Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Good article review)
Jump to: navigation, search
Main Discussion Nominations Reassessment GA Cup Instructions Criteria Report Help Desk
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
Shortcuts:

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


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

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

Individual reassessment

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

Community reassessment

When to use this process

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

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

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

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

← (All archives) Crystal Clear app file-manager.png Good article reassessment (update archive number) (Current archive: 59) →

Articles needing review and possible reassessment[edit]

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

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

See also

Articles listed for community reassessment[edit]

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly[edit]

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

It appears the article might have been passed accidentally. There is no actual review, and the edit summaries of the original GA review just state "is this how it's done?" I think there was some accidents made. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The promotion to GA-class was performed by me, and the review was not accidental. I just wasn't sure if I had done the review correctly. If anyone can provide me with advice on how to put up a proper review, please do, because, for the most part, the GBU article is of good quality. However, one area that does need improvement is the plot summary. Some people have been putting details that are somewhat excessive, but I feel that if I edit the plot summary further, I'll be dumbing it down and making it incohesive. Is anyone willing to take the job of editing the plot summary down? PatTheMoron (talk) 08:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pat, no big deal about the review, it just looks like there's no content there and to an average reviewer, no review! And the plot is pretty large as this is such a long film, but we could use a second or third pair of eyes on this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
It's redeemable. I'd make sure the plot is 400–700 words long and add inline citations for the following:
  • Characters and descriptions
  • "A scene deleted by Leone after the Rome premiere was also re-inserted:..... After being betrayed by Blondie, surviving the desert on his way to civilization and assembling a good revolver from the parts of worn-out guns being sold at a general store, Tuco meets with members of his gang in a distant cave, where he conspires with them to hunt and kill Blondie."
  • "Lost footage of the missing Socorro Sequence where Tuco continues his search for Blondie in a Texican pueblo while Blondie is in a hotel room with a Mexican woman (Silvana Bacci) is reconstructed with photos and unfinished snippets from the French trailer. Also, in the documentary 'Reconstructing The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly', what looks to be footage of Tuco lighting cannons before the Ecstasy of Gold sequence appears briefly. None of these scenes or sequences appear in the 2004 re-release, however, but are in the supplementary features."
Shouldn't be too much work. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Alexander Onassis[edit]

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

I am submitting this article for GAR as suggested by User:SNUGGUMS on the article's talk page who conducted the original review. I amended/fixed the article based on their insightful suggestions. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Promote after a couple of minor fixes - The issues SNUGGUMS discussed were gone. Just a couple more I found. Thanks,  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 18:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Perhaps adding the |death_cause= and |resting_place= parameters in the infobox
    • There are a lot of sentences starting with "Onassis" in the lead that makes it just sound weird
    • Perhaps mention Thyssen in the lead
    • Note Onassis's place of birth in the lead, not too specific, just the city or the state.
    • Did he die on scene or in hospital?
I've further amended it. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Sleep hygiene[edit]

