---

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

Result: There is also significant uncited material. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 addition relies on many IMDB and other self-published sources, which need to be replaced. Spinixster (chat!) 02:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: As I pointed out at WT:GAN, the review was not in-depth and is thus invalid. Will re-open it shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way this article should have been passed in the manner it did. An account with under 30 edits instant-passing a level 2 vital article? That's absurd, especially considering the editor in question came in my own review, where I asked for a second opinion, and said to fail it with no other comment than "bad". At bare minimum I believe this should be re-reviewed; it doesn't look terrible, and if this re-assessment indeed concludes that it is in line with the criteria then so be it. dannymusiceditor ^oops 19:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the nominator and I raised a similar problem at User_talk:ThatChemist25#GA_review_of_Arithmetic. In response, the reviewer added a minimal explanation of how they arrived at their assessment. I'm not sure that it's technically a violation of the GA review process. But as you pointed out, a level 2 vital article should get a more thorough review. It would be great if an experienced reviewer could have a look at the article and I would be happy to work with them to get any problematic points sorted out. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just veto my assessment because you didn't like how I did it. I will buff up my thing latter. Stop this now ThatChemist25 (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs an update, with very little post-2009 information. Uncited text throughout, and unnecessary quoting from the Q&A portion of a pageant. Lede might also need an expansion. Z1720 (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the article. Can you please be more specific which texts are unsourced? I can try finding sources. D-Flo27 (talk) 12:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@D-Flo27, I'm not Z1720 but I have added some "Citation needed" templates to places that need citations. Hopefully it will help. Cheers! Spinixster (chat!) 14:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding citations. I would like to add that there are a few other problems:

• Reference 11 is just a YouTube search page. I'd recommend removing the information that is being cited unless there's another reliable source to back the claim up (if you need help, WP:RSP is your friend.
• Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Sources, Pageantopolis is not reliable.
• What makes GetzMo (reference 4) reliable? The page seems to be dead.

Below are not really recommendations in order to maintain its GA status, but is still worth fixing.

• The citation style is inconsistent (some websites are wikilinked, some are not, some include authors, some do not), and per WP:CITEVAR, I'd suggest making it consistent.
• I would recommend expanding the lead so it would summarize the entire article. Right now, it's quite short and does not summarize the article well. WP:LEAD might help.
• Reference 23 is dead; I'd recommend finding an archived or live version.

Spinixster (chat!) 06:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've made some edits based on your suggestions. However, I'm not sure how I can expand the lead without mentioning her mistakes during the Q&A portion, which has been done on previous versions of this article and was even called out in this article from a popular lifestyle magazine. So, if you have any suggestions on that, let me know. D-Flo27 (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, do you mean what Z1720 has said? I think they meant the quoting in the Question and answer section was what's unnecessary. I would recommend removing the quote and stating that she had answered the question poorly instead. I don't think a quote is needed to show her mistakes. The Q&A portion can still be mentioned in the lead, since it's a prominent part of the section. Spinixster (chat!) 07:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the above D-Flo27? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, unfortunately I've been busy the past week and this week that I haven't been able to add the edits. If someone else can do add those edits for me, that would be nice. D-Flo27 (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Consensus appears to be to keep. D6194c-1cc is invited to expand the article to their liking, and is reminded that "the "broad in its coverage" criterion ... allows shorter articles and articles that do not cover every major fact or detail". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article is too short, and it's nomination is from 2009. 79.185.137.127 (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see too short being an issue here. The article is well written and covers enough information. Maybe it would need some updating since most of the information is from circa 2009, but that's all I can find. Spinixster (chat!) 02:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article lacks information about side effects ([1], [2]) as decltype takes expression and do not evaluate it. The article just mentions that the argument is not evaluated, no details. And an example with the ++ operator would be appreciated. D6194c-1cc (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added in the body. [3] I don't believe it's necessary to include examples in the lede. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to describe side effects in the body of the article (with a wikilink). The article still doesn't mention side effects and doesn't provide details on what problems can cause misunderstanding usage of decltype, when developer doesn't expect that the state of variables won't change. D6194c-1cc (talk) 07:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Motivation" section should be split into Motivation and History sections (history is the middle part of the section). D6194c-1cc (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is missing explicit information about what has changed in the C++14 standard ([4], type deduction, decltype(auto)). D6194c-1cc (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is missing a section on typical use cases ([5]). D6194c-1cc (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the article is more than long enough at 1067 words. Unless there have been changes in its use which were described in WP:RS, I'm at a keep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any obvious issues. There might be some information that needs to be covered and I wuld love to see some text on how decltype has inspired other languages, but overall nothing that would require a delist. Sohom (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't see any serious issues either. The article is clear, readable, appears to cover the subject, and is admirably cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2008, tagged with a GAR request since September. Aside from the boosterism template, there are 5 citation needed templates and several other unsourced information. Spinixster (chat!) 01:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed three of the citation needed tags and the boosterism. The other two citation needed tags need some work to see if a source can be found; if not, that information can be removed. Robminchin (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some further citation needed tags that I think have now identified the remaining unsourced information referred to. It looks like everything should be either addressable or not a great loss if it has to be removed. Robminchin (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned these up and made some other improvements to (hopefully) bring it to modern standards for a GA. Robminchin (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the much needed improvements. I see no problems with this article now, but I'd like to hear a few more opinions before closing this GAR. Spinixster (chat!) 02:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Not much improvement, sadly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2013 listing was tagged with ((GAR request)) in July. There is significant amounts of uncited material, and a behemothic notes section which seems mostly irrelevant, tbh. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap and XOR'easter:, I remember that you two have improved previous units-related articles back to a good standard at GAR; would you be willing to have a look at this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After the John von Neumann discussion, I never want to participate in a GAR again. XOR'easter (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a massive shame; I won't ping you again. Best of luck, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That is some notes section. Not an issue by itself, but holding quite a lot of uncited text, and some notes seem to be summaries of wikilinked articles. There is unfortunately quite a lot of uncited text throughout the article. CMD (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article, as it stands is just a somewhat promotional summary of the features and individual release of Safari.

