Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:GAR)
Jump to: navigation, search
Main Discussion Nominations Reassessment Recruitment Centre Instructions Criteria Report Help Desk
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

Good article reassessment (or GAR) is a process primarily used to determine whether articles that are listed as good articles still merit their good article (GA) status. There are two types of reassessment: individual reassessment and community reassessment. An individual reassessment is initiated and concluded by a single user in much the same way as a review of a good article nomination. Community reassessments are listed on this page for discussion and are closed according to consensus. Where possible editors should conduct an individual reassessment, although community reassessment should be used if delisting is likely to be controversial. Community reassessments can also be used to challenge a previous delisting or fail during a good article nomination. This is not a peer review process; for that use Wikipedia:Peer review. The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not.

Before attempting to have any article de-listed through reassessment, take these steps:

  1. Fix any simple problems yourself. Do not waste minutes explaining or justifying a problem that you could fix in seconds. GAR is not a forum to shame editors over easily fixed problems.
  2. Tag serious problems that you cannot fix, if the templates will help reviewers find the problems. For example, it may be helpful to add a {{Verify credibility}} tag after a source you think is dubious. Do not tag bomb the article.
  3. Make sure that the problems you see in the article are actually covered by the actual Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Many problems, including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with 90% of the Manual of Style pages, are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for de-listing.
  4. Notify major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects. The aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.edit guidelines

Individual reassessment

When to use this process
  • Use this process if you find an article listed as a good article which does not satisfy the good article criteria.
  • Make sure you are logged in; if you are not a registered user, please ask another editor to reassess the article, or request a community reassessment.
  • If you have delisted the same article before, are a major contributor, or delisting could be seen as controversial consider requesting a community reassessment.
  • Check the good article criteria to see which criteria it fails to meet. For problems which are easy to resolve, you might try being bold and fixing them yourself.
How to use this process
  1. Add {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page and save the page. Follow the first bold link in the template to create an individual reassessment page.
  2. Leave a review on the reassessment page detailing the problems with the article in comparison to the criteria, and save the page.
  3. Transclude your review onto the article talk page by adding {{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}} to the bottom of the last section on the article talk page: you need to replace ArticleName and n by the name of the article and the subpage number.
  4. Allow time for other editors to respond. Also, notify major contributing editors (identifiable through article stats script), relevant WikiProjects for the article and, if recently GA reviewed, the reviewer. The {{GARMessage}} template can be used for notifications, by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} on talk pages. (replace ArticleName with "the article name" and n with "1" for community reassessment, or with "2" for individual reassessment)
  5. If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this, remove the article from the relevant list at Wikipedia:Good articles, remove {{Good article}} from the article, delete the {{GAR/link}} template from the talk page and update the {{ArticleHistory}} template on the talk page (see example). Also change any project assessments on the talk page.
  6. If you decide the article has improved enough to now meet the criteria you can keep it as a Good article. To do this, delete the {{GAR/link}} template from the talk page and update the {{ArticleHistory}} template on the talk page.

Community reassessment

When to use this process

If you believe a current good article does not meet the criteria, first consider trying to reassess the article yourself (through an individual reassessment). However use a community reassessment if

  • you are not confident in your ability to assess the article or believe that delisting the article will be seen as controversial.
  • you disagree with a delisting by another editor.
  • you disagree with a fail at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. However, it is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review; it is usually simpler to renominate it. If some time has lapsed since a delisting or fail it is better to renominate.

Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate, wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment. If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered.

How to use this process
  1. Add {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page and save the page. Follow the second bold link in the template to create a community reassessment page (this is a subpage of the good article reassessment page).
  2. Append your reason for bringing the article to good article reassessment, sign it, and save the page. The article should automatically appear on this page within an hour.
  3. Please notify the most recent GA reviewer, major contributing editors (identifiable through article stats script) and relevant WikiProjects for the article. The {{GARMessage}} template can be used for notifications, by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} on talk pages. (replace ArticleName with "the article name" and n with "1" for community reassessment, or with "2" for individual reassessment)

← (All archives) Crystal Clear app file-manager.png Good article reassessment (update archive number) (Current archive: 58) →

Articles needing review and possible reassessment[edit]

The Good articles listed below would benefit from the attention of reviewers as to whether they need to be reassessed. In cases where they do, please open an individual or community reassessment and remove {{GAR request}} from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, simply delete the template from the article talk page.

The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a featured article candidate, please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed. To add an article to this list, add {{GAR request}} to the article talk page.

