Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 36

This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← (Page 37)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 35) →

The Price Is Right (U.S. game show)

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

Result: Delist: Article has been listed at GAR for over a month. Actionable and obvious concerns have been presented, but have not been addressed within requested waiting period or the ca. 3 weeks thereafter. Two editors (nominator and a commenter) have expressed explicit preference for delisting and two others recognize the existence of concerns. No support for retaining GA status has been presented. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC).

This article fails several GA criteria and I honestly do not see how it passed GA the first time. It fails criteria 1 in that it is not very well-written and it has multiple MOS violations. It uses excessive free images that do not add illustrative points to the article, only acting as decoration. This violates criteria 6. The biggest violation, however, is criteria 2, which is that "It is factually accurate and verifiable." This article has huge sections of unsourced material and it is full of fancruft. It also violates criteria 2c in that it contains quite a bit of original research. I do not believe these issues can be fixed quickly, therefore I feel it should be delisted as its GA status is making it a bad example for other game show articles. AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delist due to criteria 1 and 2 concerns. Parts of the article are under-referenced. With some work the article can be brought up to GA standards and re-nominated at GAN. Majoreditor (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Request a week. I was a major contributor to bringing this to GA status when it was fairly crufy and trivia-weighted. I was hoping for reassessment a while ago. I kind of strayed away from this article, allowing others to make some contributions. Unfortunately, it's gaining weight rather than being refined. Delisting would not be the end of the world, but let's re-evaluate in a week for progress.—Twigboy (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Majoreditor (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. A week has passed and changes have been made, but there are still many issues with this article. In addition to the above, the lead does not adequately summarize the article. Even though the article is about the U.S. version of the show and explicitly disambiguates this, I also believe that because this is the original version of the show, not discussing the fact that the show has spawned many successful international versions is a broadness issue. Geometry guy 18:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I took another look at the article. It still has unresolved issues, per Geometry Guy. Majoreditor (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As the initial requester of a reassessment, I also agree many issues remain after the requested week. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wolverine (comics)

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

Result: Procedural close: article was never reviewed. This is a case of confusion; the following is a suspected summary of events: after the nomination, nominator added a section (ca. 5 minutes later) with a title clearly subject to misinterpretation. Passing editor saw “on hold” comment and updated WP:GAN page accordingly (phrasing of “apparently” seems to confirm confusion caused by aforementioned section title). Another editor later failed the nomination, presumably due to "expired" hold. Nominating editor for GAN and GAR has acknowledged “the article wasn't reviewed” and “voted” to “nominate at GAN”. Closing GAR nomination accordingly; article may, of course, by renominated at WP:GAN at nominator's leisure. Suggest article history be treated as if never reviewed (i.e. not a DGA). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 03:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC).

The article wasn't reviewed, and is not broad in its coverage. David Pro (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't see evidence that the article ever passed GA. Majoreditor (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Relist. I think that this article meet the GA criteria in some aspects. David Pro (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Er...we can't re-list an article which never passed.

David, I don't understand your request. The article appears to have been reviewed and failed, although the reviewer's comments are sparce and confusing. Are you asking for a re-evaluation? Your second comment, "is not broad in its coverage", leads me to believe that you agree with the reviewer's decision to fail the article.

Please re-state what you want GAR to do about the article and why. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Question. Somebody thinks that this article must be listed as an GA? David Pro (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Nominate at GAN: If the original GA listing was suspect and the article was never on WP:GA, should it have a 'DGA' tag? As regards quality, I wouldn't have had a problem with upholding the original (albeit flawed) promotion. However, as we've moved past that, GAN would seem to be the sensible place for this. David Pro (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Apple

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

Result: listed as a GA. PeterSymonds | talk 19:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The article has been failed because, according to the reviewer, it has two citation needed tags!!! Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a GA I was the reviewer. This article not only had citation needed tags which I pointed out, but it is very poorly written and needs a copyedit, which I also pointed out. It reads like a jumbled list of not-so-well sourced information. It needs a lot of fixing before reaching GA. That is why I failed it. Wrad (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for taking the time to review the article and vote here.

First,I would say calling the article "poorly-written" is extremely harsh and unjustified. A truly poorly-written article can be found here Special:Newpages.

The article came close to being an FA only several weeks ago, and a previous reviewer said he would have put it on hold because the issues were minor, I am understandably surprised why you would fail it because it has 2 citation needed tags, anyway I am working now to source these 2 statements and remove the tags, although I still believe it is not a reason to fail.

I am also surprised sir, to find you approaching the article with a default fail position evident in your rather defensive message: "It's not well-written. It's not well-referenced...It's not going to pass without some major changes, GAR or no GAR".

Cheers!

Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 16:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You mischaracterized what I said in the review and that is inappropriate here. I was reiterating my old position. What is all this garbage about my "default fail position"? I didn't say this was going to fail no matter what. I said it needed major work and I said what that work was. That's called reviewing the article. I'm dissappointed at your childish "tattle-tale" attitude and would appreciate it if you would at least attempt to characterize me fairly. Thanks. Wrad (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No one is trying to "characterize" you here, and it is not personal. I have come here to see if other editors agree with your fail decision or not, and so far it appears they all agree that putting it on hold might've been better. There is absolutely no need to be defensive nequiquam. I would appreciate if me, or my opinions are not called " garbage" or " childish attitude".

Cheers! :)

Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It is personal when you address me personally, which you did. Just drop this and let's talk about the article. It's pointless to for you to talk about how horrible your GA review was when this page is meant to determine whether the article is a GA or not. Wrad (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, let's drop this, although I believe my remarks were polite, _{-and not rubbish-}.

Thank you

Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 15:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I think this article is close to what is expected of a GA, but it's not quite there. The major issue I see is in the writing. I think calling it a "jumbled list of not-so-well sourced information" is a little on the harsh side, but I do see why that comment was made. There are also more basic errors, such as "The apple tree was perhaps the earliest tree to be cultivated,[7] and their fruits were improved through selection ...". I don't think the work required is all that major, and I'd probably have put the article on hold. Nevertheless the article is certainly in need of a few hours work from a good copyeditor before it can be considerd as a GA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Malleus. Majoreditor (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: One or two 'citation needed' tags should not be a problem at GA (for now, at least - see WP:QFC). I agree with the above comments regarding a copyedit though, but as has been said, the article is almost there. EyeSerene^TALK 21:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the quick-fail criteria... an article has to pass WP:WIAGA, and that means not a single citation needed tag should be in it. They're gone now, fortunately.Narayanese (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment from Reviewer again I got a little extreme in my second comment. It doesn't need major work, but I think my review was more than fair. If there are citation tags, please just fix them before nominating and save us all a headache. No GA should have any tags. Reviewers have every right to fail articles that don't meet the criteria, and this article doesn't. Don't nominate it unless it's ready please. Wrad (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually a GA can have "citation needed" tags, per GA criteria and CITE guidelines, 2.b. says: " at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged" which I think this article clearly satisfies.

Cheers mate!

Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. By definition, if a statement has a citation tag it has been "challenged" and does not meet the criteria unless the citation is added. Wrad (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Added a citation to the first one, removed the second phrase because I found nothing that supports it. Now the article is "Citation need" tags-free!

Cheers!

Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 15:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Good! I'll see what else it needs... Wrad (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate the feedback, and am ready to copyedit any reasonable amount of text you deem in need of rewriting. Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 16:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with the pests and diseases section. The last few sentences are making some pretty bold claims and should probably be referenced. Anytime you're saying something is the "most serious" anything it should probably have a ref. I also don't feel the section gives a good overview of the subject quite yet. I'd prefer a little more about what the pests and diseases are and what they do, followed by a little better description of how growers try to stop them. Basically this would flip the organization a little into more of a "here is the problem, and here is the solution" organization. One specific thing I wished was there is a brief comment after "A trend in orchard management is the use of organic methods." I'm left wondering what these methods are. Maybe just say "such as... " and briefly list two or three. No need to go overboard. Wrad (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point...will work on it, will take probably a maximum of 2 days, anything else? Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 17:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

References added, last sentences either modified, sourced or removed. Examples of pests, insects and fungi were added with sourcing (Although I tried not to turn this into an example farm)... Anything else you noted? Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 18:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Any "OR", "citation needed", "clarification" (and etc.) tag is enough to fail it during any part of the process (GAN, GAR). It's stated clearly on WP:QFC. Keep that in mind next time. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that some would refer to, and even quote policies that not only disagrees with their argument, but actually weaken it, and in this case, refute it. For example; "Presence of any cleanup banners, including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, {{huh}} or similar tags."

Anyway, I would not call 2 {{fact}} tags a large number!! They are no longer there anyway.

Cheers!

Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 20:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think all of the tags are gone now. Majoreditor (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not GA Some of the sources used are of low quality: rawveg.info, solarnavigator.net, vegparadise.com. Narayanese (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that some sources are not exactly "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" but I would not call them low-quality. However, many of the other sources are "high-quality".

It is a bit hard to believe there exists an article where all sources are university peer-reviewed sources.

But thanks nonetheless.

Cheers!

Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 17:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See William Shakespeare and Hamlet, to name just two. University peer reveiwed isn't really a must though, just a publication which has editors to check things over. Lots of publications do that. Wrad (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess there are these kinds of articles, but do you see anything in common? Both are FA's! And I would say that both of the articles above are about topics that are very often researched and published in peer reviewed journals. Anyway, Ward, do you have any other concern which I can address? Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 18:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You could look aroiund in online floras (they are referenced), or search on Google Scholar or PubMed. Be careful with vegetarian and herbalist sources, they can be biased. I think the prose is ok, though the mentions of organic farming are a bit to many. Narayanese (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The article is almost there. My biggest concern is that the "Commerce" section is stubby and incomplete. Majoreditor (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I faced a great difficultly in locating updated information about international apple trade for one simple reason; a company with the same name is apparently more important than the fruit to the point where googling apple trade would yield a report of that company's quarter yearly profits. I will work on it though :) . Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 18:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Some additional thoughts. While the reviewer had legitimate reasons for not passing the article, it has since improved considerably. I think that it now either clearly passes or marginally passes all GA criteria. While there is still room for improvement, it's ready for GA listing. Majoreditor (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Pass for GA I think it's good enough now. Wrad (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Kenwyne Jones

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

Result: Kept as GA per unanimous consensus and conformity to WP:WIAGA. PeterSymonds | talk 06:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe the article is broad in its coverage or well written. Much of the body of the article, particularly the Southampton and Sunderland sections are a list of facts, rather than a biography. Peanut4 (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as GA The key item to remember here is: GA is not FA. Broad in coverage does not equal comprehensiveness, and the article meets the definition of broad by covering the basic arc of the athlete's playing career - which is why he is notable in the first place. I see no lists anywhere in the article. I see a properly verified article written to a GA-class level. VanTucky 03:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as - I believe this article should be kept as a Good Article because it is comprehensive in its own right, it doesn't go into enough detail for FA, but in my opinion is sufficient for GA.  Sunderland06  03:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as GA - its really well-written and though it fails FA , it easily passes GA since its well written, well sourced, well structured and well detailed, I see no problem here...--Cometstyles 04:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This more than meets the GA criteria. It is comprehensive, has a good coverage level, and doesn't spread itself too thin. An impressive piece of work, and one I'm happy with as at GA level. Regards, Anthøny 21:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but work on the prose and check for MoS conformity. Some sections and paragraphs are stubby, and the writing is far from crisp. Despite these issues, the article currently meets GA standards. Majoreditor (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Defaka

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

Result: Delisted by nominator. Geometry guy 09:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is poorly written with so many red links, no photographs and only a couple of references. I feel that it would barely qualify as a Start-class article leave along a GA-nomination-Ravichandar 05:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

On detailed examination, I observe that the article had been earlier nominated for GA but had failed

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Defaka&diff=40724867&oldid=18349763

However, a person new to Wikipedia had removed the tag and replace it with GA tag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Defaka&diff=40727185&oldid=40727052

Hence I dont think it is improper to regard it as an act of vandalism and revert the edit (even without a discussion). I take this initative myself-Ravichandar 06:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Félix Trinidad

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

Result: Not listed. Comments were not addressed; discussion was inert for 15 days. PeterSymonds | talk 09:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I support my talk page comments concerning failing this article, but the page's nominator questions my assessment.User:calbear22 (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done a careful second review of the article, and in general agree with Calbear22 original assessment. In my opinion, the article does not yet meet the good article criteria for paragraphs or lead sections. I've left more detailed comments from this review and suggestions on improvements at the article's talk page.--jwanders^Talk 18:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The article doesn't meet GA standards at this time. In addition to issues raised by other editors I'd like to point out that the lead needs to be re-written. At present it's one massive, dense paragraph. It also doesn't tell us up front the most significant facts about Felix Trinidad. Rather, it serves up information in a chronological fashion. Please refer to WP:LEAD for suggestions on how to structure a good introduction. Majoreditor (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Delist per my comments above. The issues haven't been fixed. Sorry. Majoreditor (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Brisbane

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

Result: Delisted. I've gone ahead and done so as it's not ready yet. I'll work on it! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Aboutmovies (talk · contribs) has noticed a problem with the review of Brisbane. To quote "Should someone review this recently passed article as it was passed by an apparent sock of a banned user?" Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this article should be examined. Given the unusual circumstances GAR seems appropriate. Majoreditor (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

At first blush I'd say that the article is either GA or darn close. I'll take a closer look later. Majoreditor (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Although the article looks good, there is at least one dead link, one bad link and one that times out. Surely these should be fixed before it gets a GA status? --79.68.188.204 (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As an involved editor, I'm fine with a renomination. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Delist Article should never have been passed. There are significant issues:

• The lead is too short, with too many short, choppy sentences, lacking coherence, and not adequately summarizing the article.
• I found at least two images that are not properly tagged with image copyright tags: Image:Brisbane BCEC Exterior.jpg (it's labelled as coming from the Commons, but no copyright tag is present), Image:Riverside Traffic.jpg.

• With the riverside traffic one, I agree, but the BCEC Exterior one quite clearly has a PD tag on it, and has since February? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC).

• The history section is too short, and doesn't really tell the story of the history of the city. It looks more like a collection of interesting and non-interesting tidbits of trivia insert somewhat randomly in the article by multiple editors.
• The geography section is ok, but poorly organized. The image placement should be reexamined to place images at better positions in relation to text in the article that they go with. More information should be added about the overall cityscape and specific neighborhoods, so the section is incomplete.
• The citation for the low/high temps and precipitation data does not go to a specific citation, but only to the main website of the Bureau of Meteorology. The citation should specifically cite where data is coming from. I would also recommend changing the table used to the newer {{Average and record temperatures}}.

•  Done Replaced the citation with a link to the actual page used to source this data. Note that I do not believe the usage of the US-centric (uses farenheit and inches) {{Average and record temperatures}} template would be appropriate for this article, as these measurements are not commonly used in Brisbane. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC).

• The statement, "Per Capita water usage is below 140 litres per day, giving Brisbane the lowest per capita usage of water of any Western city in the world." is not backed up by the information in citation #25.