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

This is not Good Article level work in my view. See discussion Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard/Incidents#Good_Articles_for_Grades. I started cleaning it up and SandyGeorgia did more. There are several places where writing still needs work (vague generalizations in lead); there are several sourcing issues; It is still new (can't call it stable yet. Please re-review. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I have been working collaboratively with other wikipedia editors and reviewers for three weeks on this article, and will continue to be very responsive to feedback. I believe in providing readers with informative, broad, neutral, and well-researched coverage of any topic, and it is my priority to accomplish this with the current sleep hygiene article. I hope that we can work together to facilitate article improvement, instead of removing the good article status. Thank you. leslierrn (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi again, (1) I spent 8 hours today on the page responding to feedback. I did this to try to address reviewers concerns, although I did not realize that SandyGeorgia and Jytdog believed the GA status to be a fluke. I understand the situation, although I am of course disappointed by the way everything was dealt with. In defense of other PhD students, I think we are definitely capable of contributing meaningfully to wikipedia, and any messiness is not done out of carelessness. Constructive feedback can really help us improve our articles. If there is a way of salvaging content that took days to write, that would seem preferable to simply deleting sections. (2) There was also a lot of talk about my course's goal with this final project. To clarify, our grades were not at all dependent on achieving GA. I have been teaching sleep hygiene for years, so I thought that my content might be worth at least trying for GA - that's the reason I submitted. Also, our professor had great intentions with this final project. The point was to help translate scientific knowledge to a broader audience - I believe that getting students with expertise involved with Wikipedia is a great way to expand the available topics. I hope everyone can also see the value in that, even if they believe that the content it not perfect quality. I will let the wikipedia process take over from here. Leslierrn (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi again, Leslierrn. I have not had time in the last 24 hours to follow your edits, but I will do so as soon as possible (within one or two days). Your continued dedication to the article is admirable, and I'm sorry you were shortchanged on your earlier GA review. Please know that this process is slower, and it is unlikely that the article will lose GA status without a chance for continued improvement: you should get here at GAR the review that you should have gotten the first time around-- one which will allow you to improve as a Wikipedia editor, and hopefully encourage you to stay on board for the long-term! You've done a good job in here, but together we should be able to improve the article up to GA status. I will weigh in as soon as I can on article talk and your user talk. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi SandyGeorgia, Thanks for clarifying the intended purposed of GAR. All of the talk boards seemed to indicate that the belief was that this article should never have been GA, and that we should be re-considering supporting student contributors. I would love for this to be a learning opportunity and get more feedback. Looking forward to seeing the article improve through this collaboration. Leslierrn (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Leslierrn, while the article may have been prematurely listed as a Good Article, that is not an uncommon occurrence in the World of Wikipedia. There is time in this deliberative phase to make sure the article meets GA standards, and you're headed in the right direction! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

A few additional comments

  • Could use a consistent referencing style such as the one explained here WP:MEDHOW. Sometimes cite templates are used and sometimes not
  • Language should be adjusted per the advice provided here WP:MEDMOS

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Doc James, a consistent referencing style is not part of WP:WIAGA (it is a requirement for WP:WIAFA). For a GA-level article, IMO the citations are fine. Also, even at the FA-level, the requirement for consistent citations has to do with how the citation renders in the article (they all have to look the same), which is unrelated to the method used to generate the citations (it is possible to have partial citation templates and partial manual citations that "render" the same final result). I have a few nitpicks left on the talk page (the college student section could use better, secondary sourcing, as could the mention of instruments for measuring sleep hygiene, but other than that, I think we've worked through many of the issues.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jbmurray:, now that many of the issues have been worked out, I'm wondering if you might have a look vis-a-vis GA status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I can do this later today. I have to say that I'm not really on top of sourcing policy for medical articles, but I can comment on other issues. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 19:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Sourcing per MEDRS is within striking range now. The paragraph on college students is sourced to a primary study, and could be better sourced, but I doubt any of that content is debateable. And on the Assessment section, a couple of those are primary sources, and it would be ideal to have secondary reviews attesting to the validity of those measurement instruments, but I likewise doubt those are controversial. So, I don't know how those caveats relate to the GA criteria ... will leave it to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Update: The assessment section has a new source that reviewed the first three instruments, and replicated use of one of them in a new sample. The primary sources have now been deleted. In general, these three sleep assessment tools are cited in about a dozen sleep medicine textbooks, and are indeed non-controversial. The content on the college student paragraph has been supported by a number of other subsequent research studies (by those study authors, and new authors), but as it is relatively newer research, a review has not been written. So the findings have been replicated, by the other sources I could cite would still be primary sources. I hope that helps! Leslierrn (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

2013–14 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team[edit]