See also

Articles listed for community reassessment[edit]

Freedom from Want (painting)[edit]

Article (edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

This article was just failed at WP:GAN although I believe that most will feel it meets WP:WIAGA in its current state.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Just as I feel most will agree that it doesn't. But Hey....let us do what we must! I am an artist and an enthusiast of Rockwell. If you don't like my review...then re-nominate it. Right have ignored far too much that I have pointed out to list this as GA. I will watchlist this discussion. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment I haven't gone through it point-by-point, but first of all, I think it could be a wonderful Good Article. It would be good to follow Mark's recommendation and go through each of the assessment items and ensure that they are met. What first caught my eye was that there were bits that were not cited, there needs to be a bit of copy editing (perhaps tightening up the lead, or is that just me?), and there's a mixture of short and long citations. Since most are long citations, it would make sense to make them all long citations and not have a bibliography or sources section (I don't remember what it's called in this case)... and there are a couple of citation error messages, but I set my preferences to see them, so maybe you don't. I'll look at that. I hope you keep hanging in! It would be great to have this made good article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The point of a GAR like this is that a point-by-point analysis is required. He thinks he has found valid violations of WP:WIAGA and I think he is misinterpretting some things. E.g., we have gone back and forth on the necessity of a 10-point NFCC FUR. He contests museum description pages as valid WP:RS. Also, we disagree on whether the essay is overweighted in this article to the point of failing GA. A nominator can not request a 2nd opinion during a review. GAR is the proper recourse. So here we are. You need to render an opinion on whether he has identified proper points of failure. That is the issue here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I made some copy edits to the intro, fixed the short/long citation issue and tagged one citation - Encarta as needing a better source, and added a few cn tags. I think going through each of the items point-by-point is still a good effort. For instance, under "Well written" copyright / close paraphrasing concerns are identified. It's nice that the sentences are not all together now, but some of the sentences seem to be the same language and in the same order as the source.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Is there anything else like this that can be tweaked or resolved from the previous assessment?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
For instance, it seemed to me from what I read that you said the 10-point review of the NFCC FUR was fine, at least that's the impression I got from reading that section. I guess I'm not seeing a concern with the use of a museum's description pages, but I'll look at that a bit. Regarding the essay, is there a way to copy edit it so that the reader gets the salient points with fewer words? And, are there some other things that came up during the review that would be good to look over?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I have never supported a 10-point FUR. As I stated, many of the 10 NFCC issues don't need specific mention in the FUR. I think it is unnecessary and overkill. I have never seen a 10-point FUR.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I looked at the part about "He contests museum description pages as valid WP:RS" and I don't think that adequately stated his position. I basically agree with him, although I think that something written about the essay could be more than 2-3 sentences... it would seem to me that 5-6 sentences should be able to get to the salient points. Right now, it's a bit difficult for me to understand the intention of the essay section. If nothing else, it would seem to me that since there is a tie in that Rockwell's painting did accompany the essay, the content should probably be focused, then, on just that... what were the key points from the essay. That's my take.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Please explain his/your position on the reliability of a museum description page as a RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

I don't consider the museum's information unreliable. I think of it in terms of how they are inter-related and how much does it further the story of Rockwell's painting. There's nothing that suggests to me (including "The Norman Rockwell Museum describes it as a story illustration for The Saturday Evening Post, making the essay and this painting complementary works.") that Rockwell created "Freedom from Want" as an illustration specifically made for that essay, if he had, I'm guessing it wouldn't look as it does. It seems to me that the magazine wanted to have a good Thanksgiving issue... got a great "hook" to select someone people wouldn't ordinarily expect to write the essay... and had Rockwell, who regularly made paintings for them, create Freedom from Want and paired them together in the magazine. Even if that wasn't the case, the article is about the painting, not about the essay. If the essay and author are strong enough to stand on their own, perhaps there's a new article there. It may not be as large as you'd usually write (i.e., GA/FA status), but one that would be interesting and could be linked to from this article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────CaroleHenson, you have made a ton of stylistic changes to the citations which run counter to the formats that were approved in my prior three Category:FA-Class visual arts articles that I got promoted in the last 13 months. I am not sure why you don't want the books to be listed separately with short author page citations for specific citations.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I'd constitute making "short citations" into "long citations" as a ton of stylistic changes. In the past I've run into an issue on VA articles where there was a mixture... and I needed to choose one way or another. If you want to go back to the bibliography style go for it. You'll notice that I didn't recommend that for the Four Freedom's article, nor attempt changes there... and that was because 1) there was consistency in approach for use of short citations for books and 2) there were multiple uses of the same book, which is when a bibliography section makes sense. If you think it's right to have them the other way, put them back.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I have faith and confidence that CaroleHenson is on this with the correct reassessment but Tony really has to let go of his POV (which may be very slight, but still) and see that there are real concerns here about undue weight and a mischaracterization of the museum page reference. as well as other recommendations. I don't think he was looking for a rubber stamp, but I do get the feeling he may not have encountered this sort of review before just from his reaction thus far. I suggest this be closed as not meeting GA at this time unless the major changes suggested are made and kept by Tony. This article is very much one that could be a GA article but I sense a little more than slight resistance to the needed changes.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I respectfully changed the link to my page from a template to the traditional brackets and very much agree with Mark.--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC) + struck out "Thanksgiving" from my response above.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Carol, you seem to be misunderstanding your role here. This is review is an assessment of the state of the article at the time of the original review decision, the reasoning for that decision and WP:WIAGA. You need to clearly state why the article should have been failed or passed based on the elements of dispute between the reviewer and the nominator. When you say "There's nothing that suggests...that Rockwell created "Freedom from Want" as an illustration specifically made for that essay" you should evaluate text like "Hibbs alleviated Rockwell's concern that his work did not match Bulosan's text." Saying that the museum description, which states it was an illustration, is not unreliable but saying you don't consider it an illustration is WP:OR. You need to present RS that outweigh the museum and say why you support Mark Miller's claim based on such RS otherwise it seem you should point to the RS that you say is reliable (in double negative form as not unreliable). The same with the other points. You need to state why a 10-point FUR is required. That is what this review is about.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