• I disagree. It shows the target and the current usage level as being under 140. However I'll remove the citation as the data is dynamic and so it could be false at any given time in the future. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 14:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Demographics section is far too short. Incomplete. I would recommend moving culture ahead in the order and education down, so that the order of sections puts demographics right before culture. But demographics still is in need of serious expansion.
• 'Sport' and 'Media' should be moved into their own main sections, not as subsections of culture. The 'sport' section has many short, choppy paragraphs, indicating low quality prose. The section should be rewritten to make the prose flow better.
• No citations in the 'Health' section.

At the present time, I would rate the article at a good, solid B-class, but not GA. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to agree. It's still not a GA - which kind of stuns me, considering how many people put effort into the article. It keeps cropping up for consideration for FA status, which is kind of weird considering it's not even close yet. I'm going to try and put some time into it over the next few weeks and see what can be done about Brisbane's perpetual B-Class status, as one of my first focus points now that I'm back on Wikipedia. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment This is just an observation, and probably not related, but I wonder if the push for getting this article to WP:GA and WP:FA is related to its bid for the Wikimania 2009 conference, which just ended based on the latest Signpost article. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Entirely unrelated and irrelevant. As for the push to get the article to FA, the last time it was a candidate for FA was in 2005! The "push" for GA is part of a proposed featured topic on the capital cities of Australia's states and territories. It is unfortunate that the article was promoted by a banned user but it is not part of any conspiracy. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As the bid leader for Brisbane's Wikimania bid, and a peripheral contributor to this article, I can assure you that the two are disconnected. My interest in this article predates the start of the Brisbane Wikimania bid in January 08. As Mattinbgn has stated, the prime motivator (for me at least) for improving the article was the fact that most of the other Australian capital articles were of a better quality than Brisbane was. Note also that the banned user that passed this through GA was entirely unconnected with our bid. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC).

Red Army

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

Result: Delist: GA sweeps review identified actionable concerns which have been listed on the article talk page and GAR for over a month without apparent remedy. GAR was opened to obtain additional feedback. Three comments at GAR and one on the talk page have agreed with the concerns. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm bringing this article here as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force Sweeps. Having reviewed the article I am unsure if it merits GA status due to the following issues.

• The lead should be tidied and reorganised so that it provides a better and clearer presentation of the article's subject.
• More sourcing is needed, there should be at least one source per paragraphs plus sources on statistics and quotes.
• Some web sources are raw URLs. These should be converted as per WP:CITE to include last access dates and publication information.
• Some book sources lack page numbers. These are required, so that the book matches the information presented.

There may also be others that I missed. I have no prejudice either way, I'm interested in a wider community consenus. My major problem is the degree of sourcing. I would also appreciate a wider view on whether this huge and potential contoversial topic is adequately covered by the article. --Jackyd101 (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I agree, the lead is weak, and the references should be formatted consistently. There doesn't need to be one inline citation per paragraph: inline citations should be provided where they are needed per WP:WIAGA, not as a matter of routine. One example is "Although this sometimes resulted in inefficient command, the Party leadership considered political control over the military necessary, as the Army relied more and more on experienced officers from the pre-revolutionary Tsarist period." This appears to be uncited, despite the fact it states opinion which could be challenged. Geometry guy 21:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The introduction needs some work, and the "End Of The Soviet Union" section as well needs a little tidying up.--English836 (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• A fair bit of work is needed, as noted above, on lead and references and other things. Since nobody has taken any action here (from what I can see), would anyone object to a close? If so, I suggest a delist. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hulk (comics)

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

Result: No action: Article is already functionally delisted (not listed on WP:GA and talk page status is DGA) to no ill-effect. Although delisting appears to have been brought about by frayed nerves and/or misunderstandings, several comments have noted weaknesses. As closer, I would add that several sections contain only a sentence or two (WP:SS and GA criterion 1), several sources are of questionable reliability (WP:V/WP:RS and GA criterion 2B) and several images either lack FUR or appear to fail WP:NFCC (GA criterion 6A). Current status as DGA appears appropriate. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This article has undergone some problems. It was listed, apparently wrongly, and the primary author delisted it. However, another editor disagreed that the article had been delisted, causing some problems. I nominate it now to get a clear consensus from other editors, thus avoiding any confusion/unnecessary revertion. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 20:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No review is needed. An admin feels that the article was improperly passed and listed. As such, it has been delisted. This is an open and shut case. Do not waste reviewer time with this case.ThuranX (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Primary author of this article, ThuranX, should refrain from listing/delisting this article due to WP:COI. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Question and comment. Does anyone contest the de-listing? If so, please step forward and tell us why you think the article should still be listed as GA-class. Majoreditor (talk) 03:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I can't comment on whether or not the article actually qualifies as a GA-class article (whether it does now or ever did, I don't know), but I will say that the de-listing seems to have been done in bad faith because ThuranX is angry at an administrator, DavidFuchs, who does not believe it should be rated GA and has rewritten large sections of the article since the GA-class was awarded. All of this, plus recent chatter on the article's talk page, should be kept in mind. BOZ (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's gotten even uglier than before on Hulk's talk page, and the article has taken some interesting turns. Did someone explode a gamma bomb?

I'm going to let things calm down for a few days before re-examining the article. Majoreditor (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Your involvement is unneeded, Majoreditor. There is no need for a reassessment, as I keep saying. You will all be wasting your time. The article is a pile of steaming dogshit, don't you understand? Only David Fuchs can fix it. He will fix it, and then will re-award it GA Status, and then FA Status. Do you really think he needs your consensus for this? He's David Fuchs! He can circumvent our core policies! He's David Fuchs! He doesn't have to follow rules! He's David Fuchs! The new messiah of Wikipedia, here to save us all from hard work and consensus based GA reviews that pass but never should have! ALL HAIL DAVID FUCHS! ThuranX (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the 2nd time you call an editor interrupting or their involvement is not needed. We don't allow such type of comments on Wikipedia. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Ohana, you silly person. That was the OLD Wikipedia, where rules existed. Now, David Fuchs can create new consensus simply by ignoring the old consensus and attacking others. Under his new consensus, the article never passed, it simply suffered a bureaucratic error. For more on this idea, please read Wikiality, an article about the style of non-reality based editing that David Fuchs prefers. And I reiiterate, this article doesn't need it. Further, David Fuchs has now stated that he's no longer interested int he article. I guess destroying it by demanding it be unlisted, then walking away, is how you get to arbcom these days. ThuranX (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I am not David Fuchs's biggest fan, but I find it hard to see how attacking him might help in this GAR, let's keep this civil folks! :) Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 16:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but we don't need to use WP:CIVIL. That's the old Wikipedia. See, I tried CIVIL, I got incivility back, and I found that administrators supported the use of incivility. clearly, this indicates that CIVIL is an outdated policy. There was consensus taht this article was a Good Article, but he revoked that with unilateral editing against consensus, and persisted in acting as though he had instituted a new consensus. This too, was supported by other admins, because no one spoke out against it. Silence is acceptance. So although the article only grew in consensus based, improving ways, although David Fuchs never materialized a list of specific issues, beyond the attitude that he can save the article from the regular editors, and that the lead was weak. I offered consensus building discussion, and he opted for unilaterality.

The article has not changed significantly from the GA version which passed and then failed per unilateral Admin action. As such, I feel there's nothing wrong with pointing out his actions in the bluntest, most blatant methods available. If unilateralism works for him, it works for me. ThuranX (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

David Fuchs has failed to present any actual objectiosn to the article for a week. At this point, I ask for reinstatement of the consensus, which was that it met GA status. IT seems his desire to stand on dictatorial fiat has cooled, and without actual objections, and collaboration between other editors going on, the article should be restored, so it can pursue FA. ThuranX (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Putting the debate aside, I for one don't feel this article meets GA standards (I remember seeing it at GAC and thinking to myself, "That one's going to fail the nom"). Stubby sections, citation request tags present, few secondary sources, heavy on story minutae, and lots of bad prose. ThuranX is currently working to improve the article, but it's got a long way to go. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The article has great potential and is approaching GA standards, thanks to the editors' hard work. However, there are some issues which currently keep it from achieving GA recognition. The most significant are the several citation request tags. Additionally, the prose need work; for example, the article overuses the passive voice. And perhaps the editors could combine the final three stubby sections to avoid MoS concerns. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Can't say I'm happy with this. Busted my ass like mad the first time, got consensus and so on, had an admin delist this, now have to do it all again. Anyways, the biggest question so far is on whether or not to split the majority of the article into an in-universe plot summary and then a list of versions of the hulk, or to leave the unified version there. A split would be to go back ot the way the article was before my rewrite, which is what prompted the rewrite to begin with. If that's the goal, then I'd like to know now, so I can spend my time on other articles. it's under discussion at the talk page, but since the review here is what matters to GA, I want to get thoughts here as well. ThuranX (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I lean toward not splitting the article. Majoreditor (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for a split. What needs to be done is to clean up the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing an article split; I was saying that IF we go to the manner some are proposing, we seriously may as well restore my pre-revision version, which had a lot of what people are asking for to make it GA, but had about zero real world content. ThuranX (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Natural family planning

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

Result: Endorse fail. See the comments below for some suggestions for improving the article. Geometry guy 19:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't normally start GARs myself, but there appears to be a need in this case: see this discussion. I would urge editors not to rehash talk page arguments and arguments on the WikiProject Good articles page. A reassessment usually works better once the initial frustrations have died down a little. Geometry guy 20:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As i was the original reviewer do i have to be a part of this? Realist2 (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not essential. Geometry guy 06:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The article had enough MoS issues to warrant failure. Stubby sections and paragraphs, overreliance on list-like bulletpoints ... I could go on, but you get the point. I lean toward endorsing the fail and suggest that the article's editors work to address concerns before considering re-nomination. Hopefully the involved parties -- reviewers included -- can learn from this GAN experience and move forward. Majoreditor (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse fail. Take a look at the article, and you'll see many small, undeveloped sections, unreferenced statements, and long lists. The aricle really doesn't need to be reassessed, unless you want to emphasise the fail. Noble Story (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Before you fail it i would like to add my concerns if i may. Seeming as my reputation was on the line even though i consulted another reviewer on this whole issue who agreed with me, i feel like the bad guy. Realist2 (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to feel like the bad guy. You acted in good faith with the aim of improving the encyclopedia. The purpose of this GAR is not to apportion blame, but to determine whether or not the article meets the good article criteria at the moment. All we can determine here is whether the outcome of the GAN was reasonable (the outcome was not to list the article as GA); the process by which this outcome was reached and the conduct of editors involved is not part of the GAR remit. Geometry guy 18:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

OK i think i understand, as long as this isnt going to reflect badly on me ill stay out, but i fully intend to defend my actions if needs be. I will leave it to you guys then. I honestly hope you have more luck than we did. Cheers. ;-) Realist2 (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse fail. This is not GA standard at the moment, and is sufficiently far from the standard that a straight fail of the nomination would have been entirely reasonable. It does deserve a review, however, and the review process got side-tracked by arguments about stability and ownership. As I started this GAR, I will provide a fairly thorough review now.
  1. The prose is poor and there are MoS issues. I attempted to fix some of the problems, including spelling and grammar errors, wikilinking, dashes, and weak prose. There is much more to do. I'm not sure I've sorted out the confusion between "systems" and "symptoms", and there is lots of weak prose, such as "...which NFP users make use of to either try to avoid or to achieve pregnancy." The lead is inadequate as a summary of the article, and the article doesn't meet the criteria for embedded lists. As Majoreditor points out, the sections and paragraphs are stubby, and many of the sentences are too; the article reads badly. For example "When taught in the context of Catholicism, this church teaches that orgasmic acts outside of intercourse, such as consummated masturbation and oral sex, are morally incompatible with the correct practice of NFP. Some couples are not comfortable with this restriction. Periodic abstinence also limits spontaneous sex."
  2. Many controversial statements are inadequately cited (the above being one). The article has plenty of good references, but they are not deployed very effectively. No less than four sources support the statement that "More commonly, Catholic sources extol the benefits children bring to their parents, their siblings, and society in general, and encourage couples to have as many children as their circumstances make practical." On the other hand the section on Lactational amenorrhea is completely unsourced.
  3. The article fails to be broad and is confused in its focus. I am stunned that there is no non-Christian commentary on NFP, particularly in view of the sentence encouraging couples to have as many children as possible. I am sure there is plenty of material asserting the irresponsibility of this attitude given world population growth. The confusion about the focus was an issue raised the GAN review discussion, and I agree with the concern. The article begins with a hatnote to say that it is about NFP as described by the Catholic Church, but only the "Theology" section comes close to maintaining this focus. The rest of the article discusses natural birth control techniques with or without reference to doctrine as it sees fit.
  4. This brings up the issue of neutrality. If the hatnote is not limiting the scope of the article, what is it doing? Well, the article is certainly lacking in secular approaches to natural birth control. It mixes prohibitions against any orgasm outside of intercourse with the questions about whether NFP allows for more spontaneous sex, without even mentioning the implicit contradiction there.
  5. Stability was raised as an issue during the GA review. I think it is unfortunate that this was a major focus, as there is so much else wrong with the article. The problems above may be a consequence of instability and ownership issues, but I have not studied the article history carefully enough to have an opinion on this.
  6. The only image in the article is very good: it adds significant insight into what is involved in adopting one of the systems for NFP. The image has been nominated for deletion, but it is a clear "keep". I'm somewhat less happy with the Infobox, which is obscure to new readers. There needs to be a link somewhere which explains what the template is about, as in {{Birth control methods}}. It is interesting that the article does not use the latter template, and distances NFP from other birth control method. I think that summarizes some of the problems which the article has.

Possibly it was unnecessary to have a GAR on this, and if the interested parties agree, I'd be happy if it were closed sooner rather than later. I do detect, however, an old misperception that articles should be GAs if they have lots of references to reliable sources, and not otherwise. References serve a purpose, and it is that purpose which matters, not the references themselves. Geometry guy 20:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed aside from my concern about stability, depth was the other issue, apparently this habit only occures within the catholic community (something i always found hard to believe). I found byself asking.

• When was it endorse/how?
• Who else endorses is?
• Who else uses it?
• If only catholics use it why doesnt the article make that crystal clear?