There isn't any discussions of privacy violations, security exploits (or even for that matter Apple's work on trying to eliminate third-party cookies, the IndexedDB data leak, issues with ITP etc). There is legitimate criticism (and some positive commentary) from multiple fronts on how Apple develops Safari and the fact that it lags behind many other browsers by a large margin. However, non of this appears to be discussed in the article in depth. This imo fails GA #3a and GA #4.

Besides this, there are a few almost contentless sections ("ios versions","Continuity" etc) failing GA #3a, multiple citation needed templates, and a almost completely unreferenced "Payments from Google" section failing GA #2, and some malformed citations. Overall, I do not think this represents the best work we have, and thus would like to move to review the article's GA status (or atleast ask for the article to be improved). Sohom (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For context on what I am talking about in paragraph 2:

- Discussion of ITP: [6][7][8][9][10]

- IndexedDB issues: [11][12][13]

- More discussion on the benefits of ITP: [14][15] [16] (and a bunch other which I can help idenitfy)

- Commentary on Safari's security issues and releases commentary: [17] (Safari here is refered to as Apple) [18] (coverage of security fixes in WebContent at the start, the rest of it is dense code, but still there is some interesting stuff in there) [19] (Safari's lack of features criticism) [20] (Blog post, but by a respected and well known figure) [21] (Blog post, but from a well respected figure in web standards tech) [22] (Petition to the UK Gov?) (there are more but there needs to be a effort to pick the wheat from the chaff, not completey ignore it) Sohom (talk) 02:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Previously discussed on the talk page; I didn't think this met GA standards, and still don't. Your list of missing points is solid; to me the biggest missing point is Safari lagging behind in terms of web compatibility, and repeated bugs that have made it much harder for web developers to support Safari than other browsers (like several other IndexedDB issues and a localStorage bug). I'll try to work on this today. DFlhb (talk) 07:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would further agree. There is an overwhelming amount of short sections, a dearth of cited scholarly sources concerning this influential web browser, and a lack of information on how this browser was generally received by the public or commentators. I would agree this article is in even worse shape than Google Chrome by failing GA #3a, and due to this article's similar scale, would suggest a Delist as this may be too big of a fix for GAR alone and would need a complete re-write. The Night Watch (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; the required changes would be too extensive not to go through a full GAN again - DFlhb (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Original GA reviewer here: the Safari article was the GA review I did, but I didn't do it thorough enough in retrospect. Support delist for now. PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Significant uncited material remains. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of unreferenced paragraphs and sentences. Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, can you point out some? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 23:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Corvette ZR1: In general, there should be a citation at the end of every paragraph, minimum (except the lede and other exceptions). I have placed citation needed tags in the article to indicate where this is. Z1720 (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for responding, will take a look. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 15:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: With thanks to Spinixster. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per Melchior2006 removing the good article tag out-of-process * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I received a procedural notification for this as a previous reviewer, though I wasn't able to actually complete the review for life reasons. Aza24 did, and doesn't seem to have been notified. Looking at the diffs of removals, I'm not inclined to think they're unambiguous improvements. Vaticidalprophet 05:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is funadamentally different than the one I reviewed. I have no idea what happened, but now it appears choppy and disjointed. And why has the lead been obliterated? The previous was perfectly fine. Another case of random editors going way too bold and not discussing anything... Aza24 (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A series of recent edits removed a lot of biographical detail as "puffery". Some of this is borderline or arguable (imo the listing-many-individual-works in the lead might not be the ideal career summary), but a lot of it is entirely worthwhile detail, IMO. I've restored to the stable version so GAR regulars can assess the stable state, and hope Melchior will discuss here. Vaticidalprophet 06:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with the article was/is its overuse of one-sided quotes from interviews with Winkler or promotional biographies. Then there was the weird overemphasis of his parents' flight from persecution in Fascist