My point was: before there's a thorough assessment there's a couple of things to take a look at from the prior assessment. It's a lot of work to go through and complete an assessment and to not have tackled the issues raised and gloss over them is an issue. I thought I was pretty clear about what they are, but sure, I will summarize the items:
  1. The copyright issues brought up in the initial assessment do not seem to have been completely addressed. For instance, under "Well written" copyright / close paraphrasing concerns are identified. It's nice that the sentences are not all together now, but some of the sentences seem to be the same language and the words are in the same order as the source. (See the prior assessment)
  2. There's a mixture of short and long citations. Since most are long citations, it would make sense to make them all long citations and not have a bibliography or sources section
  3. The cited text for Encarta needs a better source
  4. Even though the essay and painting have been deemed by the museum to be "complementary works," the article is about the painting, not about the essay. There are a couple of options: 1) rewrite the section to focus upon the points being made by the essay in a few sentences 2-5 and/or 2) consider starting an article about the essay author and/or essay, if it passes notability.
  5. Address what else needs to be resolved from the prior assessment before moving on to this assessment.
  6. From the last points made in the "Criteria" section of the previous assessment:
  • But since they are a part are what does need to be checked against to comply to the "Media specific" policy and "previous publication" I like to add them, specially when I add them in a review.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I kinda have to in that situation, but I figured someone might see the message and If not, I would have done the work. I don't have an issue with that.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it's asking a lot of someone to go through the entire assessment until you've tackled items from the initial assessment. That's what I was trying to say (I had hoped, politely).
I agree with Mark's comment: "I suggest this be closed as not meeting GA at this time unless the major changes suggested are made and kept by Tony. This article is very much one that could be a GA article but I sense a little more than slight resistance to the needed changes."--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not understanding this list. The copyright issue in the review was about images and you are talking about text. I don't even recall a debate about short and long citations. The original assessment made no comment about reliable source issues. What are you talking about.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
    • It would help if you looked at the prior review.
      • Regarding copyright/closeparaphrasing: Talk:Freedom from Want (painting)/GA1#Well-written
      • We have talked about long/short citations - If you do a find (Control-F) on "short" - you can find each of the places.
      • I added the point about Encarta (Control-F) on "Encarta".
    • I am beginning to run out of energy for this. I am very happy to have summarized the items for you. The real question is: Do you want to work on resolving the issues? If not, I am with Mark, let's close this out until the issues are resolved.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The section you are sending me to regarding copyright/closeparaphrasing says "the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct" What corrections do you think I am suppose to make to address this?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Are you talking about (Control-F) on "short" in this discussion or the one that is at issue?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the word Encarta at the discussion at issue although I will seek to find a better reference.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm gobsmacked and done. To clarify

  1. The Control-F on "short" is for this talk page... it's the conversation we had. I wasn't part of the initial review. I had thought that would be clear... when I said our conversation. So, just look for the instances of "short" citation. Same for Encarta. I bolded them so they are now even easier to find.
    1. Handled.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. Regarding the copyright, I copied over exactly the information that was posted. I put the initial bit that just says what the criteria in <<no wiki>> so you could see that "the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct" is the criteria that was being used to judge and formulate the following comments...
I have no idea why you are bringing this up. This content has not been in the WP:LEAD for some time. It was edited long before this article was failed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I am unwatching this page and my name being used won't return me to this page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry you have jumped ship, but you seem to have generally pointed to things in the prior discussion that are not actually things that needed editorial attention. If I am understanding your issues above they were the following:
  1. Attend to a close paraphrasing issue which was neither pointed to in the original discussion nor presented actionably here.
  2. Pointed out a ref improve wish and three citations needed that were not in the original discussion
  3. Corrected a long/short citation issue even you admitted was a matter of preference and not at issue in the prior discussion that you would not mind if I reverted.
  4. Stated that the museum description page is not unreliable, failed to present alternate sources to contradict it and somehow come out on the side that the reliable source is wrong or something. I just don't understand your point here, especially given the corroborating facts.
  5. Concurred that the essay content should be reduced (which was an issue of the prior discussion).
  6. It is unclear to me whether you said you think the 10-point FUR should be required.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Let me state that in terms of the amount of essay content in the article, It will likely be determined consensus, but the content was requested by Novickas.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a placeholder, since I'm not in a position right now to coherently discuss the Bulosan essay inclusion. Hopefully within a few days. Novickas (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

