be uncited, or detail believed to be excessive, these should be identified so they can be addressed, however the tenor, substance, and validation of statements contained therein, have been consistent for the past decade and a half that the International Aerial Robotics Competition GA status has been in effect.  &#8259;  Fire wall   04:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , please reply without irrelevant information (such as "The International Aerial Robotics Competition (IARC) article has maintained GA status for over 14 years without any challenges to its GA status") which has no relevance to this discussion.
 * So? The point of a citation is not just to "be relevant to" material, but to directly verify it. Take the section headed "Third mission", which cites this source. Only around half a sentence of the section is verified by this source. This is even more true for paragraphs which completely lack citations, such as most of the "Seventh mission" section.
 * . This is categorically untrue. Many of the missions are sourced entirely to primary, non-independent sources, meaning that they fail WP:DUE. Take for example the "Eighth mission" section, which only contains citations by the event's founder, a clearly non-independent source. The same goes for the "Fifth mission" section, which only contains a citation from the event's website.
 * Finally, I must remind you that as the founder of the event, you have a clear conflict of interest. You are expected to disclose it on your userpage and to follow the steps outlined at WP:COIEDIT when editing said articles. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the article does not meet the GA criteria for the lack of VERIFIED citations, and more citations are required. When the article was first elevated to GA status by some admin, I (as the main author) was led to believe that it adequately met GA criteria-- and it has held that status, unchallenged, for 14 years.  In bringing out that point, the longevity of its GA status further (albeit erroneously) confirmed the article's acceptability as a GA to me.  In looking at the article I see that you have added "citation needed" tags, and I appreciate this.  It is helpful.  I suggest that we provide those citations, edit some of the wording where detail is deemed excessive (without losing clarity), and bring the article into GA conformance.  All I can say is that the admin who guided me through the GA process on this article was misleading.  To that point, I would like your help in getting the article to GA status.  Regarding COI, there are other editors who have knowledge of the IARC and could provide the same input that I have, but as the founder of the event and one of the most knowledgeable concerning rules/results/references, I have taken the initiative to do the work on this article.  I don't consider that a "conflict" insomuch as simply being the "point of contact" with the will to edit and the knowledge of where references can be found.  I will do the work to bring this article up to GA standards with your help/review, but that will no doubt be seen as more COI.  &#8259;  Fire wall   05:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , the GA criteria have not remained constant; standards have got tighter over time, and this level of uncited-ness is no longer acceptable for an article marked with the GA icon. If, notwithstanding your COI, you wish to retain the GA status of this article, I would start by compiling a list of sources which meet the criteria of WP:RS, writing neutral, and fully-sourced revised sections, and asking for them to be implemented via edit requests. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have begun to find additional references.  Since the International Aerial Robotics Competition has been operating for 33 years, some of the corroborating written reference material that was never on the internet (and therefore potentially archived by the WaybackMachine) such as magazine articles (especially international publications), TV news reports, and video science series, will be hard to find today.  I'll do my best.  &#8259;  Fire wall   22:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedia users of good standing have access to paywalled resources through the Wikipedia Library; you can also make requests at WP:RX, if you know the name of the source you are looking for. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)