Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Nature/1

Nature

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Nature/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • GAN review not found
 * Result: Delisted. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Several uncited sections, including entire paragraphs. Sources in the "Further reading" section should be explored for their use in the article as inline citations or removed. Z1720 (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Remove the GA status. I went through and counted, finding 23 paragraphs without a single source. That would be an automatic declination of standard GAN.
 * Beyond this I have to question the coherence and relevance of grouping such a vast range of topics into one page. It is almost as if this page covers everything which has nature in the name. For instance I don't see how Microbes, Lakes and Matter and Energy belong together. I noticed that back in 2023 it was marked as a WP:COATRACK but this tagging was removed. I think it should not have been.
 * N.B., as I write this I noticed that some edits are taking place.Ldm1954 (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Remove the GA status: The problem with the article is that instead of systematically analysing the concept of 'Nature', it for the most part (90% of the text) blankly assumes one naive definition (the physical environment, implying what a philosopher might call Naive realism) and then lavishly describes that instead of the article's proper subject, i.e. the article is 85% off-topic, and 50% uncited at that (i.e. I more than agree with User:Ldm1954). The GA status is at the moment wholly unjustifiable. Worse, the article Nature (philosophy) covers the territory of 'Nature', the rest of the text being basically a WP:CFORK of Universe or just rambling any which way, so a merge and redirect should follow this GAR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)