  • FYI, Novickas is the person who suggested expanding the essay content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
    • OK, now they can explain to us why your hesitance is appropriate to keep this open. I await that with absolute pleasure.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't understand what you are saying, although I am fairly certain it is not very collegial.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Not everyone takes your tact here Tony. You have been the less collegial and very much unable to collaborate here. But if you truly did not understand I guess I should explain it for you. You attempted to explain who another editor was in regards to this article and I was stating that it was my hope that they could also explain your hesitance to simply take the suggestions from two separate editors and still try to keep the reassessment open when you have not listened to the editors concerns. Over explanation of what others have already disagreed with is not working in good faith. It is simply not hearing others. There are other concerns now from a third editor over the clariy of the writing and I agree with those comments as well. Simply put, this isn't a GA article. Sorry.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
          • I believe you have misread the third editor, Novickas. He has said this GAR is unclear and not the article, if I am correct. He said the GA discussion was hard to follow and needed more structure not that the article did.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The GA discussions have gotten, for me, kind of hard to follow – it’d be nice if the critiques and replies were more structured, or summarized below – it would help the next reviewer.

IMO the accompanying Carlos Bulosan essay deserves a section in this article, because it has been covered, in depth, in many reliable sources, and discussed in terms of its juxtaposition with the painting. It’s encyclopedic information that I don’t think should be moved elsewhere. Including analysis of an accompanying text is, I know, a somewhat unusual situation for a painting article – but Rockwell did describe himself as an illustrator in his autobiography. [1]. The WP Illustrator article currently reads “An illustrator is an artist who specializes in enhancing writing or elucidating concepts by providing a visual representation that corresponds to the content of the associated text or idea.” This painting illustrated two texts, two concepts – primarily Roosevelt’s speech, but also Bulosan's essay. The Post selected the essays, including Bulosan’s, before the paintings were finished, and there is sourced commentary about Rockwell’s take on B.’s essay. And creating a stand-alone article about the essay using the image, or putting it in the Bulosan article, would stretch the limits of the image’s fair usage.

This has happened before and will happen again – there are more viewable Google book results about the painting than there were just a few weeks ago. Scholars now see his works as an acceptable subject. I’ll mention them, along with a few other suggestions, at the article’s talk page. Novickas (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

There has been no reliable source that states the Rockwell painting is or was ever intended as an illustration of the Bulson essay. The essay is far from the idealized depiction of Rockwell's "American ideal" at that time. Simply saying that Rockwell is known for illustration is simply not enough for me to support this text remaining in the article with such undue weight. Two editors have made their review, now please justify the claims being made or find a way to stop avoiding two editor reviews. We need a clear and unambiguous claim that the painting was an illustration of the essay that is as far from that painting as one can get. As for now, if even Novickas is returning to the talk page for discussion I find this community reassessment to have failed. The article in it's current state is simply not GA.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The only claim is that the painting is an illustration of the same theme as the essay (as stated in the article).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Then it is indeed undue weight to give a biography of Bulson on this page. Yes, of course a few lines, 2 to 3 maybe even 4 or 5 (if the information stays on topic, focused and does not give undue weight to information not needed on the article), but we do not need an entire section devoted to the essay on the Rockwell Painting article.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
But there are multiple reliable sources describing the paintings as illustrations of the essays. The Norman Rockwell Museum [2] ("Story illustration for “The Saturday Evening Post"). From ‘’Dictionary of World Biography’’, Routlege, Rockwell’s entry: “The paintings were published as Freedom of Speech (February 24, 1943), [the other three],…to illustrate essays on these topics.” [3] From the ‘’Heath Anthology of American Literature’’, Cengage, (snippet only): “The Saturday Evening Post paid nearly a thousand dollars for Bulosan's essay “Freedom From Want" (an essay which was illustrated by Norman Rockwell and displayed in the Federal Building in San Francisco)…” [4]. From ‘’The Continuum Library of American Literature’’: “Freedom from Want (1943), an essay published in the Saturday Evening Post and illustrated by Norman Rockwell…” [5]. From ‘’Distinguished Asian Americans”, Greenwood Publishing Group: “The four essays were published in the Saturday Evening Post along with illustrations by Norman Rockwell.” [6]. From ‘’Common Destiny: Filipino American Generations’’, Rowman & Littlefield: “In 1943, when the war had finally lifted the United States out of the Depression, the Saturday Evening Post published articles on the Four Freedoms…and ran them in a special issue with Norman Rockwell illustrations.” [7].
Now, I realize that this way of framing the essays-paintings relationship is less prevalent than the ‘accompanied’ construct, and have no problem with using accompanied in the article. But it’s a significant minority viewpoint and since the essay has the same title, was printed alongside the painting, and has had so much coverage, I still think it belongs here. And I don't think a short recap of Bulosan's background is off-topic, because the sources Tony used discuss his life story in the context of the essay. Novickas (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

No, those references are not impressing me and do not state everything as clearly as you state here. I do not believe they support your claim. In fact I think you are pushing things way too much. Sorry. I don't see those references as supporting that claim or the undue weight of the mention.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

If it would help, I would be happy to summarize the issues clearly in a Template:GAList so that at the end of the conversation, at least, there's clarity about the issues - it would be a shame if this article isn't resolved to go to GA status.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
This discussion is not about anyone's assessment of the current article. It is a debate about the failed version and the GAList for the GAN discussion at that time.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Because I see this went to GAR, the point from the start was that issues from the initial assessment were not addressed and a few other issues were identified, which are in my listed items 1-6 above at 18:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC).--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


I have been told by parties such as Cirt and Wehwalt who have participated in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)/archive2 that this debate has gotten WP:TLDR and that the back and forth has gotten hard to follow. I have been told to try to summarize what is at issue. This is a GAR regarding Talk:Freedom from Want (painting)/GA1 which resulted in a failed nominee. I am contesting the fail because I feel this version of the article at the time it was failed met WP:WIAGA. Thus the result of the fail should be overturned and this should be listed as a GA.