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

Having previously brought 2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, 2009–10 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, 2010–11 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, 2011–12 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, and 2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team through the WP:GAN process, I am a bit surprised at the amount of difficulty I have had with the 2013–14 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team nomination. The reviewer Biblioworm seems to be a novice reviewer or at least unfamiliar with reviews in this subject area. He initially failed the nomination, but after TheQ Editor prompted him to put the article on hold he did. After I addressed a long list of concerns, he added several more and stated that he sought a 2nd opinion. After 3 weeks of waiting for a 2nd opinion that never came, he failed the nomination. After his second decision to fail the article another editor (Ritchie333) chimed in that he should have been more patient in regards to the 2nd opinion. On December 8, Biblioworm mentioned that he would hunt down an experienced GAN reviewer, but he hasn't. Both outside editors (TheQ Editor and Ritchie333) gave unsolicited opinions that the fail was a bit rash. I have had hundreds of GA nominations pass and dozens fail. I have never had two unsolicited opinions that a failed nomination was rash. As a result, I am seeking a community assessment of whether the fail was a rash decision.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I have asked for a second opinion from an experienced reviewer here. --Biblioworm 15:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I have left a note there pointing here. P.S. I didn't mean that you hadn't tried to hunt down one, you just have not actually hunted one down yet.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

QI[edit]

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

After recently making comments on the article's talk page and making some big changes myself, I feel that the article doesn't meet the GA criteria. I have listed some points for improvement on the talk page: specifically referring to the GA criteria, I think the article fails to meet:

  • 2b — Inline citations: I have added lots of {{citation needed}} templates for unsourced material.
  • 2c — Original research: Lots of little sentences like although greater attempts have been made to do so since series D (example from #Episodes) that are unsourced sound to me like they've been written based on a contributor's personal opinion.
  • 3a — Broad: I think the Reception section should be expanded, although this probably isn't as important an issue as the others listed here.
  • 3b — Focused: I don't want to delete a massive section without consensus, but I don't think much (if any) of the Guest appearances section is necessary — especially the number of wins per player. I have searched for references to see if any particularly notable people deserve mentions, but even Daniel Radcliffe and David Tennant's appearances don't seem to have been mentioned by any reliable sources. (Also, sections Mistakes and corrections and Episodes might be too detailed, the latter potentially containing fancruft about the audience.)

I would also like some of my changes to be looked over — I have added a whole new Controversy section, that no-one else has touched. — Bilorv(talk)(c) 20:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


Sivaji (film)[edit]

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

I have listed this article for GA reassessment because it was badly damaged by edit wars, content deletion and info not up-to-date (possibility of dead links). I want it to therefore improve it. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 13:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash29792
Lead
  • Empty the lead of ref's as per WP:LEAD. But the same content must exist in the body with ref's.

Yes check.svg Done as asked. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Let the most notable cast members stay in the lead.

Yes check.svg Done as asked. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done as asked. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Do some general copyediting, or at least remove whatever sounds informal, colloquial, figurative or idiomatic.

Yes check.svg Done as asked. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Plot
  • Seems fine, a few edits by a GOCE member should make it look best.
Cast
  • Let the most notable members stay, while minor ones may also, if there is any source to prove their inclusion.

Yes check.svg Done Most notable members staying. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Production
  • Does this image satisfy WP:NFCC? I don't think so, and it should be uploaded through Commons with permission from the image's owner, who is The Hindu!

Yes check.svg Done Removed the image. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Release
  • This section needs serious copyediting, and "bagged" is not formal. Also, mention the Censor Board by its full name - the Central Board of Film Certification.

Yes check.svg Done Lstanley1979 has done a c/e on this section. CBFC expanded to Central Board of Film Certification. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 07:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Box office
  • Information on the film's release can be shifted to "release".

Yes check.svg Done as asked. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

  • "It grossed $101,779 in its full run in South Africa." - source?

Yes check.svg Done as asked. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

3D conversion
  • This section can be renamed to "3D re-release".

Yes check.svg Done as asked. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Critical response
  • Many review sites are not referred to here by name, when they should be.

Yes check.svg Done named review sites. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Accolades
  • Source the entire section.

Yes check.svg Done sourced. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

In Popular Culture
  • Decapitalise "Popular Culture", and expand upon the content.

Yes check.svg Done removed the section. Placed it in my sandbox. Will expand upon the content when I go for FAC. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Soundtrack
  • This section better come after "Production" and before "Release".