Germany, complete with block quotes about what uncles said to relatives, etc., all before Winkler was even born. A further problem was/is a remarkable over-documentation, using up to three footnotes to verify pretty straightforward information. The self-promotional aspect is easy enough to see after the recent reverts: "he burst into stardom" and so on. In general, it is overly narrative, like the passage "his manager Alan Berger suggested that he write children's books". That is not really of encyclopedic significance, it is enough information to state that he began writing children's books. --Melchior2006 (talk) 06:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uninvolved but wanted to put in my two cents. Though overquoting can be a concern—per MOS:QUOTE, Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be copyright infringement—some quotes can be quite valid. For example, one of the recent edits removed the quote from this sentence:

−

was appointed an [[Honorary Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire|Honorary Officer of the Order of the British Empire]] (OBE) "for services to children with special educational needs and dyslexia in the UK" by [[Elizabeth II|Queen Elizabeth]] in 2011

+

was appointed an [[Honorary Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire|Honorary Officer of the Order of the British Empire]] (OBE) by [[Elizabeth II|Queen Elizabeth]] in 2011

It's one thing to say that Winkler was appointed an OBE. It's another to say why he was appointed an OBE, and removing the quote would remove that context as well.

The previous edits also removed some context:

−

However, he never had to work as a waiter because he was able to earn a living through performing in commercials. He was thus able to also perform with the [[Manhattan Theater Club]] for free.

+

He was able to earn a living through performing in commercials. In his free time, he performed with the [[Manhattan Theater Club]].

The original text says Winkler performed with MTC for free because he earned enough money from commercials. The revised text doesn't give this context, instead presenting this as two separate facts, even though the cited source (the interview with Winkler) says that he was able to perform with MTC because he could afford it. I haven't yet looked through this GA for other issues, but I do have to disagree with some of the recent changes, which Vat reverted. The overuse of quotes can be problematic, though. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I worked on the original GA and the article as it stands has changed since the reviewed edition. I tried to work with the changes as is, but there are considerable differences. That GA went on many months with suggestions from a number of editors. Certainly remove refs if there are too many, but the bio basically follows numerous interviews that he has given, so nothing is particularly promotional. I'm happy to make comments and give feedback, but I'd rather not give too much input at this point beyond the original GA that was approved. Here is the original GA: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Winkler&oldid=1083628482 -Classicfilms (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also trimmed the EL's.-Classicfilms (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. "he burst into stardom" isn't promotional? --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2. I have a question about the text boxes on the right. One describes events several years before Winkler's birth. Do we want this featured so prominently? Then, further down, we have a text box which starts: "Lin and I, yesterday morning, wrote the first chapter of our 28th novel. Holy moly." This is just not the kind of objectivity we are looking for. One excuse for such promos might be if the content of the box were truly sophisticated or talented writing, but that is certainly not the case. Can we delete this stuff? --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1.Re: "he burst into stardom" - when using the term "promotional," it implies that editors have a vested interest in what is written, so I'd be careful not to stray into Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It makes more sense to just change the wording if a better sentence structure comes to mind. The fact of the matter is that during the 1970s, "The Fonz" was an incredible force in popular culture. If there is a better way to state it, go for it. 2. As for the text boxes, again I'd caution the term "promotional," as they reflect what happened. If there is another way to state these events, or if you want to trim, go for it. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is it promotional to quote the subject discussing his writing process? It would be different to say this stuff in wikivoice as though it were fact, but we're explicitly identifying it as his thoughts on the matter. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that's one point, thx, but I raised a number of points in the lines above, most of which have gone unanswered so far. --Melchior2006 (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weighing in as a passerby, I think those points are largely unhelpful in terms of both the GACR and what readers are interested in when they read these articles. Of course it's relevant that his parents fled persecution from Nazi Germany. That's generational trauma writ large; it must have impacted every aspect of the rest of his life.