It is my understanding that this article was failed over the following disagreements between the nominator (TonyTheTiger) and the reviewer (Mark Miller):

  1. Whether the Fair use rationale on File:Freedom From Want.jpg is sufficient. (reviewer beleives a 10-point FUR that responds to each WP:NFCC element is necessary and nominator feels the FUR was sufficient when it looked like this). Although this was a contentious issue, it was moot at the time the article was failed because the reviewer revised the FUR to reflect his belief before failing the article.
  2. There was extensive debate regarding whether the Norman Rockwell Museum's description page is valid WP:RS for the painting. The debate over whether this painting is an illustration of the accompanying essay or an independent work continues to be contentious.
  3. There is ongoing debate on whether there was excessive content regarding the accompanying essay in the version that was failed.

The article was failed on January 12. The above were the issues of contention at the time. After the fact comments were made at the original GA1 regarding poor prose but this was not a contentious issue at the time the article was failed although a full week after closing the review the reviewer commented that he agreed. After the fact, several issues have been raised by CaroleHenson that were not part of the original disagreement. She claims close paraphrasing was an issue. She says citations formatting was an issue. She believes that one of the sources (Encarta) was not a WP:RS.

It is my understanding this type of GAR is an assessment of the whether the issues raised at the time the article was originally failed were proper. My summary is stated above as succinctly as possible. Please review the version of the article that was failed and assess whether you think it should have been failed and whether the reviewer stated valid reasons. HTH.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

No, this GA was failed because it did not meet GA standards and there was little movement to correct issues, period. It was NOT failed (not listed as GA) because of any "disagreements".--Mark Miller (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
That being said, it is up to GAR discussants to look at WP:WIAGA and the version of the article that was failed and determine if failure was correct.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
What? No. See WP:GAR. GAR is "used to determine whether articles that are listed as good articles still merit their good article (GA) status." Failed GANs go back to GAN after the issues raised in the GAN are addressed, which you appear to have not done. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The ed17, I don't see your quote in the rules. I think you are referring to " it is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review; it is usually simpler to renominate it", but I am not saying it did not have a proper review (where I interpret proper review to mean opposite of quickfail).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, and to Tony's point, the second sentence that I wrote in this discussion was " It would be good to follow Mark's recommendation and go through each of the assessment items and ensure that they are met."--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
It continues to be my assertion that each assessment item was satisfied at the time the article was failed, which is why I brought the article here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Cirt
  • NOTE: Please respond, below entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
Wikipedia:Good article criteria Review assessment
  1. Wikipedia:Good article criteria = Well-written: Writing quality is concise throughout. Recommendations: I would suggest changing Notes sect to be called Footnotes sect, as Footnotes refers to notes about article text itself, and Notes refers to actual citations in the sect. Parody and satire sect: Might be nice to expand this sect further, but that could be fodder for future quality improvement after GA Review.
  2. Wikipedia:Good article criteria = Verifiable: Article is duly sourced throughout to appropriate citations. Norman Rockwell Museum is most certainly a reliable and verifiable source. There might be future concern if the source is durable in nature. Might be good to make sure it gets saved via Internet Archive and or WebCite.
  3. Wikipedia:Good article criteria = Broad coverage: Each subsection is of appropriate length and breadth. Good scope and structure for article throughout. I particularly like how the intro lede sect, followed by Background, and Description, help to ground the reader in the information presented.
  4. Wikipedia:Good article criteria = Neutral: The article is written from an NPOV standpoint. The presentation is neutral throughout. The wording chosen and stylistic structure is matter-of-fact.
  5. Wikipedia:Good article criteria = Stability review: Looking back two weeks -- article edit history shows some changes but they appear to be constructive in nature. Inspecting article talk page history I see a good deal of discussion but it does also appear to be of positive quality improvement recommendations and there appears to be progress being made here. Green tickY
  6. Wikipedia:Good article criteria = Image review: File:Freedom From Want.jpg = fair use image, appropriate fair use rationale on image page. Green tickY. File:Rockwell-Norman-LOC.jpg = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, but please format using commons:Template:Information, thank you. X mark.svg Not done.

A few minor recommendations, above. Otherwise, the article seems fine as per this above point-by-point review according to WP:WIAGA.