The article leaves you with more questions than answers something insiders dont seem to grasp, the article isnt for catholics who know everything about it, it is for outsiders to learn. Realist2 (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to thank everyone for participating in analyzing the article; certainly the advice will be a great help in moving forward with improving the article. One of the main concerns numerous people have had is the scope of the article. The disambiguation statement at the top and the lead make it clear that the article covers the method of family planning observed by the Roman Catholic Church.
  I see the article as covering a very specific topic: the type of family planning approved by the RCC. It's not a POV fork of fertility awareness, but rather a discussion of a more specific topic. With regards to the controversial statements: there are some statements in there that warrant sourcing, but I feel there is a distinction between a controversial statement and stating someone else's controversial statement. (No doubt the Catholic Church's statements are controversial in the modern world, but multiple sources don't seem necessary.) Nonetheless, I will do my best to double-source material that is objected to; it really won't be hard to find multiple sources for the teachings of the Catholic Church.
  I think it's important to include dissident views, but the views that I've found have been mostly split into Catholic and non-Catholic: e.g. I don't know how the Hindu faith views NFP. I feel like those specific are topics best suited for another article, such as religious views on birth control. Given this, do the reviewers still feel there are scope issues? If so, how would those best be addressed in light of the fact that this is an article about a Catholic topic?
  As for the prose itself, I'll do my best to work on the problems presented. Is it possible to put this article on hold again, while we take the time to work out the kinks in it? - Chardish (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a big advocate of using GA Hold to resolve minor issues with articles. However, this article needs a bit more than minor adjustments. I'd suggest taking time to address the issues Geometry Guy raised, work out differences, and then re-nominate. It will be a lot less stressful if you're not working under time constraints. Just a thought. Majoreditor (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That could be the best thing to do if multiple people feel the article is very far from GA status. It also depends on how many editors would be willing to work to improve the article. Would you care to respond to the questions I have above re: scope? Since that's an issue multiple reviewers have, it would be good to get clarification, especially since multiple editors of the article disagree with that criticism. - Chardish (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The question of scope depends in part on whether "Natural family planning" is a uniquely Catholic term. I don't know the answer - the article doesn't discuss that topic. Majoreditor (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's somewhat telling from these two Google search queries that NFP is intrinsically linked to Catholicism: [1] [2] So we have roughly 40% of all web pages on a specific family planning method mentioning a specific denomination of a religion in the same page...this seems like far, far higher than coincidence. - Chardish (talk) 06:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Im sure other groups use the the technique even if they dont specifically call it "Natural family planning". Realist2 (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

When I first started looking at the article the edit history worried me, the vandalism, pov pushing etc, i had seen it somewhere before. I remembered then, oh yes ive seen this on the Michael Jackson page. The page was semi protected, but it didnt help, with controvesial issues like that their was always going to be a problem. So I thought long and hard about how i could minimise bad edits. What i began to realise was that when it came to controversial issues, even if it was sourced, unless the source was there right in front of them, they would always start messing around. So I sourced every other line, TWICE. I only see half as much vandalism now, sad iditors realise that if something is sourced enough they will only be reverted so they dont bother. When I advised you to multi source everything, i was doing it to cut down on the bad edit history. A stable article that is over sourced is better than an unstable article.Realist2 (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If and I repeat if you can resolve these issues within a set number of days 7-14, i do not object but encourage it going back on hold. I question is wether or not its possible. Realist2 (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Concerning scope, it is completely fine that the article is about the Catholic conception (forgive the pun) of natural family planning. It declares as much in the hatnote, and there is already an article on the wider usage of natural birth control methods. However, once that declaration is made, the article must stick to its guns: an article on Catholic NFP is primarily about theology, sociology and practice, not science. At the moment the article handles the theology quite well, starts to lose focus when it discusses the practice of Catholic NFP, and is rather weak on the sociology of Catholic NFP. Geometry guy 09:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Mystic Quest

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

Result: Keep. Article has been fixed and consensus has been reached. Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 17:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC).

The article fails Good Article criterion 2 as more than half of its content is unsourced (namely the Gameplay and Plot sections). FightingStreet (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a good point, although there is some precedent; The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker does not cite any sources in its Plot or Gameplay sections. —Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• CommentKeep The source for the Plot and Gameplay section are implicitly the game itself. But it would be nice with a source, as well as a country and date (US at launch?) for the statement the game was marketed towards a younger demographic, the game sold for the bargain price of US$39.99. Narayanese (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Done - found and added a source for that statement. The source used contains plenty of information if anyone is interested. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - It should be possible to clear this up through referencing an appropriate game guide or similar, or the manual's original guide. The article mentions that one was included with the game - it may be possible to locate and source. Alternatively, the review articles already referenced will probably help with some of the sections. Gazimoff (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Manuals can be found on sites like replacementdocs.com --Mika1h (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I'll get on it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I added ten inline-citations, and trimmed out some stuff that couldn't be referenced. How's it look now? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note that the nominator, User:FightingStreet, has retired. PeterSymonds | talk 09:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Maintain GA status. General practice is to cite gameplay and plot to the game itself, or to game guides. It appears that Judgesurreal777 has done a good job of doing so, and it doesn't appear as if there are other significant issues. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Could somebody close this? Concerns have now been addressed, does anyone use this page anymore? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Black Tide

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

Result: Being renominated at GAN (see also [3]). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I am submitting this because the original review was kind of screwed up. A user who was unexperienced with music articles originally reviewed the article and it did not roll over very well. I resubnitted it for GAN afterwards; however, withdrew the nom because Red Phoenix led me here. Thanks, Burningclean _[speak] 01:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, look at this for the GA fail and debate. Burningclean _[speak] 01:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think your best bet is just to go back to GAN and get a review, unless someone here wants to give one. It's close, but not completely GA yet (ie. it'd go on hold). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Martin Luther King, Jr.

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

Result: Incorrect listing; nominator was looking for WP:GAN EyeSerene^talk 17:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I find this article to be one of considerable notability and very well written. I therefore seek a reassessment of the previous delisting. THE KC (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC).

• Comment: I can find no evidence that this article was ever a Good Article, although it did fail a review back in January 2006 (according to the Article History). Obviously, if it was never listed, it can't have been delisted. It's possible that you meant to request a fresh assessment, but because it has been such a long time since its GA review, this page is not really the appropriate place to challenge that outcome. Instead, Martin Luther King, Jr. should be listed at WP:GAN so it can be reviewed under a completely new nomination. If I've misunderstood, or you need help with this, please let us know! EyeSerene^talk 20:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright then, sorry, article was mislabeled. THE KC (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC).

No problem! Like I said, if you want a hand with the nomination, drop me a note. EyeSerene^talk 11:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, based on a one-minute review, I think the article is underlinked and poorly cited. It is not up to standard for a person of this importance who is easily sourced.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it's unlikely to pass in its current form. See WP:WIAGA (item 2b). EyeSerene^talk 09:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Culture of Thiruvananthapuram

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

Result: This is not what GAR is for. Geometry guy 20:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't know whether this can be called as a A-class article or no?Kensplanet (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a question for Wikiproject India, perhaps for its Kerala workgroup. We only reassess Good Articles here. Majoreditor (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The article class has to be determined by the respective workgroups; not under the GAR. -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me..)} 10:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Indonesian occupation of East Timor

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

Result: No action. The article has improved significantly, and there is no consensus to delist. Geometry guy 12:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fails WP:GAC number 4 It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, this article does not met this requirement, and is not likely to met it via a single bold edit. Also fails point three in that stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style). there is more content on the invasion mostly NPOV and none which is part of the main article about the invasion Indonesian invasion of East Timor as its not relevant. Statements like;

• A significant trading partner with Indonesia, Canada has invested billions of dollars in Indonesian mining infrastructure
• Japan provided hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to Indonesia during the 1990s

These type statements have next to nothing to do with the occupation of East Timor, even less to with the invasion in 1975. besdies these two there a similar statements about Australia, UK, US. Additional to this subsections of the Invasion are title US Involvement, Australian Involvement neither country was involved with the invasion that was Indonesia alone. Gnangarra 13:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• The political and commercial context, which is what this discusses, is entirely relevant. I did not read "US involvement" and "Australian involvement" as accusations of complicity, incidentally, simply convenient shorthand for a summary of their respective diplomatic positions. Would changing the headings to "[Country] stance" or "[Country] diplomatic position" etc satisfy your objections? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Involvement as define by wiktionary is the state of being involved, thus the titling is saying that US, Australia and other countries were involved in the occupation of East Timor. I say more "[Country] response" then explain the relevance of the response to the event. Gnangarra 15:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps it does but that's a rather simplistic definition. The Shorter Oxford gives several meanings, including "entanglement" or a "confused or complicated state of affairs". However, your proposal of "response" is much better as is your idea of specifically contextualising each section :)--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the offending references to Canadian and Japanese non-military relations with Indonesia. (Although I feel they're relevant, I'm willing to negotiate for the sake of NPOV matters.) I've also rearranged the discussion of international involvement to after the Santa Cruz massacre. Hopefully this will alleviate concerns of POV prose. – Scartol • Tok 15:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither Australia or The United States of America where involved in the invasion or occupation of East Timor. Arms sales to Indonesia by UK, Trade with Canada is still there, Even the article Title is NPOV. Statements like ...Many accepted media stories blaming the supervising United Nations and Australia... at best its a weasel, why only accepted stories are there other stories that dispute this. Gnangarra 00:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• The article doesn't say that they were involved in the invasion or occupation. What it says is that they continued to support the regime. That doesn't seem to me to be POV. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Further Issues the template East Timor History has

Portuguese Timor (1515–1975)

Indonesian invasion (1975)

Indonesian occupation (1975 - 1999)

Vote for independence (1999)

Why is have Portuguese Timor(werent they also occupying) and Indonesian Occupation, the article should be at Indonesian East Timor. Gnangarra 00:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't understand this point. Could you clarify it please?--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Article content says ...In 1978 Indonesia purchased eight BAE Hawk jets, which were used during the "encirclement and annihilation" campaign. Britain sold dozens of additional jets to Indonesia in the 1990s image caption says Britain sold dozens of BAE Hawk jets to Indonesia during the occupation, some of which were used in the "encirclement and annihilation" campaign. this is reflective of the POV tone of the article and the use of poor wording to admonish countries that didnt oppose Indonesia' action. Gnangarra 01:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Why is this POV? Surely, it's a matter of fact? Either the aircraft were used in the campaign or they weren't. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Accusing the editors of this article of "using poor wording to admonish countries that didn't oppose Indonesia" is scarcely NPOV and hardly assuming good faith .... --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• the article says Indonesia purchased eight BAE Hawk jets the image caption say Britain sold dozens of BAE Hawk please explain how 8 can be written as dozens, implying multiple lots of 12 even taking the smallest 2 lots of 12 thus 24 is 3 times the actual number used in the article text, is neutral commentary. Gnangarra 07:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• What's wrong with the statements? The eight in 1978 were clearly part of the dozens sold overall. (See this BBC article for further info.) Why is this POV? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Firstly that reference says the contract was sign in the 1980's not 1978. Secondly it was a political issue asking why the planes were being sold to Indonesia given the event in East Timor in 1999. Next how does the UK selling planes to Indonesia have anything to do with the occupation of East Timor. From the sources, the eight planes weren't sold to Indonesia in 1978 it was later in the 1980's, this raises the question which ever date is used how they can used as part of a campaign that occurred in 1977.
  The issue with WP:NPOV is from the section WP:YESPOV that says It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. This article fails to do that Gnangarra 14:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delist, with great regret. This is a competently crafted, detail-laden article. However, there are entire sections which fail to present one iota of the Indonesian perspective. The section "UN response and international law" is an example. There's no material in it supporting the Indonesian case. I find it hard to believe that there aren't RS which present a counter-argument. In its current form the article isn't NPOV due to such omissions. Please don't interpret my comments as supportive of what Indonesia did in East Timor. Just understand that a broad, balanced article should include a tad bit more on the Indonesian government's avowed reasons for its actions. Majoreditor (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• comment we should only be editing in a neutral point of view and that discussions on article content just that. There should be no need to make such statements to have your opinion considered. Gnangarra 04:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed, but we are all human and neutrality is exceedingly difficult to achieve. I appreciated Majoreditor's honesty. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:YESPOV is descriptive of the current article. Gnangarra 04:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

So what specific balancing points need to be incorporated into the article to fix it? What should they say and where should they go? And can you help with supplying appropriate reliable sources? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose de-listing. This well-written well-researched article can easily have extra material added to report Indonesia's view point though identifying precisely which bits need balancing is another matter. For example, does each well-sourced statement of atrocity require a balancing denial or justification? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not necessary for each point to have an opposing counterpoint. However, the article needs further coverage of the Indonesian viewpoint. As it currently stands the reader is presented with scant information on the Indonesian political, military and legal reckoning for its actions. The article won't require much additional material to acheive this end. The best way to sort out specifics will be through the article's talk page. Majoreditor (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much my feelings as well :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

mine too, to have an Indonesian position/explanation/justification for every event would give undue weight, but that also doesnt mean that the information should be excluded. My issue is with the way other countries are presented as being participants in the invasion/occupation, and the relevance of Indonesian trade during the period. This IMHO comes from the sources being used who were playing on particular political POVs and scandals to sell the books, and in some cases bring the publics attention to events in the country. Gnangarra 15:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Indonesian trade is a POV-construct. I see from The Times digital archive that this was raised in the British press at the time. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) As many of the perceived POV issues have been addressed, is it still appropriate to re-assess the GA status of this well-researched, well-written and well-scrutinised article? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Mot all of the POV issues have been addressed, The article still has many issues, but I ceased listing to enable the editors to address those already made, there is still a lack of balance to the article content. Gnangarra 14:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to take a second look at the article in a few days. Majoreditor (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Much of this article is GA standard or arguably higher - certainly outstanding effort has been put into it. But there are still issues in terms of POV, its focus and extent coverage, in fact all three are related and can be fixed together. I've been addressing some of these and will continue to do so. On balance, it is my opinion that theoretically it should be delisted, but I would rather devote my energies to fixing the problems as I see them, rather than debating whether it's a GA or not. I won't be on wikipedia until maybe Thursday though. --Merbabu (talk) 01:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. One of my favourite NPOV principles is that in a neutrally written article, it should be impossible to tell what the point of view of the editors is. This is extremely difficult to achieve in an article such as this, where most editors are naturally sympathetic to the plight suffered by East Timor, and are hostile to the breaches of human rights that occurred under Suharto. The solution, in my view, is to let the facts speak for themselves, and describe them in cool encyclopedic language. I agree with previous comments that this article is extremely good, and in many ways ready for FAC, but I think it needs a rewrite for encyclopedic tone. Also, and I think this is related, the prose style needs some work.