Using multiple footnotes is not promotional nor is it over-documentation. It's fairly standard practice. There is nothing in the GACR or even the FACR that dictates the number of footnotes one must use.

Finally, re: the manager suggesting he take up writing. That is exactly the kind of thing readers would find interesting. He didn't spontaneously turn himself into an author, his manager had to inveigle him into it, and then he winds up writing 28 kids' novels. That's an interesting turn of events, and cutting the manager's role out changes the story entirely.

I'll be clear in saying I haven't read the article in strict detail and I'm not arguing that it's perfect (there are places where I can see that the prose could be tightened without cutting information), but those specific points I think are not really germane to whether or not it meets the GACR. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having said that, there's more unneccessary quoting here than I thought. I've trimmed quite a bit of fat from the Books section - without removing the actual interesting facts, I think. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (?) I'd like to help out, but I feel like the changes would be very controversial, so I would like to ask for opinions about them here before I do so. Aside from the unnecessary quoting issues, I also find it to be going into too much detail. For example:

• The Dyslexia section: is it really needed to go super in-depth about his issues with dyslexia? And why does it mention his other roles during his time at Happy Days? The section is called "Happy Days and stardom" so I would find it appropriate to move it there.
• The Arrested Development section (and most sections relating to his role somewhere in general) also seems to have unrelated information. Do we really need to know about some random references to his Fonzie character? It would probably fit better in the Fonzie article, not here.

That's just some examples. Another thing to note is that I see a lot of "Further information" templates. Is it really necessary here? Spinixster (chat!) 11:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't tend to agree that the quoting is definitionally unnecessary (e.g. the "he was the Fonz" quote is a pithy illustration of the typecasting). Famously-typecast actors are a tricky lot; I'd expect an article on Winkler to extensively discuss references to Fonzie in the same sense I would Adam West's to discuss Adam Westing, or Leonard Nimoy's to discuss his relationship with being Spock. I'd certainly expect them to be in Winkler's article rather than Fonzie's, for which they actually would be undue references. "Is it really needed to go super in-depth about his issues with dyslexia?" Well, he's a significant activist for it, so...yes. The sectioning is probably not ideal, but I think that particular variant of it could just lose the section header, and another section header on it could be moved to "Personal life" with more general information. Vaticidalprophet 11:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice.

• I've moved the Dyslexia section to the Personal life section, though I'm not sure about its last paragraph since I feel that it is not very necessary to go in-depth about his difficulties with dyslexia.
• For the other sections regarding his non-Fonzie roles, I do feel like it is worth pointing out some references or similarities to Fonzie as long as they're cited, but I think listing all of them is unnecessary. Take, for example, the Arrested Development section. What should I do?