  • NOTE: Please respond, below entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Hopefully this is helpful, — Cirt (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


Article (edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

The article makes bold medical claims as well as being improperly sourced. It seems to have been reviewed and found a good article without taking into account medical or anatomical requirements for a good article. See WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS. CFCF (talk) 07:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Serious sourcing problems here, in direct violation of Wikipedia's policy for biomedical assertions sourcing guidelines. To take just one example, using CNN to source claims in Wikipedia's voice of G-splot related "physiological differences" detected between women. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no "policy for biomedical assertions." There are only guidelines. Flyer22 (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Like I stated here: CFCF has blown this matter completely out of proportion; the G-Spot's existence has never been proven and it is a highly debated topic, with the vast majority of gynecologists, doctors and researchers doubting its existence, as shown here, here, here and here, except for when acknowledging that it is likely an extension of the clitoris. In fact, most material on this topic concerns whether or not it exists. ... This topic is far more of a social topic than it is a medical or anatomy topic. Furthermore, with regard to the WP:MEDRS sourcing, note where it states the following at Wikipedia:MEDRS#Use up-to-date evidence: "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." The "need to be relaxed" part of that text is exactly the case with the G-Spot topic. And the G-Spot article most certainly is not advocating for G-Spot amplification; it quite clearly has one paragraph stating that the procedure is sought by some women and how it is performed, and one paragraph making quite clear that the medical community is generally against the practice. Also take not that the G-Spot amplification material used to be an article, and I merged that text into the G-Spot article because "there isn't enough material on this topic, especially medical material, for the article to significantly grow beyond what it was. Not to mention, medical authorities are against the surgery." Also see Talk:G-Spot amplification.
As for there being recent material on this topic according to PubMed, including reviews, this topic is still far from requiring strict WP:MEDRS sourcing (sourcing that allows news sources, by the way, especially for social material). Again, most of the information with regard the G-Spot topic is about whether or not it exists and its impact on society. Treating this topic as a serious medical or anatomy topic is dubious.
As for "Wikipedia's voice," I don't understand what you mean on that. Flyer22 (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS applies to any biomedical information on Wikipedia, wherever it occurs. "In Wikipedia's voice" means a statement is made directly by Wikipedia ("G-spots have been found to change during orgasm") rather than in the "voice" of some other party ("According to a 2008 survey by Dr X, G-spots change during orgasm"). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I know that WP:MEDRS applies to any biomedical information on Wikipedia; I never stated that it didn't. I merely pointed to an aspect of WP:MEDRS that supports the type of sourcing in this article. Another is Wikipedia:MEDRS#Popular press. As for Wikipedia's voice, I know what that is. However, "Wikipedia's voice" is generally used in Wikipedia articles. For example, Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Writing style states, "Do not hype a study by listing the names, credentials, institutions, or other 'qualifications' of their authors. The text of the article should not needlessly duplicate the names, dates, titles, and other information about the source that you list in the citation." Similarly, Template:Whom states, "Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation. If you want to know who holds that view, all you have to do is look at the source named at the end of the sentence or paragraph. It is not necessary to inquire 'According to whom?' in that circumstance." Flyer22 (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
So you think "Studies using ultrasound have also been used to identify physiological differences between women[8] and changes to the G-Spot region during sexual activity.[6]" is correctly presented and sourced well? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
No. But then again, I didn't add that information. If you go back into the history of how this article got promoted to WP:GA status, back during a time when WP:GA standards, even for medical articles, was lower, you will see that I had little to do with this article at that time. I have tweaked and added things to it since then. But a lot of what is in this article, including the "physiological differences" material that you object to, was already in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
"I didn't add that information" ← Did anyone say otherwise? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Just making things clear since I'm currently billed as the top editor of that article and such billing can be deceiving with regard to content expansion. Flyer22 (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The article goes deeply into anatomy, physiology, gynaecology and other areas of medical research. It should adhere to WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS for GA status. Ochiwar (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it should. However, most of the journal sources on this topic are WP:Primary sources. And strict aspects of WP:MEDRS do not, from what I see, generally apply to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Reminder and additional comment: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment is clear that it should not be used for article cleanup. And like I stated on the G-Spot article talk page, I do indeed see this reassessment as article cleanup, since only some sources should be replaced for better ones and the G-Spot topic is not a serious medical or anatomy topic. I told CFCF that WP:MED generally does not want articles like this (articles that are not primarily or mostly medical), which is confirmed by a different editor in the discussion on the talk page. I told CFCF, that, with regard to primary sources... Let me rephrase that: It is the proportion of journal primary sources compared to the proportion of journal non-primary sources that is one issue, [which is why] "Wikipedia:MEDRS#Use up-to-date evidence" addresses [that this] can be an issue for certain topics. There are not an abundance of non-primary review articles on this topic. Go ahead and see how many systematic reviews you find on it. CFCF is treating this topic as though it should adhere to strict aspects of WP:MEDRS, when it generally should not. The most it can generally adhere to with regard WP:MEDRS sourcing are book sources such as this one (cited above). And being an anatomy editor, CFCF knows very well that we generally do not go by the standards of "reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years" for anatomy articles, including for recent WP:GA anatomy articles such Stapes, mostly because information on anatomy is generally consistently the same.