This is already apparent in the lead. Long noun phrases are not good encyclopedic style, and the second and third sentences both feature them: "Condemned by numerous resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council, the occupation..." and "A Portuguese colony for hundreds of years, East Timor..." The problem is that these phrases are hard to digest, and they suggest connections without making them explicit. At best this produces difficult prose, at worst it results in leading sentences. I recommend a thorough copyedit. Geometry guy 21:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There's some citation request tags which have appeared in the article. Majoreditor (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The White Stripes

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

Result: Delisted. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am submitting this on behalf of WP:ALM. Indopug originally submitted it but he got confused and asked me for help. It is a pretty choppy and unsourced article throughout. I've never edited it; however, I belive it should be delisted. Thanks, Burningclean _[speak] 01:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delist as a member of WP:ALM. Poorly-written and sourced. Needs a dedicated, interested editor to bring it up to GA standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WesleyDodds (talk • contribs)
• Delist Not as nominator, but as inocent bystander that seems to have been hit by a car apon looking at the GA. Burningclean _[speak] 03:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delist Yeah, almost the entire article needs rewriting; stubby paragraphs, incomprehensive material, lots of cruft and trivia, and poor referencing. I'm nominating this, BTW, and asked Burning for help. Thanks, Burning... indopug (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. The article needs rework, per above comments. Majoreditor (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Boys in the Sand

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

Result: Promote After more than a month at GAR, the article has received one opposition and one support !vote. Reviewer has offered helpful comments, most of which have been positively addressed by the nominator. Remaining issues noted in the review and by opposer, however, do not appear supported by the good article criteria. Analysis of this article against the GA criteria is as follows: (1) Article prose is clear and grammatically correct; (2) Reliable references and accompanying citations are provided (policy does not establish a "too few references" threshold; article has, among others, seven book references. Books are generally interpreted as preferable to web sources. There is no apparent OR; (3) Article covers production, plot, reception and release/sequel. This appears to adequately satisfy the criterion of being broad (note that GA does not require comprehensiveness: e.g. there is no cast section requirement (cast information is present in the infobox); (4) neutrality is not disputed (5) stability is not disputed; (6) GA does not require images. One image has been provided to facilitate identification. Additional images would be fair use and, therefore, subject to the high threshold of inclusion established by NFCC. Additionally, images - especially from a film of this genre - do not appear necessary to facilitate understanding. Miscellaneous requests, such as more external links, are not supported or even contradicted by guidelines/policy. Article appears to meet GA criteria. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If I am reading the assessment correctly, the alleged issues with the article are 1) it is "too short"; 2) it "lacks details about much of anything outside the film's storyline"; 3) it has too few sources. There is no minimum length requirement for GA articles, so "too short" is not a reason to fail the article. The article has details of the filmmaker's inspiration, casting, shooting location and dates, budget, the replacement of a cast member, premiere, promotional campaign, profits, public response, critical response, cultural impact, impact on its star and his career, sequel and DVD release. Repeated requests for feedback on what additional details are supposedly needed garnered no response. The article has 27 notes from 15 different sources, which seems sufficient to address any fears that someone some day might question the article's neutrality. Otto4711 (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: As the one who technically failed it, I agree that the article has good points, but needs fixing. First of all, there is no Cast section, which would be greatly appreciated. Second, there should only be references to the sequel in the sequel section, it is useless to put in the infobox if there's no article on it. Also, the headings could be more centered, such as "Release" and "Reception". Third, he article could use more internet references, spcifcally for production and reception issues. Lastly, the film could use more external links, this would serve better closure than just one link. If these things are fixed, the article could reach GA status. Limetolime (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I have to say that I don't understand this comment at all. The entire cast of four is listed in the infobox and all of the cast members are mentioned by name in the plot summary. None of them have character names (the film has no dialogue). A separate cast section seems unnecessary. Of course if that were the only thing standing between this and GA then add it, but is it really needed? Is having the sequel mentioned in the infobox really an issue? Because I have no objection to its being removed. I don't know what "could use more internet references" means. I would also be interested in what external links you would suggest and what GA criterion the lack of external links falls under. Otto4711 (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: The article needs an expanded discussion of the historical context of the film within the porno industry. You have cited more sources, but you have not added much narrative text into the article to dicuss this. You should summarize or quote sources that assess the film's place in the history of porn. As I suggested before, perhaps some more general Wikipedia articles on the porno industry would contain all the history and references that you need to cobble together a good paragraph that gives a historical and literary context for the film. Right now you have a "production" section and a critical reception section. It seems to me that there should also be an analysis section about the historical context of the film and where the film's themes and techniques fit into that historical context. Since I looked before, the discussion of the interracial controversy issue in Part III has been deleted, which I though was very interesting. If this was historically important, a discussion of the context of that should be included, and it should be in the background or an analysis section rather than in the plot section. Also, some of the info in the Plot summary in part I is still analytical/historical and should go in the history or analysis section. The article needs more illustrations. Or if the controversy at the time of the release of the film resulted in news images, there might be a historically important fair use image. There must me illustrations in some of the sources you cite. Perhaps one of the authors would give you permission to use an image under the GDFL license. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• The sourcing does not appear to exist regarding the interracial issue, which is why I removed it per WP:OR. I know that such pairings were controversial, but absent sourcing that discusses it the information should not be included in the article. What specific information do you believe should be moved from the plot section to another section? Honestly, I think that the insistence on a "historical context" section may be asking more of the article than GA standards require. As far as illustrations go, I have to point out again that the GA criteria do not require a minimum number of images. Otto4711 (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - About Boys in the Sand and the history of porn - that's perhaps an issue of how broad a GA should be? I'd like to see some sourcing about "Suddenly, out in the water, in a filmic moment that would become iconic..." - that it really did become iconic, and isn't hyperbole. -Malkinann (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• The Edmonson book includes the line "In that moment Cal Culver as Casey Donovan achieved a kind of immortality." (p. 76) Would you consider that sufficient reference for the iconic statement? If not do you have a suggestion on how to re-word it to tone it down? Re the broadness issue, I did in response to the concern about the film's place in porn history add a sourced comment about its contributing to porno chic along with a link to the article. There's this interview with the director of Inside Deep Throat in which he calls BITS "very much a precursor" to Deep Throat. This source includes regarding the film "in years to come gay porn historians would rhapsodise about the 10-minute sequence in which Donovan walks to the mailbox, posts a letter, and then plays with his dog. 'As if Bo Widerberg and Ken Russell got together to make an honest hardcore homo flick', gushed one critic." Is this enough stuff to cobble together in a small section to get past this issue? Otto4711 (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have now added, in an effort to create a "place in porn history" section, the following: The film's mainstream popularity helped usher in the era of "porno chic,"[13] a brief period of mainstream cultural acceptability afforded hardcore pornographic film, having been cited as "very much a precursor" to the following year's crossover success of Deep Throat.[16][17] The film would continue to attract critical and scholarly attention from pornography historians and researchers for years after its release.[18] The film is credited with beginning the trend of giving pornographic films titles that spoof the names of non-porn films.[3] Otto4711 (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That is certainly helpful. I have removed my opposition the reassessment, although I still have trouble believing that the article is comprehensive: given all the references available for it, I would think that there is more to say. I also imagine you could get permission to use an image from one of your sources if you tried. As for the word "iconic", I suggest quoting the reference instead of generalizing. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• GA standard isn't "comprehensive." It's "broad." As for "iconic," I'm just taking out the sentence since it's so problematic. But thanks for removing your objection. Otto4711 (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So in the past reviews, issues that have been brought up are tone, clarity, reference formatting, not covering enough of the scholarship (Poole's biography), not enough real-world info (more than just a plotline). I believe most of these issues have been addressed, although Poole's biography, if it's believed it would be useful, might be referenced in a Further reading section, which "See also" seems to cover at present? -Malkinann (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Good suggestion. I have added his book to the see also section. Otto4711 (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Support GA status. I have read the article and the comments, and I think the editor did an outstanding job to come up with the sources he did, despite the notability (notoriety) of the film. People generally didn't want to be quoted concerning gay porno films in those days. - Dan (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Pat the Bunny

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

Result: Delist: Article was delisted in good faith by nominator at time of nomination; GAR process was not needed. Article has several obvious deficiencies including, among others, failure to adequately describe topic (noted by nominator), questionable sources (e.g. commercial sites to support non-trivial information/data), questionable broadness (much more could be touched upon when discussing a "perennial best-seller" published almost 70 years ago), etc. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 23:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm de-listing this article, as I don't think it passes criterion 3 (breadth) of the Good Article criteria. I realize it may be difficult to write a substantial article about a book of this kind, but there must be more to say about something that has sold so consistently for so long. If nothing else, I find myself unable even to visualize the book itself. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Gee. De-listing Pat the Bunny is like shooting Bambi's mother.

Sadly enough, I must agree that the article comes up short for criterion 3. Additionally, the lead discusses material which doesn't appear in the body of the article. Majoreditor (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Delist and recommend speedy close. Majoreditor (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Effects of Hurricane Dennis in Florida

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

Result: List: Article's GA status has been endorsed. Peer review may be an appropiate venue in which to seek additional feedback. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 23:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like another review of the article. It was never properly nominated, and the user who did a quick copyedit of the article listed it as a GA. I have no comment on whether it should stay or not. I'd just like a proper review. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I didn't do a quick copyedit - Actually I carefully did look over the article, and it meets all criteria. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, sorry. Well, I'd still like another look. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse pass: I have no problems with Milk's Favorite Cookie listing this as a GA. It's well-sourced and cited (apart from the lead, but these claims are backed up and cited in article body), the prose is generally good, it follows the MoS as far as GA criteria are concerned, is well wikilinked, NPOV, covers its subject, and has no apparent copyright issues. The only (very) minor points I noticed was the position of "Hurricane Dennis 2005 damage.jpg", which should not be really left-aligned under a level 2 heading, and the inconsistency and formatting in some of the times given ("UTC" is both in parentheses and not, and a colon should separate hours and minutes - see WP:MOSTIME). Nice article ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Although the prose requirements are lower than at FA, it might be advantageous to go over the prose once more. Some issues from the lead include: "$1.5 billion dollars (2005 USD)" (do we need to be told the currency three times?) and "Top wind gusts topped out" (perhaps "peaked" instead of "topped out"?) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, I fixed both of those examples. Thanks for the comment, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep listed As the author, I don't see any major problems that should prevent this from staying at GA status. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Not arguing about the passing/not passing of this article, but shouldn't we kind of insist for those that are reviewing to provide more information than a simple "yes" or "no"/"pass" or "fail" review of articles. I mean, no article is perfect, and Milk's Favorite Cookie certainly could have provided a bit more information regarding his review and could have certainly provide SOME feedback or optional additions/changes to the article to even perhaps help push it towards FA status. If you took the time to thoroughly review an article, you should also take the time to at least jot down a few notes. Just my opinion. will381796 (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse pass: Very nice work. I added some Wikinews coverage to the WP:EL section. Cirt (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hairspray (2007 film)

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

Result: Keep: Concerns articulated have been addressed: no {{fact}} tags remain; characters section has been expanded; and awards are sourced (whether such rewards are "substantial" is open to reasonable interpretation and better discussed at article talk page). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe Hairspray (2007 film) should be delisted as a good article for a few )but substantial) reasons:

• Awards: This problem is an easy fix, but in the awards section, there a few award ceremonies listed that are not very substantial. This section should be cleaned up. Also, there aren't enough references in this section. Adding more will help for so many award ceremonies.
• Cast: Also an easy fix, the cast section is extremely lacking. There is no description here to any of the characters. For example:

Nikki Blonsky as Tracy Turnblad, the main protagonist of the film who dreams of being able to sing and dance on The Corny Collins Show. This would be mouch better fo the section, instead of just a bare bones section.

• References: The biggest problem of the article, there are many tags on the page. NO good article can have these, which is the main reason I have asked to delist it. Lastly, the last reference in the article, number 45, is dead. This needs to be replaced to keep it as a good article.Limetolime (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I may have miscounted but I think there are only three {{fact}} tags. Hopefully a white knight will save the article. It won't take much to solve the problems. Majoreditor (talk) 04:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Limetolime, have you placed a notice on the article's talk page saying that it's under review here? -Malkinann (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  I have added a notice (in fact a banner), but it would be helpful if Limetolime explained on the article talk page. Geometry guy 20:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment What qualifies an award as "substantial"? I'm willing to work toward finding some addition sources for the awards that should stay, but I'm having a hard time figuring out which awards you feel should remain in the article and which should go. As far as the citation needed tags are concerned, the first two are for "winks" to other musical films, and director Adam Shankman stated that these were intentional nods to the other musicals in the director's commentary of the 2-disc DVD (I'll have to check on the Hello, Dolly! one again but I know for a fact that he mentions the Sound of Music reference), but I was hoping to find another published source stating this that wouldn't require people to buy the DVD in order to confirm its accuracy. If someone could help me figure out how to appropriately cite this commentary, I would be very grateful. The third tag is for a source to confirm the region 4 release date, which should be easy enough, but if a source cannot be found (for any of these, really) the info can be removed. Concerning the Cast section, this edit actually has an expanded Cast section, but for some reason it was later removed. Would re-adding this to the article (or a slightly modified version of it) deal with this concern? —Mears man (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note I'm currently working on the Cast section in my sandbox, just in case anybody was interested. When I'm finished with it I'll move it to the article. I wanted to let it be known that I am actually working on this, but my time is somewhat limited seeing as the semester is coming to an end and assignments are now due. Also, I still haven't recieved a response to my last comment, so I'm still not sure what exactly needs to be done about the awards and the couple of "citation needed" tags. —Mears man (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've now added the additions I was making to the cast section to the article. —Mears man (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

All of the {{fact}} tags have been replaced with in-line citations. (Full disclosure: the one citation I added was based on another editor's input; I didn't watch the cited DVD commentary myself.) Majoreditor (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Horcrux

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

Result: Delist: Actionable concerns (particularly in regards to WP:WAF compliance) have not been addressed in over one month's time at GAR. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Too much in-universe text for a GA article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Opinion - Criteria 1(b): I don't think the article is written in the style suggested in WP:WAF Some sections are written from an in universe style, most notably the sections on the individual horcruxes. There are also instances of writing in a less than encyclopaedic manner (example "Because snake senses are different, being able to sense heat and movement in a way humans can't").
  

Criteria 2(b): Some of the sources used in the article are not reliable and should not be used to verify information, specifically fansites and broadcasts such as The Harry Potter Lexicon and Pottercast

Criteria 3(a):I do not think that major aspects of the topic are dealt with, there is detailed coverage of the individual horcruxes but little coverage of the horcruxes as a whole. Real world development and reception ahould be important factors in an article about a fictional concept but they are almost entirely absent. Guest9999 (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delist Fails to meet WP:WAF, needs a more out of universe perspetive. Tarret ^talk 13:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delist, it also has several WP:MOS issues (ref format, overlinking, etc).--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 17:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delist. Suitable for the Harry Potter Wiki, but not for Wikipedia and GA status. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 20:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

MINI (BMW)

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

Result: Delist. While the finer points of MoS are not all GA requirements, this article doesn't even meet WP:LEAD, which is. Geometry guy 16:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

1b: Too many one/two sentence paragraphs, inconsistent use of inverted commas (" and ' throughout the article), units like kilowatt are expressed in an abbreviated form (kW). There is also inconstant use of metric and imperial measurements. For example, in the "2007 onwards - The Mk II MINI" section the metric unit kilowatt is used. Under the section "Convertible" the imperial unit horsepower is used instead. Since the car is European, imperial units should be spelled out first, followed by the imperial unit in parentheses. Many of the headings also violate WP:MoS requirements stating that "headings generally should not repeat the title of the article".

2 a and b: There are way too many unsourced statements throughout the article (17 references all together).

