Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Francis Amasa Walker/1

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

Result: Unable to resolve all issues with this GAR. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:43, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

The article has had a "neutrality disputed" orange banner on it since January 2023. A discussion on the talk page indicated that this was because there isn't enough prose on his racial views. There is also uncited text in the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I find the coverage of his views on race and immigration to be sufficiently clear. There is also a picture of his bust having been taken off the pedestal in a MIT museum. The article seems neutral enough to me. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

While the Legacy section now has a paragraph on his racist views, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs section does not appear to have been updated to reflect Hyde's work (the source of the "neutrality disputed" banner, discussed on the article's talk page) on his work in that position. The argument put forward in the discussion on the article's talk page that "The above reference by Hyde is revisionist and inconsistent with Walker's words and actions", leading to the conclusion that there should not be a neutrality tag over failing to include it, relies on WP:OR to justify not including this material. WP:NPOV is clear that "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources", so excluding work on the subject by a notable historian specifically because some editors disagree with it would certainly seem to be a breach of neutrality. Until this is addressed, the article fails WP:GACR6. Robminchin (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I took a brief skim of the article and couldn't find any paragraph that went uncited save for one of the lead paragraphs (although I haven't check if that paragraph's content is confirmed in the body). Given the length of this article, could you mention what text is uncited, or at the very least mark it with {{citation needed}} to be visible on the article itself? Gramix13 (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• @Gramix13: I have added citation needed tags to the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for adding the citation needed tags to the article. I went in and added sourcing to four of them, with the other one (about the location of the subject's grave) being removed as I couldn't find a reliable source for this and I don't consider it to be notable enough for the article. (I did find it listed on Find A Grave, but since that source is generally unreliable as per WP:RSP, I elected to remove the information on the chance that it cannot be verified reliably). Unless there are more uncited texts in the article, I believe that should make the article properly cited, although the neutrality issue remains at large.

  I agree with Robminchin view that Hyde's work should be mentioned in the Commissioner of Indian Affairs section. Would it be appropriate to run an RFC on this issue to resolve the neutrality of the article, or would that be overkill? Maybe such a hypothetical RFC can be posed as Should the book Born of Lakes and Plains: Mixed-Descent Peoples and the Making of the American West by Anne F. Hyde be cited and included in Francis Amasa Walker § Commissioner of Indian Affairs? Open to rewordings/retooling of such an RFC, or other options to resolve this. Gramix13 (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

  I have opened a DRN discussion to find consensus between those who discussed the issue on the talk page, and participants of this GAR. Gramix13 (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

A month has passed with no additional comments here, no input on the article's talk page, and no edits to the substance of the article itself. I gather from this comment that WP:DRN has not been successful in settling the matter and that no further movement in that direction is expected. As such, closing this as "delist" regrettably seems the most reasonable course of action at the moment. Before doing so, I'll give the involved editors a chance to speak up. @Concordhistory, Gramix13, Melchior2006, Robminchin, Sdkb, SecretName101, Smellyshirt5, and Z1720: have you anything to add? TompaDompa (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I think it might be good, given the lack of discussion at the DRN, for someone who has had time to look into this more deeply (Gramix13?) to make a bold edit addressing the neutrality concerns and see if that stimulates anything. If nobody opposes such an edit then the neutrality concerns are addressed, so it's worth giving that a try prior to delisting. Robminchin (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

• @Robminchin: I think it is an improvement to make the changes you think are necessary. Once they are complete editors can take a look and address concerns, and they can always be reverted if necesssay. Z1720 (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as I also explained on the DRN thread, I am ill suited to be making a bold edit due to the fact that I haven't read the source in question to make an informed edit addressing the neutrality. If those edits can come soon for us to review, that would be helpful in progressing the neutrality issue of the article, but otherwise I'm afraid I may have to support delisting the article in light of this issue (or rather the lack of any resolution). Gramix13 (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2025 (UTC)