I repeat that there are not a lot of medical publications on this topic that are reviews, or an abundance of systematic reviews out there on it. What we generally have to work with regard to sourcing this topic are WP:Primary sources, book sources and news sources (which is what the article already does), unless of course someone wants to apply the "reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years" standard to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Since we are talking about a controversial topic, yes the body of knowledge has changed and is constantly leaning towards different subjects. Reviews in the last 5 years on pubmed (5): [8][9][10][11][12], 36 articles in all from the last 5 years. There is no reason to use very old books, or very old articles. Other anatomical topics haven't changed to the same extent. This is not a clean-up question, the work needed to move this article back to good article is substantial. CFCF (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Also this [13] CFCF (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The article does not generally use very old sources. And the body of knowledge on this topic states "the G-Spot does not exist." It keeps stating that over and over again, every year or so, far more than it states "the G-Spot does exist." And when scientists are not stating that it does not exist, they are asserting that it is "an extension of the clitoris" or is somehow a result of clitoral bulb stimulation. I see that you've cited a source I have already cited above. But with regard the Puppo source you've cited, keep in mind that Puppo is given space in the G-Spot article and that you might want to become more familiar with him and his odd claims with regard to female anatomy. Not to mention that he constantly pops up in the discussion section of articles about the G-Spot and/or clitoris in order to spew his views that are in stark contrast to what mainstream scientists believe; one example is Puppo commenting in this discussion section. If we are going to be using review articles that are on Puppo's level, simply because they are review articles, then the G-Spot article will truly be in dire need of help. The primary thing that Puppo agrees with scientists on with regard to female anatomy is that the "vaginal orgasm" does not exist. Other than that, he has significant WP:Fringe views on female anatomy. But whatever the case, one cannot validly state that this unproven entity (the G-Spot) generally has support from gynecologists, doctors and researchers; it does not. There should not be any WP:Undue weight given to the "it exists" side. And I told you: Discussion of whether or not the G-Spot exists is as much, likely more so, a social (media and/or political) matter as it is a medical matter. You are acting like high-quality sourcing is needed throughout this article, as though news sources cannot be used for it at all. Well, high-quality sourcing is not needed throughout. And "high-quality sourcing" for this topic is lacking anyway, at least with regard to strict WP:MEDRS sourcing. Needing (emphasis on "needing" rather than "wanting") a handful of better sources is no valid reason whatsoever to make this article into an "immediate attention" matter. Other anatomical topics? Those other anatomical topics are known to be a part of anatomy; they are not in dispute. Flyer22 (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and WP:MEDMOS certainly does not apply to this article...for obvious reasons. Flyer22 (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
There are most definately other disputed or at least debatable anatomical articles: Cranial nerve zeroAnterolateral ligament, what obvious reasons makes MEDMOS irrelevant here specifically? That there are few good sources doesn't in any way indicate that we should rely on bad sources. Can you find any comment on these Fringe views, if so they should also be brought to attention. I was merely linking relevant reviews where you said there were none of relevance. CFCF (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Additionally I'm not debating whether or not the G-spot exists, but pointing out flaws in the sourcing as well as other things. CFCF (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
In general, "other anatomical topics are known to be a part of anatomy; they are not in dispute." And I know of no anatomical topic that is in as much dispute as the G-Spot. As for WP:MEDMOS, exactly how do you think that the G-Spot entity, which has no known structure, except for being called bean-shaped by one or more sources and sometimes being described as a part of already existing anatomy structures, fits with Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Anatomy? That there are few good sources means that we should not be overreaching and needlessly throwing out decent primary sources. And I did not state that there are no relevant reviews on this topic. Either way, the article's talk page indicates that this matter is solely a sourcing issue. Not an issue that yet needs WP:Good article reassessment. Flyer22 (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The large scale resourcing needed makes this very much a candidate for reassessment. The way in which to make it MEDMOS compliant is to discuss structure in the way MEDMOS does etc. Whether or not the structure is debated is a non issue. CFCF (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
That is your opinion with regard to "a candidate for reassessment." And stating "The way in which to make it MEDMOS compliant is to discuss structure in the way MEDMOS does etc." makes absolutely no sense. The topic has to have a documented structure first. Why do you think there are all those qualifiers in Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Anatomy? Those qualifiers are with regard to information existing on those aspects. The existence of the G-Spot is not proven; it has no documented structure, except for "it's bean-shaped" claims and claims describing it as part of existing structures. We most certainly are not going to WP:Synthesize material to create a structure that is not proven as existing. You are big on going by anatomy books for anatomy articles. Well, no anatomy book (no valid one anyway) details the anatomy of the G-Spot, except for a few mentions that, if it exists, it may be a part of the Skene's gland and/or clitoris. Flyer22 (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
And in what way is it not possible to have such a discussion under a structure heading? CFCF (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I see that a Structure heading is the only listing from Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Anatomy that has the possibility of working for this topic, other than "Function," "Society and culture" and "History." But either way, in this case, it is not a good idea to suggest that there is a structure by having a Structure heading. Furthermore, the vast majority of the discussion about the G-Spot topic is the debate over whether or not the G-Spot is a distinct structure (its existence or non-existence). So, essentially, all of that material could fit under that heading; one heading with a bunch of material under it (does not sound pretty). This discussion should be had at the G-Spot talk page instead of here, regardless. Flyer22 (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The Sword of Shannara[edit]