There are many more issues, here is a list generated by a semi-automatic javascript program:

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 10 litres, use 10 litres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 10 litres.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.^[?] Specifically, an example is 260 Nm.
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • it has been
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: aluminium (B) (American: aluminum), metre (B) (American: meter), fibre (B) (American: fiber), realize (A) (British: realise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), criticise (B) (American: criticize), moult (B) (American: molt), programme (B) (American: program ).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• The script has spotted the following contractions: don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.

OSX (talk • contributions) 05:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree that the article has numerous MoS-related problems -- for example, 1st generation rather than first generation. There's also at least one citation tag. Unless the criteria 1 and 2 concerns are quickly addressed then the article should be de-listed. Majoreditor (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. Advertising-like (or at least very positive) tone; the article is probably not very up-to-date (I removed some text along the lines of "in 2007 a model will be released"). ; the ongoing use of capital letters in the title and to emphasize the brand name throughout suggests a fansite, not an encyclopedia article, and contravenes MOS:TM and WP:CAPS. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 13:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delist. Needs more references.--andreasegde (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delist. The two sentence lead cannot possibly be an adequate summary of this article. Geometry guy 16:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Piet Mondrian

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

Result: (Endorse) Delist. See comments below (and I agree!). Geometry guy 17:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This article was delisted because of copyright concerns [4] that were subsequently addressed and the GA template restored [5]; however User:Phr failed to remove it from the delisted category in that edit. Because the category tag was there, User:Shimmera subsequently removed the GA template [6][7].

This has led to a confusing situation. The DelistedGA template that Shimmera added says to address the "suggestions below", however the questions that had been raised over GA status had already been fixed by this point. It may be that this needs to be a renom instead since so long has passed since the mistake happened, but since the delisting was originally due to a typo, I think its best to request reassessment first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazzargh (talk • contribs) 14:31, April 11, 2008

• Endorse Delisting. The article has just one in-line citation. It fails WP:LEAD. It has list-like sections. It will need work before it meets GA standards. Majoreditor (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse delist: Agree with Majoreditor. While some of its issues are easily fixed, the article needs such considerable sourcing work that it would very likely be quick-failed if it was renominated. EyeSerene^talk 08:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delist due to lack of verification (citations), and the inadequate lead section. LuciferMorgan (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Weapons of Resident Evil 4

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

Result: No action. All parties seem to agree that the quick fail was in error. Suggest renomination. Geometry guy 20:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The article was quick failed under the claim that it contains a host of clean up tags and templates; however, the article contains no such tags or templates (there is a merge discussion linked to at top, which goes to a discussion in which some of the participants had even talked about making the article a good article candidate instead of merging). Even if he meant the merge template, then I do not uderstand why he did not say: "There's a merge template"? He, however, asserts that it includes but is not limited to "cleanup", "wikify", "NPOV," "unreferenced," "fact," "clarify," and "huh" tags and templates, which is simply not true. There are no such tags or templates on the article and many if not all of these tags would not even make sense on it anyway, especially say an "unreferenced" tag/template (which again is not actually on the article) as the article contains a whole host of inline citations. As for the merge tag, please note that it was placed by an editor well over a month ago (back in February) and this editor has not edited since around the week of adding that tag. In the discussion that we had about it, the consensus was clearly to keep the article rather than merge (Magioladitis, TTN, and ZeroGiga were for merge; Kung Fu Man, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, Masem, ShadowJester07, The Prince, and Ursasapien were for keep; Judgesurreal777 was somewhat neutral): 6 for keep, 3 for merge, and 1 neutral. Thus, consensus has been to keep the article and not merge since 28 March 2008 when anyone last posted in that discussion. That discussion in effect can probably be archived (obviously, I do not think I should be the one to do so). Thus, I believe the article was unjustifiably and incorrectly delisted as a "quick fail" for the above indicated reasons. Thank you for your time and consideration! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the relevant tag. My reading of that discussion is that there's no consensus for a merge.--chaser - t 15:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the mistake. I saw that the article had a tag, and I quickfailed it without reading the discussion. Also, I used the template {{subst:QF-tags}}, it gives the examples about NPOV and unreferenced. I see no problem with renominating it if the merge discussion is closed. Epass (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Bad review, renominate so the article can get a proper review. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A few issues I can see:

• There is no actual description of what the Chicago Typewriter is.
• Killer7 is incorrectly linked, and should also be described as a magnum.
• Riot gun should flat out explain it is a shotgun.
• The Striker should be mentioned as being an automatic shotgun.
• The names "Dr. Salvator" and "Chainsaw Man" are both used; I would think only one should be used

It may also be a good idea to sort the weapons according to their classifications in their descriptions. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Done: [8], [9], and [10]. Thanks for the suggestions! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Danske Statsbaner

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

Result: Delist. No secondary sources. Geometry guy 22:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I posted a message in December 2006 on the article's talk page concerning inline citations. However, the message wasn't acted upon. Due to lack of inline citations therefore, I vote to delist this article. LuciferMorgan (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. The only in-line citations are to the company's annual report, which isn't a sufficient enough source for a GA-class article. It's time to delist this one. This is an easy call; I recommend a speedy close. Majoreditor (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

SimCity (series)

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

Result: Delist. Got listed too soon after rapid improvements and expansion: see below for quality issues. Suggest clean-up/rewrite and then renominate. Geometry guy 20:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• The article fails criteria 3, as it is not broad in coverage. It does not cover two SimCity games at all, SimCopter and Streets of SimCity. Also reception/legacy section is missing.

• The article fails criteria 6, as there are too many fair use images (11!) and several of them lack rationales. --Mika1h (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed some of them. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 12:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I have been a past and present contributer for the article, so I thought I would give my thoughts. I have reorganised the images and added appropriate rationales, so the issue with criteria 6 should be resolved. It has been of long-term debate on what is/is not a SimCity game, I can see why Streets of SimCity may be considered one, I am not so sure about SimCopter though. This article certainly does not give comprehensive coverage, though this is not necessary for GA. I would have thought however that legacy/reception is a major aspect of the topic, and at least some mention would be helpful for GA. Camaron | Chris (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In both SimCopter and Streets of SimCity major aspect of the games is the ability to import maps from SimCity 2000. They at least deserve a passing mention in the article. I think also that reception is necessary for a old and infuential series as this one. --Mika1h (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delist until I/other editors get a chance to clean-up/re-write/expand it to meet standards. This article went from Start to GA literally overnight, with all the new content suddenly added, I am not surprised there are problems with it. In fact it was promoted so quickly I did not have a chance to comment on the proposed GA regrading, which if I had I would have raised concern at, especially given a lot of content added was from lower quality articles. I will get round to working on it if nobody gets there before me - though me being on holiday for 2 weeks, plus exams, plus more focus on articles closer to GA such as SimCity 4 have/will inhibit this a bit. Whatever happens, the article is not of GA standard, as I suggested above, in its present form. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks Camaron, that pretty much explains everything. A cut and paste job is not a bad start: all the best in turning it into a really nice piece of work! Geometry guy 19:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Relist SimCopter and Streets of SimCity games aren't really building a city, eh? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

So what? Who says SimCity games have to building games? Next Halo game is a real-time strategy game although the series is so far been associated with first-person shooters. --Mika1h (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the genre on the SimCity page. It clearly says "City-building game" OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course the main focus is on the city building games, but that doesn't mean the spin-offs can be ignored. --Mika1h (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ohana, I think you may be forgetting that the purpose of GAR is to determine whether the article meets the criteria or not. That is not always the same thing as answering the nominator's objections to the article. I don't think the issue with SimCopter and Streets of SimCity is terribly important: broadness also requires focus, and in this case that means concentrating on the city building games, while devoting some attention to the spinoffs in proportion to their relevance. The article does mention a version of SimCopter and it could mention Streets of SimCity, but one subsection on "Other spinoffs" would be more than enough. Geometry guy 15:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delist in its present form. Perhaps the article should mention the uncertain status of the games noted above (assuming it can be sourced). It would be one way of ensuring coverage, without actually labelling them as part of the genre. I agree the article needs a Reception and/or Legacy section though - assertions are made in the lead that are not covered in the article body. The lead is not a particularly good summary of the article (for example, it doesn't mention the card game, and includes little detail on the various releases). Also, to get picky, the "See also" section should not duplicate links from the main article. EyeSerene^talk 15:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delist. I'm sorry to have to say that this is nowhere near GA standard at the moment. Large sections are unsourced or poorly sourced. Some of them could be relying on main articles for sourcing and further details, but if you follow the links, you find that the summary is typically word-for-word the same as the part of the main article (typically the gameplay section). Now I don't know the order of events, but the article reads like a bad cut-and-paste job from the articles on the individual games. The history of the genre is mixed up with gameplay details of the individual games, and the style jumps around from section to section. I've changed the name of the first section from "overview" to "gameplay". There is no overview, there is no reception section and the article is poorly structured. Not only is the lead inadequate as a summary of the article, but the article is inadequate as an expansion of the lead! The prose is poor: I recommend reading Tony1's guide, particularly the section on eliminating redundancy. Also, please decide which tense you want to use and stick to it unless there is a good reason to change it. A few examples:
  • Brøderbund declined to publish the title when Wright proposed it, and he pitched it to a range of major game publishers without success. Is "he" Wright here? The section seems to imply that Brøderbund acquired some of the rights to the article. How? Can you explain this?
  • In addition to their limited life span, power plants are now vulnerable to decreasing maximum output at a constant rate after they have gone through about three quarters of their life span. After this impenetrable present tense sentence, the section swiftly moves from past tense to present tense to future tense (!) and then back to past tense again.
  • Buildings originally constructed for occupation by higher wealth tenants can now support lower wealth tenants in the event surrounding factors forces the current tenants to vacate the building; this allows certain buildings to remain in use despite lacking its initial occupants.

I could go on... my failed attempts to copyedit as I read through may also give some suggestions. Good luck improving the article: my impression is it needs a complete rewrite. Geometry guy 15:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Following the explanations made by Camaron, I recommend a prompt closure to this discussion (and will do so myself in a day or so, if no one objects or beats me to it). Geometry guy 19:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  You're welcome, this discussion has been open a long-time and I think consensus has been reached, so I agree with closure if no objections are raised shortly. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Beaujolais wine

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

Result: Endorse fail. There wasn't consensus on all aspects of the review, but there was consensus that quotations need to be cited directly after the quote. There were also encouraging remarks about the article. Per my own comments below (which amplify this closing statement), I suggest citing the quotations, brushing up the lead, and renominating. Geometry guy 21:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

After User:VanTucky diligent review of Beaujolais wine, he saw fit to decline the article's GA nomination because I respectfully decline to "double cite" and add redundant footnotes to sections of the article. While I respect VanTucky's convictions, I do not see "redundancy" as a fitting characteristic of a Good Article nor a requirement in the GA criteria. As section 2B notes-

"(b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons"

The items that VanTucky wished for inline cites for, are indeed cited with a footnote and when I first removed his "cite quote" tag I noted the the source for each. However, for the reader all they have to do is simply follow the claim to the first footnote right after and they will have their source. To comply with VanTucky's requirement, I would have to add a redundant footnote that would just be immediately repeated right after. That added redundancy for redundancy sake seems quite odd and ill fitting of good article status. However, as a compromise, I offered to add the redundant footnote as "hidden text" but I suppose that is not acceptable. As the majority contributor to the current version of Beaujolais wine, I have taken great pains to insure that every claim, every line and indeed every word in the article is attributed to a reliable source with a footnote nearby. Point to anything in the article and the first footnote that follows it will be the source, without fail. For the benefit of readability, I try to craft articles where an entire paragraph can be sourced to a single footnote. When "anti-inline cites" folk cry foul and tout the strawman argument that folks at GA and elsewhere want a footnote on every line, I often point to articles like this and Cabernet Sauvignon where an entire, well sourced and throughly verifiable article can be made without having a footnote on every line. I feel that these "unwritten rules" and requirements that VanTucky (and perhaps other GA reviewers) are adding in addition to the GA criteria (and the much maligned section 2b) create more unnecessary conflict with the GA project and content writers. It gives viability to the strawman argument that "every line must be cited" and that is unfortunate. Whether or not Beaujolais wine becomes a Good Article is not a primary concern of mine. But as a former GA reviewer and one who took a lot of blows and grief because of my ardent and staunch support for the in-line citation requirement (Take a browse through some of the GA archives like Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles/Archive_8#Criterion_2b_debacle), I do think a larger discussion will be worthwhile for the GA project. There needs to be a balance between wanting our Good Articles to be throughly referenced and verifiable (like Beaujolais wine is) and requiring redundant footnotes or the worse extreme of having a footnote on every line. I appreciate your time. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:VanTucky : If I am reading an article for information I do not want to remember or think about where the reference came from but to come across a statement and there beside it is the reference. I agree that care needs to be taken but IMHO in this case citequotes placed and the request for references were valid and an improvement on the article. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 19:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well very little thinking or remembering is required. The very first footnote you see after anything and everything you read, is the source. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

So the whole of the introduction and the first ½ of the history is from reference one (1)? Accepting the consensus of WP:LEAD and the formula that " Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source. There is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads"; there is a lot of disparate information that IMHO needs a reference even allowing for " The distance between material and its source is a matter of editorial judgment". Just my opinion and yes the fact that ...Beaujolais is a historical province and French wine producing region and ...wine generally made of the Gamay grape which has a thin skin and few tannins. Like most AOC wines they are not labeled varietally... to me as a unknowing but possible interested reader does need more than a reference. Even if it is the same ref it means that I can place the information with its source. Some facts could be referenced from other sources to provide the reader with more opportunities for follow up research. When we get to the second reference it is a historical quote from a person about wine. User:VanTucky concerns still stand for me, but I am only one and will listen to other opinions. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 21:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

So the whole of the introduction and the first ½ of the history is from reference one (1)? Yes. Though to be more pointed in my question (and really the purpose of GA criteria #2) Do you have doubts that Beaujolais wine is factually accurate and verifiable? The two items that VanTucky tagged as questionable, the Phillipe the Bold quote about the Gamay grape and the statement about the symbolism of the arrival of Beaujolais Nouveau are both sourced with a nearby footnote. In the case of the Gamay quote it is the very next line (currently footnote #2) and with Beaujolais nouveau it is a few lines after but there is only one footnote (currently footnote #8) for the entire paragraph which requires very little deduction or thought to comprehend that it sources the entire paragraph. One key point here is that the standard that is being requested is not to insure that the article is "factually accurate and verifiable"--it already is with 66 footnotes but rather to add two redundant footnotes that will just be immediately followed by the exact same footnote. Are there any doubts that Phillipe the Bold said his statement about the Gamay grape or that Hugh Johnson's Vintage book, with its footnote on the very next line after quoting his grandson, sources that quote? Are there any doubts about Beaujolais Nouveau being seen as a celebration of the harvest or that Karen MacNeil's The Wine Bible, which sources the entire paragraph, backs up that assertion? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

apologies if I did not make myself clear, in no way am I questioning the validity of your references. The article has valid supportive references; my point was that there was not enough of them (re: Some facts could be referenced from other sources to provide the reader with more opportunities for follow up research); and I do not, as a reader, have a problem with references being repeated, I can work out the same ref number means the same source etc. Sorry I still agree with Van Tucky, why not see what it looks like in a sandbox and then put it up again if you are happy. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 18:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse fail as reviewer. The guideline WP:CITE clearly states:

  You should always add a citation when quoting published material, and the citation should be placed directly after (or just before) the quotation [emphasis added]

  Clearly, it supports my assertion that basic citation standards in GA-class articles should cite whenever a quote appears, and the cite should come directly after the punctuation. Not once in a paragraph, or once every couple sentences. Always. I'd thought this was an uncontroversial standard, and am actually quite surprised at the opposition to the idea of simply duplicating an inline citation twice in an article. It can certainly do no harm, even if you think it isn't vital. VanTucky 03:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse fail Criterion 2A links directly to WP:CITE; it doesn’t get much more explicit than that. Although it’s unfortunate that an alternative solution was not reached, VT did identify a legitimate concern supported by the GA criteria, which the nominator declined to remedy. Additional criteria-related concerns -- offered only to assist improving the article -- include a lead that does not seem to adequately summarize the most important points (WP:LEAD), grammar issues (e.g. comma usage – “cultivated by the Romans who planted” should be “cultivated by the Romans, who planted”) and MoS issues (e.g. image captions should not end with a period if they are not complete sentences). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral - since I'm the one who did the GAN I'm of course not trying to "vote" here. However, I would like to point out that VanTucky failed the article less than one day after announcing on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine that it had been put on hold for improvments, with the words "The requested changes are relatively minor; please feel free to pitch in". He apparently failed it because Agne (who is not exactly the only editor around, although one of the most active in WP:WINE) and he didn't agree. As someone who has participated quite a lot in GA/FA reviews in another language version, this behaviour seems extremely strange to me. I get the impression (although I hope I'm wrong) of a personal dispute handled in a less than professional manner by the reviewer, with the result that the "fail" stamp was applied very much prematurely. This is the reason why we're discussing citing specifics here - other more or less active editors interested in contributing to the article never got much of a chance to work things out the regular way. Tomas e (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how my actions are out of the norm for reviewers. Nowhere in any guide to reviewing does it require that reviewers even place a talk page notice on the relevant wikiprojects; I did this as a pure courtesy. In deciding whether to pass or fail an article, I can only work with those interested in working on the nomination and getting it passed, so if no one but Agne responded then there's nothing I can do about it. Since this user was the only one participating in improvements, and he blankly refused to enact necessary changes after discussion, then all I could do was fail it. VanTucky 20:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse fail, per Elcobbola -- with regrets. Majoreditor (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse fail. Needs more references, and especially with page numbers.--andreasegde (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• List as GA The references are easy to follow, even for citations, and the page ranges are narrow enough that I'm sure it is easy to check without much trouble if you have the books. Narayanese (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• List as GA per comments made by Naryanese. --Doopdoop (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse fail, albeit reluctantly. I think Van Tucky's review was completely in line with WP:WIAGA, his objections re referencing addressed criteria that are neither optional or subjective, and he was left with little choice in the matter when his comments were not addressed. It's a shame, because I found the article to be a well-researched, fascinating read - but we must make it as easy as possible for readers to verify the assertions made. I would say that with such large amounts of text apparently covered by a single end-of-section cite, at the very least page numbers need to be included in there somewhere (perhaps the Footnotes should be split into Notes and References, and {{harvnb}} or something similar used for the in-line cites). Also, as has been mentioned, the lead does not comply with WP:LEAD (again, a GA criterion). EyeSerene^talk 20:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. My view is that while page numbers are desirable, especially when a lot of the material comes from a large book (if I remember rightly), they are not a GA requirement. Nor are the finer points of MoS. Issues such as per sentence citation when several sentences come from the same source, and citations in the lead, these are matters of taste and opinion, subject to certain minimum standards, and other than that I don't believe them to be GA requirements. However, one of these minimum requirements is providing a citation directly after a quotation. I think there are only two or three examples where a quotation is not followed immediately by its source, so this would only add two or three "redundant" footnotes. I suggest doing that, giving the lead a bit of a brush-up, and renominating.

I'll close this discussion as "endorse fail", unless anyone objects or beats me to it. Geometry guy 16:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Private (novel series)

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

Result: Endorse fail. The reviewer has provided further helpful information on improving the article. Geometry guy 18:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect and appreciation for the second review, I'm seeking an additional opinion because I've found that the reasoning overlooks certain matters and is unspecific in other regards.

I'm more than happy for there to be a reassessment of the GA Review. I'm not here to defend that review, but to provide further information and details as requested...--jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The criticism that some of the Character descriptions are short can be attributed to several noticeable factors, each of which attempts to stay in-line with policy or decorum:
1) The original, longer versions have been shortened and spun-off via Wikipedia:Summary style.
2) The sources cited for the character information provide only basic, limited material.
3) Adding additional, unverified character material would necessitate original research, which the section attempts to avoid.

The effect, however, is that much of the article ends up looking like a list rather than an article per se. If there really is nothing more that can be said about these characters (which may well be the case), then these sections can at least be consolidated. Perhaps you would end up with two sections only: "Major characters" and "Minor characters." --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The reviewer asserts that "there is almost nothing in important areas such as 'Themes,'" but fails to specify which other important areas throughout the article contain "almost nothing."

Start with "Themes"! I'd say that this is a vital part of any such article.

As for another example: for good reasons, articles about novels or other books almost always have a "Background" section, which covers both the literary and the cultural or social background for the work. This is entirely missing (except for a brief nod in the lead to "book series about young women in posh inner-circles experiencing a rise in popularity throughout the 2000s," otherwise unmentioned; the lead and the article don't really gel). Yet I'd say that this would be essential for this article to be fleshed out in a serious fashion, and become properly encyclopedic. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The comment that some sections "aren't even a full sentence long" is again unspecific, and applies to a strict minority; I only noticed one upon reexamining the article. If another has been overlooked, it will be corrected. (I extend a thank-you to the reviewer for bringing this to my attention.)

Here are another three, each right after the other:

Drake House. A dormitory for upperclassmen boys. Nicknamed "Dreck" because it is supposedly where all the unsavory boys at Easton live. Pemberly Hall. Junior/Senior girls who fall short of reaching Billings reside in Pemberly. Hale Hall. Where members of staff reside, nicknamed "Hell Hall" by the students.

None of these are full sentences. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been left further unspecified as to what prose in the "Book releases" section was "confusing." As for the section being a "mix," it's worth noting that it was originally separated, and later consolidated via the suggestion of the previous reviewer.

This is the longest section of the entire article, and is mainly a list of dates of publication, with some comments about plot points mixed in. Consolidation per se is not a problem: but there are better ways to do it. The current presentation is confusing.

Indeed, generally, I'd have thought that the article structure should be rethought. Why is there a "Series overview" section? Isn't that what the lead is for? Why not have some kind of "synopsis," which is otherwise distributed between this section and "Book releases." --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It is also left unspecified as to how the criticised sentence regarding the imagery was "very confusing" when the reviewer looked upon the images; the images illustrate exactly what is stated.

No, they don't. What is meant by the wording (as far as I could gather) is a reference to the back cover of the book. But what is actually stated is a reference to the "opposite side" of the image itself. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

With regard to why the aforementioned sentence appears in the lead, it is there to point out a recurring theme present in the series' imagery. No further ideas/speculation about this theme are offered because the article attempts to avoid original thought.

See WP:LEAD for what should be in the lead, and how it should relate to the article body. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, with all due respect, I can accept a failure, but I would simply like to request a more specific response to the GA nomination. Thank you. James26 (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope that this more specific response has been of some help. Again, good luck! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse fail. Reading the comments, I had a brief worry that, having recently experienced some of the most rigorous GA reviews in all of Wikipedia, Jbmurray might be applying too exacting standards. But this is not the case. Articles with short sections like this routinely fail good article nominations, and the recommendations to consolidate some of the sections are excellent, as are all of the other reviewer recommendations. I'm sorry that GAR has been so slow to provide further responses. I can elaborate if necessary, but it might be better to close this discussion sooner rather than later so that the nominator can get on with addressing the concerns of the reviewer and renominating. Geometry guy 21:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Darth Vader

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

Result: Delist Geometry guy 18:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Is very undersourced, contains much useless, unsourced trivia, the refs aren't formatted properly, maintenance tags just look at the article, I'm not a major contributor, but I came across it and it is not GA status, sorry. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 23:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Much of the article lacks in-line citations. The writing is uneven and choppy. There are also numerous MoS concerns. For example, sections such as "Expanded universe" are nothing more than bulletpoint lists. The article should be delisted unless it is brought up to GA standards quickly. Majoreditor (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree that it's not very developed. I've been loosely planning on improving the article, particularly with reliable sources and more on production and reception. Dorftrottel (canvass) 02:04, April 18, 2008
• Prose has deteriorated (or wasn't solid in the first place -- e.g. "it has been confirmed"s) and substantiation missing (e.g. citations for at least one of the aforementioned "it has been confirmed"s). I think this article does not meet GA criteria. --EEMIV (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delist. I agree. The prose is weak, citations are missing where they are needed, there is too much in-universe perspective, many MoS problems, the references are badly formatted, etc. etc. Geometry guy 22:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Atlanta, Georgia

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

Result: No action. Left to individual discretion. Geometry guy 19:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Article was passed a bit prematurely by an inexperienced editor not completely familiar with the GA criteria. There are significant issues that remain with this article; they are outlined here. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you turn this into an individual delist: wait a week for a response, and then delist the article if it still substandard. Any challenge can be brought to GAR, but I don't see the point in GAR intervention yet. Geometry guy 23:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Concur with Geometry Guy. I was surprised when the artcle was nominated as I thought it needed more work before it was ready. I've helped the article along from time to time and will be happy to work with Derek on his concerns. I haven't read through the article from start to finish for some time now and suspect that most of his concerns are legitimate as inexperienced editors often haphazardly toss in material. Majoreditor (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Update I am currently working with other editors to bring this article up to standards. Still has a good way to go, but progress is being made. I'll give it another week or so. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  I'd like to close this GAR discussion as "no action". Can we do this without impeding the progress you are making? Geometry guy 22:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, I think that it's fair to close this GAR with "no action" and let Derek oversee the article's compliance with GA standards. Majoreditor (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Cranmer

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

Result: No action. I hope the comments were helpful. Geometry guy 21:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not intended to propose a delisting. I am placing this under GA reassessment because I have completely rewritten the article since GA was awarded (see original version when GA was awarded and the current version). I would like a review on whether it meets GA criteria. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really what GAR is for, and there aren't very many active regular reviewers, so I intend to close this discussion soon unless there are objections: you will get the feedback you need from the Peer Review. In the meanwhile, for what it is worth, it seems to me that the article currently meets the criteria. The only issue I could imagine being questioned is inline citation. To give an example:

Following the annulment, Cromwell was executed on 28 July. Cranmer now found himself in a new politically prominent position, with no one else to shoulder the burden. Throughout the rest of Henry’s reign, he clung to Henry’s authority.

These are not bare facts: they suggest a point of view, and so they should be attributed. I would assume that they are covered by the citation later in the paragraph, but neither I nor the general reader knows that for sure.

As an unrelated issue, you might consider adding the main references used in the "Notes" to the "References" section: that would save having to cite them the first time they occur, and make it easier for readers to see the sources used. Geometry guy 18:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't looking for a peer review here, as I have the article on PR for that. I was looking for an up/down vote on the article on whether it is GA or not. I thought it would be strange that one could completely rewrite an article and then expect to keep the GA badge for what was given to a different article, so I brought it here for a vote. If you want to close it, then that is up to you and whatever is the proper GAR process. Concerning the citation, it is at the end of the paragraph. I basically gave a cite for each paragraph. I can put them on each sentence if needed, but I guess you are just asking for one at the end after "Henry's authority". --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not the way GA works: as long as the article meets the criteria, it stays listed. Reviewers only intervene when there is a mismatch between the article's quality and its GA status. It is meant to be a lightweight process <tries to suppress wry smile>. The extra citation is not needed for GA, but in this case the two sentences raise eyebrows, and the relation between them is unclear, so clarifying them and adding one extra cite would probably help the reader. There may be similar examples elsewhere. Such citations are likely to be required at FAC, so inserting them now will save trouble later. Geometry guy 19:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Result: no consensus 16:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Water cycle

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

Result: Individually delisted by Thegreatdr Geometry guy 15:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead is not comprehensive enough for the article, and there are relatively few inline references for the article. I'm not sure this article met the previous GA criteria when it was passed 1.6 years ago. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you be willing to delist this yourself, following the delisting guidelines? It doesn't seem necessary to have a fully fledged GAR, as I don't think such an action could reasonably be disputed. Geometry guy 21:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it will be best of you de-list the article. It's clearly not GA material. Majoreditor (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Just wanted a second opinion. It shall be done. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Great Moravia

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

Result: GA status maintained There are no significant concerns left to solve, minor issues can be dealt with on the article's talk page. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The article refers to primary sources (e.g. Constantinos VII Porphyrogenitos: De Administrando Impero), but it does not provide in-line citations. Moreover, the text of the primary source referred in the article contradicts the text of the article. I think, instead of following one interpretation of the sources, the article should clearly cite the referred text.Borsoka (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. The article now quotes primary sources in footnotes and briefly discusses different interpretations of Constantine's work. Tankred (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Tankred and others are to be commended for quickly addressing issues raised at GAR. However, some of the citations need tidying -- some links are dead, in some other cases the citations appear incomplete. Majoreditor (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have just completed all the incomplete citations I could find. There are still red links to three medieval sources without an article in Wikipedia, but I hope these articles will be written at some point in the future. None of the external links is dead.[11] References to the modern publications of medieval chronicles appear in the bibliography section as without an author, but this seems to be a standard way to cite them. If you find any other problems, please do not hesitate to drop me a line and I will try to fix them as soon as possible. Tankred (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The article's lead presents theories as facts:

It was inhabited and ruled by the ancestors of modern Moravians and Slovaks. The core territory laid on both sides of the Morava river, in present-day Slovakia and the Czech Republic, but the empire also extended into what are today parts of Hungary, Romania, Poland, Austria, Germany, Serbia, Slovenia, Croatia and Ukraine.