I'll try to remove some more unnecessary quotes, you are welcome to change some removals if needed. Spinixster (chat!) 13:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support- all great ideas, go for it.-Classicfilms (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I love it, thanks! --Melchior2006 (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll try and see if I can cut down some unnecessary parts today. Please let me know your opinions on cutting down the parts in the Dyslexia section. Spinixster (chat!) 01:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I think that's all I can remove before getting a consensus on the Dyslexia section. Can someone check? Thank you. Spinixster (chat!) 01:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Looks great to me!-Classicfilms (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Classicfilms, thank you. Do you think I should remove some details in the Dyslexia section, too, as I've stated above? Spinixster (chat!) 02:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spinixster - So, the section was originally part of the "Happy Days" portion of the article. I think it works equally if placed within the "Personal life" section. Dyslexia is a significant part of his biography, a point that he talks about in every interview and in his new memoir. It may make sense to compress the "Happy Days" quotes since you've moved it to a new section, but then you will also need to add sentences reflecting how dyslexia actually influenced many stages of his life- whether it was his approach to acting, signature aspects of his most famous character "the Fonz," and then later the Hank Zipzer books and shows - then his charity work with schools and school children. It's really up to you, and how you want to approach this topic.-Classicfilms (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion - take a look at the original GA article which I just linked particularly the original intro which tackles the subject- it has the dyslexia section under "Happy Days" because that is when he was diagnosed, but there are references to it before (the problems in school) and after - the Hank Zipzer books and shows and his charity work - that are spread out throughout the article. So one thought might be to summarize these points (by all means take out the quotes if you want to summarize) and put it all under the one dyslexia section.-Classicfilms (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing I noticed in the article. The Happy Days section has 4 images, which I think is a lot considering the length of the section. I want to form a consensus on which image(s) to remove. Please reply with the image(s) you think should be kept:

• Image 1: Richie Cunningham (Ron Howard) takes a turn on Fonzie's motorcycle
• Image 2: Potsie (Anson Williams), Richie (Ron Howard), Fonzie (Henry Winkler) and Ralph Malph (Donny Most) at Arnold's drive-in.
• Image 3: The Fonz becomes a singing superstar. Pictured are Cindy Williams as Shirley Feeney, Ron Howard as Richie Cunningham, Henry Winkler as Fonzie, and Penny Marshall as Laverne DiFazio.
• Image 4: Marion Cunningham (Marion Ross) enters a dance contest with Fonzie instead of Howard (who is not interested).

I am towards keeping the 3rd image only as it illustrates the section well. The caption should be changed, though. Spinixster (chat!) 08:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am for Image 3: "The Fonz becomes a singing superstar" because the pose is characteristic, and you see HW in the context of other actors. Thanks for deleting the others, it is indeed overkill. Melchior2006 (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it - Image 3 works for me.-Classicfilms (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have removed the images and updated the caption. Please let me know if there are other issues, because I think I've run out of things to fix. Spinixster (chat!) 02:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thx! But there is still a lot of padding in this article. I would like to cut, at the end of the Stolperstein section, this superfluous paragraph: "The discovery came as a complete surprise to Winkler, as Jeff Dye had secretly enlisted the help of Winkler's children, who planned the surprise. A letter from them was waiting near the Stolperstein, and told Winkler that all of his experiences in Berlin reflected his parents' life there: "Even though the Winkler history in Berlin is heartbreaking, we thought it was important for you to connect with the past through this hopefully fun adventure, and connect you did...." --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, yeah, I've partially removed it. Spinixster (chat!) 08:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you removed that business about "jumping the shark." It was one of many examples in this article that were way too detailed and below encyclopedic standards, simply because Winkler's speaking voice is not particularly profound. Many of these quotes were anecdotal. --Melchior2006 (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinixster, Melchior2006, Classicfilms, and Vaticidalprophet: does the article meet the GA criteria now? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say yes, but to be fair, I am the person who removed most of the puffery text, so I'd prefer someone else's opinion. Spinixster (chat!) 02:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are still NPOV issues and UNDUE as well. Here's what I mean:

1. "he never had to work as a waiter" ...or a taxi driver ... or an office worker? Why single out waiters? It is an example of this article's tone, which just isn't neutral and encyclopedic.

2. In the section "2016–2018: Better Late Than Never" 2/3 of the section is devoted to a Stolperstein, complete with translation about details of his uncle's murder. This is too detailed. I would say take the picture out and reduce the long paragraph that begins "Winkler was the focus..."

3. Under "Personal life" we have this quote which is too personal, emotional, full of [] supplements. "telling the Hollywood Reporter in November 2021, that "I loved the people. They are still my friends". --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll try to condense that. Let me know if it's fixed now. Spinixster (chat!) 10:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! You are something else. As for me, I am all set with this article, I think it looks pretty darn good. Thx for all your help! Fantastic; that's what high-quality wiki-work is supposed to be. --Melchior2006 (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words! Spinixster (chat!) 12:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Yes, it looks fine. One of the great things about the Wikipedia is that the review process allows for many different perspectives and approaches to a topic, where WP:NPOV also guides talk page interactions, that function under the larger umbrella of Wikipedia:Civility.-Classicfilms (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]