Article (edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

Suggesting that a GA reassessment be done on Sword of Shannara. Rationale: there has been a lot of water under the bridge since it became GA in 2008, many subsequent edits, and Wikipedia standards for sources and general notability have changed considerably since 2008. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you be willing to point out the unreliable sources present in the article? I mean, now that the unreliable sources you added and one other are now removed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up that text following the Merge! I certainly had no intentionality in adding any unreliable sources; I merely completed a Merge that had been the consensus of a recent AfD (and that source article seems to have had a number of non-WP:RS sources) in it). I have removed that part of my comment above. I have no particular problem with any particular sources that are currently in the article now.
I continue to think that the article should have a GA reassessment six years on, for the other reasons I've stated above. I'll also add one more: it appears that the Plot summary is rather excessively long, per WP:Plot summary. I won't tag the article with {{plot}} however, and will just leave it to other GA reviewers to evaluate the article against all current GA criteria. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey[edit]

Article (edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

This article needs to be GA reassessed due to some of the outstanding issues with this article. It has a {{ref improve}} tag due to the fact that some sections have very few references, and there are citation needed tags interspersed throughout the article. A lot of paragraphs have no sources at all; two sections, "Law Enforcement" and "Bridges and tunnels", are totally unsourced. The lack of references may not be enough to justify delisting of this article from GA, but at this state, the article can be downgraded to B-class or C-class. Epicgenius (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Belarus at the Olympics[edit]

Article (edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

Page was given GA status in 2008, and is highly outdated, with the lead taking a statistic calculated after the 2006 Turin games. The "latest medalists" section contains no rationale for "latest" and has no mention of Winter medals. I added brief summaries for the games which had not been added to the article, and the subsections on each games seems to be a good enough description, although overall the page is falling short of GA status The Almightey Drill (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Zesh Rehman[edit]

Article (edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

This article no longer meets the criteria. There are loads of unreferenced stuffs in addition to a citation needed tag. Also some sections like Pahang FA and Kitchee have become overburdened with unnecessary details. RRD13 (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Speak Good English Movement[edit]

Article (edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

On 23 November 2010, this article was reviewed and passed by Goodmami, as one of his first few (and last) edits. Its lead section is rather short and prose should not contain external links, but the article is certainly salvagable. Hence I would appreciate input on what should be done for this article to meet the GA criteria. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

South Sydney Rabbitohs[edit]

Article (edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

This was promoted to GA last 2007 and survived its reassessment on 2009. Now as I look the article and checked the criteria, it looks like it fails some of them. First we start off to the references, here it says ref no. 3, 6, 21, 38, 32, 30, 29, 31, 33, 52, 27, 8, 77, 12, 15, 49, 50, 54, 69, 42, 51, 34, 1, 28, 41, 10, 72 and more sources are dead links. Second, there were some sections with no references like "2014 Signings/Transfers", "George Piggins Medal" and the "2014 Squad". There is also an empty section in the article, "South Sydney Leagues Club". Third, it doesn't seem neutral to me especially in the "History" section which needs to be copyedited. Overall, there are many issues to be fixed and I opened this discussion to the community to decide whether to keep this GA or not. FairyTailRocks (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

We Don't Need to Whisper[edit]

Article (edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

After promoting this to GA status, I was notified of some further prose issues in the article. I gave it another read-through, and after doing so realized that the prose (and tone especially) is not GA quality, and that I should not have promoted it. I notified the primary author of the extra issues a while back, but the article has not been touched since, and as a result I am bringing this here. Wizardman 16:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Why not simply fix up the prose errors yourself? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I've noted the same problems with the prose. I think that we'll need input from the nominator on this one. The issue appears to be serious and I suggest delisting the article if corrections aren't made in near future.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Sri Aurobindo[edit]

Article (edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

I've done a fair amount of cleaning up of this article, which makes me kind of involved and concerned that an individual reassessment might not be appropriate. It is my opinion that it should never have been listed as a GA because, for example:

  1. Unsourced statements
  2. Misrepresentation of sources
  3. Garbled prose, poor punctuation and spelling
  4. A complete failure to understand WP:CITEVAR, WP:OVERLINK and similar basic guidance
  5. An over-reliance on a primary source, ie: the autobiography of the subject
  6. An over-reliance on non-independent sources, being the Foundation etc that bears the name of the subject
  7. Missing source details - page numbers, publisher etc

Examples of all of the above are visible in edit summaries made by myself and at least one other. I am not sufficiently familiar with New Age philosophy etc to determine whether much of the latter sections are valid and of due weight etc but, generally speaking, this is just a mess. I've done my best to improve it and can do a bit more yet but I doubt very much that I can raise it to GA level. - Sitush (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have gone through the article once and agree to Sitush on the points he has raised. There is much more work to do in this article to make it to a GA level. All the points raised by Sitush are valid and need to be resolved. Logical1004 (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I've just had to do this in the opening section. It's not merely expansion of relevant information (given Aurobindo's future involvement in religion and freedom fighting) but wholescale fixes of incorrect citations and facts. This is so frustrating. - Sitush (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)