None of these are for sure, but written as proven facts. Good article? Squash Racket (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you can read the article and the referenced secondary sources (except for one website all are peer-reviewed academic articles and books written by leading historians and archaeologists), you will see that this is the view of the mainstream science. If you wish, I can add references also to the lead. No sweat. Tankred (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Right now the lead only cites Slovak (and/or Czech?) sources. I don't think the issue is too minor, so yes, neutral English language sources would be OK. But I don't think these would present the mentioned theories as facts. Squash Racket (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will add citations to the lead. The article does cite English sources. Unfortunately, Great Moravia is not exactly the favorite topic of the Anglo-American academia. That is why most academic sources are written in Czech, Slovak, and (to a lesser degree) German. However, quality of the sources cited in this article is very high as they are all peer-reviewed academic articles or books written by the most important historians and archaeologists working on Great Moravia. If you could cite other works of the same rank criticizing the sources used in this article, it would make this discussion more fruitful and less vague. Otherwise, I am not completely sure what your criticism of the article's references exactly is. Tankred (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

For example the second reference contains Slovak historian Dušan Kováč who according to this article in Hungarian says that in the time of Great Moravia there were no Slovaks, just Slavic people. How is it sure that those Slavic people are ancestors of a nation that first appeared in sources hundreds of years later? Isn't the gap too large for 100% statements? Squash Racket (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, no serious academic source claims that the founders of Great Moravia died out and modern Moravians and Slovaks immigrated to the same territory later. It is the opposite. Historians (including Dusan Kovac) say explicitly that there is clear continuity in terms of settlement, culture, and descent, which can be traced back to the Great Moravian times. But, as you have surely realized, the article does not claim that Great Moravia was founded by modern Moravians and Slovaks. It refers only to ancestry. If you want to continue in this discussion, please address what the article actually states and come up with serious academic sources, not with your own interpretation of what some website says. I will be happy to respond to any serious issues raised here after I return from my business trip. Tankred (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement that someone "died out" is just a plain lie. See e.g.: Čaplovič, Dušan: Včasnostredoveké osídlenie Slovenska, 1998, Bratislava for an academic summary of this issue. The book also contains a list of some further 3000 references. Anonymous

• Keep To be honest, I don't really understand what's being objected to. Foreign language sources are perfectly acceptable, where there are no English sources of equal quality (WP:SOURCE). Translations are recommended, but that doesn't invalidate use of the source. From the same policy, our inclusion criterion is verifiability, not truth; we may disagree with the source, but that's irrelevant. There are some tweaks that could be made: the article does have one or two gaps in its referencing (eg parts of "After unification" and "Decline and fall"), but is generally adequately cited. One has to be careful in using primary sources that no synthesis is made, but these have not been used exclusively and there is a good spread of secondary sources to support the statements made. I would recommend expanding the lead; although it very broadly summarises the article, a little more detail would help to cover all the article's sections (per WP:LEAD). Finally the license for "Prince Rastislav.JPG" is depreciated. However, there's nothing that would warrant a GA delist IMO. EyeSerene^talk 20:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We should vote here?
"A kind of predecessor of Great Moravia was Samo's Empire, a Slavic tribal confederation existing between 623 and 658." This is a theory again, presented as a fact.
"Most castles and towns survived the destruction of the empire." Although there are two Slovak (or Czech?) sources for that, Hungarian academic sources (like this one) say Great Moravia disappeared without trace.
A review of what the sources really say also wouldn't hurt. My intention is not to remove this article's good article status, but to present theories as theories, not as facts. Squash Racket (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the article should reflect the sources, and where reliable sources differ, this should be mentioned (even if only in a footnote). Per your first point, perhaps something like "According to historian [guessing his occupation] Josef Poulik, a kind of predecessor of Great Moravia..." would do the trick?

On your other comments, the purpose of this page is to challenge either the existing GA status of a article, or the outcome of a recent GA assessment. The article is evaluated from the perspective of the GA criteria, and the outcome will be decided based on the consensus of those commenting. It's not really a vote, and the closer will read all the comments before closing (ie you don't have to !vote if you don't want to!). If your concerns are not with the article's GA status, then the article's talk page may be a better place to raise them... although "factual accuracy" is a GA criterion. Hope this helps ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The words "a kind of predecessor of" were a bit awkward, so I replaced them with a sentence that is not only more neutral, but also more descriptive. Tankred (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Provisional keep. I see no real problems here. There are a couple of places where there could be more citations, and the caption in the territory section is rather long. I think it would probably be better to move the description of the territories into the text, and float the map on the right. I also spotted some minor prose and MoS issues, but nothing that prevents listing as GA. Geometry guy 17:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Badge of shame

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

Result: Delisted. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This article reads like a grab bag of trivia. I feel it was made a good article on the basis of having a lot of sections and references. The Fictional Works, Media and Politics sections, in particular, have little valuable encyclopic information, but instead seem to be an attempt to document every usage of the term "badge of shame," or at least ones in recent memory that have significance to the editors who added them. This article needs to be refactored and edited to conform to GA standards. NTK (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Yes, much of the article reads like unrelated trivia held together by flimsy synthesis. The article would be better if it had more material on the general nature, purpose and consequences of shame badges, drawn from authoratative sources. As currently constructed it's borderline on several criteria: 1a, 2c, 3a and 3b. Majoreditor (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delist. There is no doubt that some symbols in history have been regarded as badges of shame. But the article has to make absolutely explicit which authors of which reliable secondary sources are being used to tie together these multiple different symbols together under a common theme, otherwise it is original research by synthesis. The article does not do that at the moment, and if it cannot, it faces not just delisting, but deletion. Geometry guy 21:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Mike Tyson

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

Result: No action. Reasons for delisting not presented. Geometry guy 12:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is missing citations. David Pro (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems as if you just noticed that it has a couple of "citation needed" tags and decided to drop it on GAR. Thanks for notifying us, but could you elaborate a bit: with reference to criterion 2b, what needs citation and why? Geometry guy 19:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Łódź insurrection (1905)

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

Result: Delisted. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Criteria 3a: It is broad in its coverage. I really can't see that it fulfills that requirement. The "Uprising" and "Aftermath" sections in particular I think need expanding. Plus, of the 7 (!) references in the article, 5 are in Polish. And add on to that the fact that the two images do not have sources, and I would say this is worthy of a delist.

Keep This article has much broader coverage than necessary if you take into account the relative importance of this event. Most English sources mention this event only in passing. This article is worthy of GA status as it shows how Wikipedia can have an excellent coverage of relatively minor past events. --Doopdoop (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Doopdoop. A more detailed coverage would be equal to a very specialist article/book on the subject. Probably could use expansion for FA, but certainly fulfills the GA requirements.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep - the coverage is quite good for such a relatively obscure incident, and several editors knowledgeable in the field have made improvements over the last few days. Also, of course most sources are in Polish - English-language historiography just isn't that interested in this sort of thing. No reason to disqualify, though. Biruitorul (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. The article clearly fails criteria 1a and 1b. As an example, please see this paragraph from the article:

Worsening economic conditions contributed to mounting tensions in Poland and Russia; economy of the Kingdom of Poland was being significantly hit by the aftershocks of the Russo-Japanese War; by late 1904 over 100,000 Polish workers have lost their jobs. News and attitudes of the 1905 Russian revolution quickly spread from Saint Petersburg (where demonstrators were massacred on January 22) across the Russian Empire and into Russian-controlled Poland. Łódź had in the 19th century been a major Polish industrial center, heavily urbanized and industrialized, and hence a stronghold of the socialist movement. Already before the January 22 workers in Łódź were striking, and on January 31 tsarist police reported they carried placards with slogans "Down with the autocracy! Down with the war!". This was capitalized on by factions in Russia and Poland that wanted more or less radical changes. Soon over 400,000 workers became involved in strikes in Poland.

The first sentence is a tedious collection of grammatically challenged phrases. Following the semicolon, "economy" should read "the economy". The term "was being significantly hit" is a verbose passive construction. The phrase "have lost their jobs" incorrectly uses the present tense rather than past tense.

That's just the first sentence in this paragraph. Read on and you'll find more issues. Sadly, other paragraphs aren't much better. Majoreditor (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. Phew, I see what you meant by the prose, Majoreditor, but I have tried to fix as much as I could: I hope I have improved it without introducing factual errors. In the process, I think I understood what the nominator is saying about broadness, but it may be easy to fix, in which case I will change my recommendation. The main problem, in my view, is the "uprising" section, most of which I wasn't able to copyedit because I didn't understand what actually happened. The uprising itself is suggested in the previous "background" section with the rather strong phrase "angry workers began assaulting police and military patrols, killing those who did not surrender". I'm assuming this is not background, but the start of the uprising itself. So why then does the uprising section begin with political considerations? Then it ends with the sentence beginning "The last of the barricades was captured by the Russian troops by 25 June". What barricades? There is no mention of barricades before this point. Some description of what actually happened during the uprising is needed: editors should not rely upon readers to know the kind of things that happen during civilian uprisings: they want to know what happened during this one! Geometry guy 19:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Why aren't either Blobaum or Korzec cited? Particularly the former, as it's an English-language source, and this is he English-language Wikipedia. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• And what makes this a reliable source: http://www.onet.pl/. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Late reply for future reviewers: they are not cited as I had no access to them; we are not citing onet.pl but the WIEM Encyklopedia hosted on it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• You know, I never understand why editors add books to "Further reading" sections without consulting them first. Well, I do know why: it pads the article at little cost. But it's crazy to be recommending to other readers what the editor him or herself hasn't in fact read. It's clear that Blobaum should be used for this article. On the second point, if the WIEM Encyklopedia is hosted on onet.pl, then the reliability of onet.pl is at issue. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delist in its present form per the above concerns. After reading the article, I still don't feel as though I have a decent grasp of the events described; its coverage is not sufficiently broad, in my view, for GA. In addition, some of the references listed do not appear to have been used in the article (at least, they aren't cited in the text). EyeSerene^talk 14:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• I double-checked and the refs listed are cited.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. I think the article clearly fails the broadness criteria. There is almost nothing about what happened during the insurrection, or what the aftermath was. Was nobody arrested for instance? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding broadness: I have included most of the details from the sources available to me. There simply isn't that much known or written about this event - or I couldn't find it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog (character)

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

Result: Delist. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've got concerns with this article, but I'm not sure whether it should be delisted or not The article appears to fail criterion 2 of the Good Article criteria and lacks references in many sections of the article, such as the Character section (except for the personality subsection). There may also be other issues, but I can't really pick anything else out as I look over the article. Thanks for the consideration. Red Phoenix (Talk) 16:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I share your concerns. The article comes up short on criteria 1a and 2a. I have added request for in-line citations to some sections. The article also needs copy editing and honing of prose. As an example, note the overreliance on parenthetical statements. Majoreditor (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Concerned. There are numerous unsourced sections that Majoreditor didn't tag (not criticising him - he helped - just pointing this out), and there's also a good deal more (fair use) imagery than (I would argue) is necessary. If someone comes to work on this, it'd be great, but the current state should be delisted IMO. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I cut two of the images that didn't seem necessary. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. The referencing needs some attention - the Printed media section doesn't have a single citation for instance - and the prose is, well, idiosyncratic. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. In addition to the above issues, the lead is not really a fair summary of the article and should be considerably expanded (per WP:LEAD and WP:WIAGA 1b). EyeSerene^talk 19:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Many of the objections have now been addressed, but the number of {{fact}} tags is still a concern (I think one or two is acceptable, but not half-a-dozen) and the lead remains rather sketchy. If the citations are filled though, I'll be happy to withdraw my objection. EyeSerene^talk 21:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked those citation needed tags, thinking I might be able to remove them, but they are mostly statements which really do need citation, in my view. Geometry guy 22:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Okay, this took longer than I thought, but now I have the time to start improving the article. If this GAR doesn't get closed in the next few days, all of these opinions might have to be reconsidered if I can improve it enough. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 19:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. This does seem to be much improved. It is still a bit patchy in for citations in some places, but could editors give it another look? I mainly spotted minor MoS issues. Geometry guy 17:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delist. It's improved, but still not up to GA standards. The writing is choppy, there's still citation tags, and I spot MoS problems. Majoreditor (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Judge, there are still quite a few citation needed tags...could you try and deal with these, please? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delist — not only are there a number of citation needed tags, but there are a number of other unreferenced statements of fact or opinions with no substantiation. I'm also a little concerned about the large number of fair use images on the page. For instance, the image of Sonic and Mario in the last section has no relevance to the text and does not add any information or understanding in my opinion. --Haemo (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delist, the lead needs to be longer, the citation needed tags, and several of the refs are from the IMDB (which is not a reliable source). Nikki311 05:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. I agree with most of the above comments. In particular there are rather many non-free images here, and they are not all needed. Geometry guy 08:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we've reached consensus. Majoreditor (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and closing. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Republic of China

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

Result: Delist. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This article was improperly passed for GA by a WikiProject Taiwan involved editor. This reviewer could not possibly have been objective. --Slashem (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick scan through the article history implies that the article was nominated for GA status by Folic Acid on 11/21/2007 and listed by Jerrch on 11/22/2007. The page history shows that Jerrch has made ten edits to the article, the first one being on 11/11/06 and the last one occuring on 11/23/2007. Let me know if my assumptions are incorrect.

Can you provide some evidence showing that Jerrck would have been partial or too involved, or that the GA review was flawed? It will illuminate matters if you can provide more details. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Jerrch (talk · contribs) founded WikiProject Taiwan and this article is one of the two most important articles in WikiProject Taiwan. Also, Jerrch (talk · contribs) never left any comments on the talk page explaining how the article met the GA criteria. --Slashem (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional information. I have left a message on Jerrch's talk page notifying him of this GAR and left a note on the article's talk page. Majoreditor (talk) 11:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've started to evaluate the article to see if it currently meets GA criteria. It will take me some time to complete my evaluation. I already see one big problem. The article has a citation request tag and a section banner for no citations. These issues will need to be resolved. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Still working through my review. The article will benefit from copyediting, particularly for punctutation and overuse of the passive voice. I've also uncovered some additional citation issues. My initial sense is that the article is well-developed and, with modest efforts, can be brought up to par. Perhaps some editors will pitch in and help save the article from de-listing. Majoreditor (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. There is no a priori conflict of interest in WikiProject members reviewing an article, as long as they have not contributed significantly to the article. However, in this case, it does appear that a substandard article has been passed. As Majoreditor points out, there are many problems with lack of citations. I am also not convinced that the tone of the article is entirely neutral. This is a controversial area, and citation and neutrality issues are particularly important. I agree it might be possible to fix the article easily, but I see no sign of this happening at the moment. Hence my recommendation to delist. Geometry guy 19:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. Lack of citations is certainly a major concern, but I also share Geometry Guy's doubts over the neutral tone of this article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Floyd Mayweather, Jr.

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

Result: Delist. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the article is unsourced, therefore violating WP:OR and WP:BLP. There are also several statements in the article that could be considered biast and therefore does not satisfy in some places WP:NPOV. Delist, D.M.N. (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The article needs better sourcing. Majoreditor (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delist. There are citations needed beyond those noted in the article. Also the body of the article opens with this pure jargon:

  Mayweather had a successful amateur career of 84-6. He won national Golden Gloves championships in 1993 (at 106 lb), 1994 (at 114 lb), and 1996 (at 125 lb)

I expect these issues could be fixed, but I'm leaning towards a delist recommendation already. There is no sign of these issues being fixed, so I recommend delisting the article. Geometry guy 21:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delist, for issues with sourcing. Like the nominator said, a lot of it is unsourced, and there are several "citation needed" tags in the article. Nikki311 04:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Bleach (manga)

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

Result: No consensus. Or perhaps more accurately, nobody other than nominator and major editor wanted to contribute to the discussion. I'm going to take a leaf out of FAC's book, and restart this GAR, in the hope that reviewers will be encouraged to address whether the current article meets the criteria or not. Please comment at WT:GAR if you think this is a good idea or not. Geometry guy 18:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This article was listed as GA on May 7, 2007, however the version passed did NOT meet the GA requirements. It failed all aspects of criteria 2 and 3, having multiple unreferenced statements, being almost entirely plot and in-universe information, lacking several critical and basic sections for an anime series that are called for in the MoS and that are required to have considered addressing the major aspects of the article. The article has improved since then, however it still fails criteria 2 for having lots of unreferenced information, and criteria 3 for its excessive plot details and in-universe information, and its failure to use summary style for the character section when there are multiple character lists.

