Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Islands of the Clyde/1

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

Result: Issues appear to have been resolved. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

It turns out that I did the last GAR review, back in January 2011. I read the statement - above - "Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs."; and, sorry to say, my first response is 'So What', that is not a reason for delisting. I don't see any Citation needed flags, if there were some that would be provide a valid reason for an immediate fail. The article should have been reviewed at GAN against Wikipedia:Good article criteria, and that is also applicable at GAR. I would politly request that you list the statements that you consider are both unreferenced and non-compliance with in this case - I would suggest - the Good Article Criteria 2(b) and then we can go throught them one-by-one and see if the information could be reasonably challenged (that is the criteria for delisting). I would also refer to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, particularly this one: 2. "The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible".

Having skim-read throught the article, there is some think that I would tend to challenge, on missing information, not absence of citations. I'm not reviewing the article at GAR, you are doing that and it not in this GAR.Pyrotec (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Pyrotec: Statements do not need citation needed tags to be uncited. I am always willing to add citation needed templates if it helps editors make improvements, and I use this script to help find those statements. However, most statements in a good article (and a regular Wikipedia article) do need a citation.
• GARs are a little different from GANs because they do not compare articles against every aspect of the GA criteria. An article is assumed to meet the criteria unless concerns are brought forward.
• GAs don't need to be complete (that's closer to an FA requirement) but should include all major aspects of a topic. If there's a major aspect missing, feel free to list it below. Z1720 (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

OK, so we appear to be in agreement, so far, but having looked at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Monifieth/1 which you opened and another editor closed and delisted. I'm would be very tempted to restore GAN to that article and open a new GAR, but that is not something that I should be doing. Ideally, that GAR should have been challenged back in January.Pyrotec (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Pyrotec: If there was a problem with an article's delisting, I suggest posting to WT:GA first to get consensus on restoring the article's GA status. Z1720 (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Having, skim-assesed the article. I have problems with the following paragraph.

• Politically, from 1890 to 1975, most of the islands comprised the traditional County of Bute, and its inhabitants were represented by the county council. Since the 1975 reorganization, however, the islands have been split more or less equally between two modern council authorities: Argyll and Bute, and North Ayrshire. Only Ailsa Craig and Lady Isle in South Ayrshire are not part of either of these two council areas.

I will fix that as soon as I can. I can't give any time frame for fixing them, I will attempt to fix them within four weeks of the start of this review. Pyrotec (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• I've made a start, I need to check a book-reference that comes from another GA-article in this group of Scottish Islands GAs. Should that access to that in a week or so.

  I would note that the WP:Lead is only partially referenced, but the un-referenced paragraphs in the Lead are sommaries of material that appears later in the body of the article and most of that is referenced.Pyrotec (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Pyrotec: Per WP:LEADCITE, the lead normally does not need citations as that information should also be in the article body and cited in the article body. Please let me know if you would like me to add citation needed templates to the article, or if this article is ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

If the criteria is still paragraphs partial or uncited then: the end of Early Scots rule probably needs one and I think I can get that from Hunter's book - which I should have access to next week; the first paragraph of Modern Scotland is uncited, but its basically a summary of the paragraph immediately above it; the second paragraph invites the question "what Parish / Bishopric / Diocese are the inhabited isles in" and I can't answer that yet; the final paragraph is uncited (but its a 'do I need a cite for is the sun in the sky' type question); and finally Outlying islands still has two uncited paragraphs.So, another week or two might clear those to my satisfaction. Pyrotec (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I struck through my comment about Parish / Bishopric /etc with a Note (Note 2), its not a citation, but I hope it clarifies the 'unasked question' I raised about this paragraph.Pyrotec (talk) 10:02, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Z1720:, I have now addresed all the points I am able to do so. That final paragraph in Early Scots rule is written in the form of speculation, but I've not tracked down a citation for it. If you think that I have missed anthing, I'm happy to have a go at rectifying it. Pyrotec (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Pyrotec: I added some citation needed tags to the article. I will let interested editors address these by adding citations to them or perhaps removing the information. Once those are addressed I will be ready to make a keep declaration. Z1720 (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@Z1720: I've removed the one remaining uncited sentence (my latest version, not the one there when the reassessment was opened): "Based purely on their location, it might be presumed that the islands close to the shores of former county of Ayrshire remained part of the Kingdom of Strathclyde during this period, whilst the main islands of the Clyde became part of the emerging Kingdom of Alba founded by Kenneth MacAlpin (Cináed mac Ailpín).^{[citation needed]}" in its entirety. I'm not going to active on Wikipedia for the next week. I will look at the current article when I come back; and I have reserved some books that might provide references that answer some of the questions. It seems unlikely to me that two adjacent kingships, clans, tribes, call them what you like would just agree - you take the west, I'll take the east. Island kings / clans in Scotland normally expanded their area of control by grabbing land from the adjacent mainland kingdom / clan, etc. But, there is a suggestion that Kenneth MacAlpin's mother might might have controlled the Kingdom of Strathclyde. However, unless I can find that stated in a reliable source and that they were 'friends', the sentence (if it remained) could be challenged as original research. Could you look favourably on either closing the reassessment as a "keep as GA", or perhaps keeping it open until 8th March? Otherwise, some drive-by editor is likely to close and fail the article on the basis of inactivity. Pyrotec (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)