As this article never should have been passed as GA in the first place, and is still not GA quality, I feel it should be delisted. As a note, the former media list was recently merged into the article, which is causing some contention. So for fairness, here is a link to the pre-merge version], which still has all of the same issues, just to a greater degree.

AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment While not disputing the delisting based on the current version, you do realize that the MOS was substantially different at the time this passed, I hope. Dekimasuよ! 08:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Was it so different it included no sections for anything non-fictional beyond the basic media info? It had no production or reception sections at all? AnmaFinotera (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in fact, it was. (To be specific, WP:MOS-MANGA was so different from now that it was a redlink.)
I'll agree the article needs significant improvement to meet the new criteria, but it was a legitimate WP:WIAGA pass a year ago. Also worth noting that at the time, WP:WAF was a draft with no official standing, and that when it came to OOU information, the existing version[12] of the article structure guide for manga articles stated merely that "A Reception section can be added, but it must be well cited."
--erachima talk 00:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That still doesn't account for it passing while having so much unreferenced content (not counting the plot). Regardless, it doesn't meet GA now and hasn't in a long time, so it should be delisted as the fixings needed are not quick ones.AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I agree it no longer meets the criteria. However, I'm still completely failing to see your complaint with the original pass. WP:V says, as it always has, that information only must be cited if it is likely to be challenged. The version of the article passed met that requirement (the plot info is actually overcited in my opinion), every single statement was cited except for a few completely trivial ones like the number of episodes and chapters currently published. --erachima talk 14:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Just a note - good article reassessment tends to focus on the current edition of the article rather than the one that got passed, and the reassessment option is usually for articles which are liminal, or for which you feel like you might be biased on. If the fixes needed are really so many as you say, then writing them out in full and explicit detail on the talk page and then delisting it yourself may have been the better option. -Malkinann (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Had I realized the article was GA before the skirmish, I would have just delisted in the manner you describe, however I felt I was disqualified from just delisting because I have edited the article, even if briefly. I also I did not want to appear to just be retaliating because of the arguments on the talk page. I wanted its delisting to be done by neutral parties, but also feel strongly that it needs to be done. Even discounting what I felt was a bad passing of the article back when it was passed, it should be fairly clear that the current article also does not meet GA at all. It has far too much in-universe information, several section stubs, and has too many unreferenced statements. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see the section stubs, (and by association, the imbalance in the article) but I don't see the unreferenced controversial statements - please be more explicit. -Malkinann (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I would further point out that the finer points and intricacies of MoS are not GA requirements, per se, although to the extent that they provide an absolute minimum standard, they are. It is up to consensus to determine the extent to which the requirements of WP:MOS-MANGA are essential to this article meeting the good article criteria. I hope we will be able to reach such a consensus. Geometry guy 21:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:WIAGA states that the article must comply with the MoS guidelines on "lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation". I know it currently needs to be updated to meet new subject-specific layout guidelines, and I should probably give the others a readover to see if there have been any substantial changes to them. --erachima talk 22:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

    I actually don't think WP:WIAGA needs to be updated. The number one rule is WP:IAR, which states that improving the encyclopedia trumps all other requirements. The point of 1b is that it indicates the kinds of major MoS requirements that are essential to good articles. If consensus cannot determine how important particular MoS issues are for GA status, we may need to have a debate and refine the guideline, but don't put the cart before the horse: guidelines reflect consensus, they don't determine it. Geometry guy 22:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Maintain GA status. After thoroughly rereading the manual of style pages that WP:WIAGA requires compliance with, as well as the new project specific layout guidelines, I believe the current version of the Bleach (manga) article does satisfy the Good Article requirements. To address AnmaFinotera's specific complaints:

• "The article has lots of unreferenced information." It does not. Or to be more accurate, I have repeatedly attempted to find any unverified statements in the page and don't see any. Please give specific examples if you think you see some.
• "The article contains excessive plot details and in universe information." Plot information in Wikipedia articles is supposed to be kept succinct while including all necessary information. The article meets this standard. It uses a mere two paragraphs to introduce the basic plot, has descriptions for only the most major members of its cast, and summarizes the remaining characters by group to further reduce the amount of in universe information necessary for reader understanding. The "setting" section similarly gives the bare amount of background necessary for understanding of articles like List of Bleach episodes. (I believe this also addresses your point about character summaries.)
• "The article has been significantly changed recently." Indeed it has, and that's a good thing. Stability is a requirement for GA attainment in the first place, but being under improvement is not grounds for removal of GA status. Bleach is an ongoing series, and more information becomes available (in English, especially) over time, so the occasional revamp should be expected.

--erachima talk 00:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

For unreferenced statements, now granted part of these do come from the recent merge (and those alone wouldn't have been a need for GA reassessment unless they stay that way for months), but giving all examples for thoroughness:

• Characters - contains seemingly interpretive statements that are unsourced, and for this particular type of media, the specific statements about characters should be sourced, particularly the character section lead in
• Setting - over half the section (which was from multiple merges long enough go that it should have been fixed by now)
• Manga - entire section
• CDs - entire section
• Films - most of the section
• Musical - whole section
• Other - whole section which is a stub

• There is nothing succinct about it. There is a character list, so why is there still FOUR screens worth of character information in the main article? That fails WP:SUMMARY style. Its also excessive compared to the rest of the article. Ironically, the plot itself is horrendously short for such a lengthy series, and is really nothing more than a teaser one might expect to find on a DVD box set.
• I didn't question the stability.

Additional issues I've noticed is that the article does not meet the completeness requirements as it is completely lacking in production information, which has never been in the article. It gives no real information on the differences, if any, between the manga and anime. The reception section seems rather short for the series as well. Wolf's Rain is only 26 eps and a two volume manga but its reception section is longer than that. For Bleach, it should at least be as lengthy and thorough as Fullmetal Alchemist. It also fails WP:LEAD in that the lead is far too short. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be operating under the flawed assumption that every phrase must be cited, when according to WP:V and WP:CITE, it is only controversial statements that must be directly cited. Everything else is satisfied by general references -- in this case, the manga. (See Wikipedia:Citing sources#General references versus inline citations) When I prepared the article for its GA pass, I left inline refs off of the statements which come from major plot points or major characters, because they are uncontroversial, and carefully cited everything that was more detailed knowledge.

• Characters. None of those statements are interpretative, though if you insist, the opening paragraph could be given some specific references.
• Setting. The Heuco Mundo subsection is uncited, it is true. However, since pretty much everything in it comes from Bleach manga chapter 245 that's a trivial fix.
• Manga. All nicely cited in the sub-article it links to, List of Bleach chapters.
• CDs. Well, that used to be cited before the media list merge, when the link was lost. (Wait a second, weren't you the one who did that merge? Preserving references is an important part of merging content.) [13]
• Films. Again, cited in the sub-article.
• Musical. Sub-article.
• Other. Trivially addressed. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

• Succinctness. Why are there 4 pages? Well, probably because you have a low resolution monitor. If you want to crunch numbers here, the main Bleach article's character section is 10 kb of text, and summarizes articles totaling roughly 500 kilobytes. Since the Bleach character articles currently consist of one article on each main character, one list of characters for each race, and a few major character articles that are currently in merge limbo (and not represented on the main page), this means we are using one short paragraph to summarize each sub-article.

And on your last couple complaints, I've never seen so much as a creator interview on which to base a production section (I do see a partially complete databook scanlation project which might have something of use, but don't hold your breath), and the reception section can, and is, being expanded. --erachima talk 02:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You are one with a mistaken view. For a GA article, all statements must be cited, and you can't just claim "oh, read the manga" when making interpretations, and only pure plot summary can be left unsourced. For character sections, yes, it must be sourced, otherwise character lists wouldn't need references cause you could just say "read it and watch the anime and its all there." Also, the refs can't just be said to be in the subarticle, they must be in both. Or, to make it easier, in being brought to GA review, all unsourced statements have been challenged and must now be sourced. And no, I do not have a low resolution monitor. I'm browsing at the standard 1024x768. Um, I just checked the old media list, that reference wasn't in there at all, or it would have been merged. As for the production section, there is absolutely nothing in any volume of the manga discussing character creation, series planning, etc? Nothing in the anime DVD extras? And nothing in the character books, data books, guidebooks, at all? I find that a bit odd... AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:WIAGA criteria 2b: "at minimum, [the article] provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". Those are the classes of information that must be in-line reffed to meet the GA criteria. If you wish to personally challenge all the statements in the article, that's fine, and I'll get you the references, but that is not the GA standard. Nor, for that matter, is it necessary to meet the FA standard, whose requirements defer to WP:CITE on where in-line refs are required, and whose articles as a general rule do not contain references in their in universe sections at all. (For a random example from the literature FAs, To Kill a Mockingbird. Promoted this month, not a single reference in the plot summary section.) You are asking for a higher standard of referencing than any criteria on this encyclopedia does, including WP:BLP.

The old media list did have that link. reference 3 here.

The volumes do not contain useful character biographies for the purposes of development info, with the possible exception of what rock songs Kubo identifies with each of the main cast, but without more traditional development info those are nothing more than trivia. The databooks might, but they've never been translated (except the one that consisted wholly of gag comics and powerlevel charts, neither of which helps us). Viz is releasing the first character databook October 21st 2008, so perhaps we'll have something to work with there this fall. --erachima talk 04:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say the plot summary needed them, I said the character and setting sections. Reference 3 is for a single character CD, not the entire CD section, and goes to a different page on the sony site.AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The character sections are nothing but a bunch of focused plot summary. (For that reference, click the link at the bottom marked "back".) --erachima talk 04:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second, I think I see what you're complaining about with the references. Are you thinking the second half of Ichigo's summary is an interpretive statement? Because it isn't, that was a directly stated piece of character development they gave him early in the manga. --erachima talk 04:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay...several of them seem interpreative, but I'll trust the rest are the same, something stated in the plot? (like Rukia being cool-tempered, etc). What about the lead in for the section? And does human really need to be defined as as a character type? (for some reason it looks like we're really insulting people's intelligence here...I'd hope they know what they are if they are reading Wikipedia :P ) AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Bleach humans are subtly different than the real thing, and they're a player character race, so to speak, so leaving them out would be negligent. And yes, everything there comes straight out of the plot (though in Rukia's case, I notice her article has a reception section that discusses her personality, so I've changed the sentence to match that). --erachima talk 05:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Psst...are you going to add the references noted above to the article? AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but at the moment engineering homework deadlines are a bit more pressing. I can probably get it done this afternoon. --erachima talk 17:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Homer's Triple Bypass

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

Result: GA status maintained. All outstanding issues seem to have been addressed. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is very, very short; in fact the out-of-universe information has more or less the same size that the plot of the episode. The problem seems to be that there simply isn't more out-of-universe sources talking about this Simpsons episode and that this is all the size it would ever get. For that reason, "thedemonhog" promoted it to good article, but Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles makes an explicit guideline against it: if it is very short for GA standars, it shouldn't be promoted just because "it won't get any better" Benito Sifaratti (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded the production section. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, or whatever you're meant to say to not get it delisted. As a key contributor to bring this to GA status, I think it meets the criteria. I've got two other short GAs, After This and Apex Hides the Hurt (why not nominate them for reassessment if you don't like them,) and other short articles get passed. Its quality, not quantity. I'm unsure if you're little grudge against this article is healthy, to be honest. Qst (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. There's nothing wrong, per se, in being short. In fact I think the article could probably use a copyedit to make it shorter. I've made a couple of edits myself in that direction. The goal is not to eliminate any information, but to present it concisely, without redundant words or phrases. See this link for further suggestions. With the plot copyedited, and the production now expanded, I think the charge of "mostly in-universe" can be dropped, and with that, I lean towards recommending "keep". Geometry guy 19:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delist - the lead does not summarize the article per WP:LEAD and the "Reception" section is very choppy. I say "weak" because these issues can probably be fixed fairly easily. I would also like to see some additional out-of-universe sources (less reliance on the DVD commentaries) but that's not a deal-breaker. Otto4711 (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. The "Culture References" section is choppy; see if you can make it flow smoother. I have no problem with the lead. All matters considered, I'd recommend keeping the article. Majoreditor (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as GA. Lead and reception expansion are probably only minor issues (as in, not much more can be added) which I don't think should hold this back from GA status (that said, please make the suggested changes). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. The fact that the article relies so heavily on the DVD commentary is indeed rather troubling. And the writing is far from great. A couple of questions, almost at random from the one section I looked at in any detail:
  • "1-600-DOCTORB, was the actual number a real legal clinic, and their lawyers made them change it for subsequent airings." (There's a typo, but I'll fix it.) Whose lawyers? The clinic's or The Simpsons'?

    Could we re-write as the following: "a real legal clinic, whose lawyers"? Or (again) was it The Simpsons's lawyers who insisted on the change? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

    I have made the change. Please revert if I guessed wrong (I had to guess because the original was ambiguous) about the meaning. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  • "Silverman added some directorial touches:" What does this mean?
  • "the earlier scene where Grampa Simpson watches him as an infant" Is this referring to Homer as an infant?

    Could we replace "him" with "Homer"? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

    I just went ahead and did the replacement, as I figure that that's what was meant. The sentence is still rather unclear. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Oh, and what's an "animatic"?
• I guess I'd probably go for a (very weak) keep, but some more work on the article wouldn't go amiss. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think I've addressed your concerns. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

    Not really; see above. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Oh, please - lets not start this kinda 'you told me where to get off too so I'll cause trouble for you' crap. All episode articles which are of a decent quality rely so heavily on the DVD commentary. Just because you're annoyed with me over Talk:The Accidental doesn't mean you have to come here to comment, although everyone is welcome, you and I both know you're only here to annoy me. Qst (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Wha? Um... First, I'm not annoyed with you over Talk:The Accidental (though I think it would be good if you'd respond, so we can move on with improving the article); and second I'm not "here to annoy [you]"; I'm here because this article is at WP:GAR! Look at my contributions. I didn't connect you with this article at all; perhaps you should take a similar tack, and no feel so personally identified? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as GA - It was good in the first place, and the expansion has made it better, definete keep. Sunderland06 (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I've now copyedited the plot and shaved off a hundred bytes or so, but I'm not the world's greatest copyeditor, so someone else should check it over. But I'm now ready to support keeping the article on the GA list. Geometry guy 19:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)