Yes check.svg Done as asked. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the other mishaps in the article are glaring and explicit enough for you to correct. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Some minor points:

  • I suggest to merge the lead into three paragraphs.
  • "Shankar was paid a record salary of INR 30 million for this project". In the sentence, you do not need to have space after {{INR}} and so with the succeeding one.
  • I suggest to tweak one of the sentences that have "record salary" as both look almost same thing.
  • In the casting section, Nayantara and Asin need to be linked.
  • I suggest to shift the sentence from the sub-section "Visual effects". The sub-section is not needed when it has only one sentence.
  • The full stop (.) is missing in the first sentence of Release section.
  • "The kanjira is a South Indian frame drum, is an instrument of the tambourine family." does not look sound to me. --FrankBoy (Buzz) 12:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done All of the above comments have been resolved. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 13:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


Gun violence in the United States[edit]

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

The article has not been reassessed since 2006 and there've been a lotta changes since then. Two big problems: the intro doesn't summarize the article, and some editors keep reinserting repetitive, non-neutral text. Felsic (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I agree. To say the least, it needs to be updated. But it also needs to be refactored for simpler language in some parts and more exact language in other parts. As I read through the article more and more, I would say it'd be better to revoke GA status for now, in part due to out-of-date information and also in part due to non-neutral language (regardless of whether or not it's agreeable, the phrasing needs to sound more "simple fact"-ish.) This appears to be present throughout the article. Jacedc (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

A Series of Unfortunate Events[edit]

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

The article has a problem with original research/verifiability (see 2c): although many of the {{cn}} tags in there were added by myself, a decent number weren't and all of them need addressing anyway. References are thorough in a couple of sections (like "Genre"), but sparse for most of the article. For instance, the long analytical "Recurring themes and concepts" section has only 4 sources, 3 of which are just sources to the books next to quotes taken out of them. I'm sure it would be a great piece of writing on a fansite or forum, but is not referenced.

There also seems to be an issue with images (6a), although I'm not an expert in this area: while the book set picture of the English version is fair use, as I would expect, File:Série de livres Les désastreuses aventures des orphelins Baudelaire.JPG and File:Řada nešťastných příhod.jpg (the French and Czech translations) are from Commons.

The sales subsection could perhaps do with some expansion — I know, for instance, that not all of those 41 language editions will have printed the whole 13-book series of ASOUE (and very few supplementary works like TBL or TUA or Horseradish). Are there reliable sources somewhere that go into more detail? If not, the subsection is far too small (one sentence!) to be left on its own, and should be incorporated into some other part of "Reception". (The main section "Genre" might also have the same problem.)

I'm sure I've neglected to mention many issues the article has, but just the referencing issue means it fails GA criteria. The article hasn't been reviewed since 2007 (and I would say it should have been delisted then): it definitely doesn't meet the criteria now. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 12:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


Billion Dollar Babies[edit]

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

I believe the article should feature more information on the background and recording of the album. The album's influence on rock music is also omitted, and judging by its importance, it should be researched. The references could use some formatting, especially the Allmusic refs. Summa summarum, my two main worries are comprehensiveness and formatting.--Retrohead (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


Blues for the Red Sun[edit]

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

Similar issues as Billion Dollar Babies—nothing on the background and recording, lead not summarizing the entire content, audio should feature explanation what it showcases, etc.--Retrohead (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


Reiki[edit]

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

C'mon... I would like an explanation as to why this is a "good article" in the natural sciences category with other pages such as biology and medicine that are science based. Well, to be honest, no person can answer that question honestly and therefore I am asking the page be reviewed. Quackery and pseudoscience has no place among science based articles. I am absolutely positive any and all persons, who abide by and trust in the scientific method, would aggressively nod in agreement with me.

The GA criteria that this does not meet is that it is at the very least not in the correct category. Reike is not a science, it is based on belief and spirituality. It is not based on the scientific method. Therefore it should not be in the natural science category and not be a "good article".

So officially the GA category it does not conform to is GA 2 - Verifiable [science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. ConcernedPrude (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delist. This article has been the subject of constant edit warring and it shows. There are terrible WP:NPV, WP:V, and WP:OR issues raised on the talk page that have gone unaddressed. These cut both ways (both pro- and anti-reiki). There is no chance these issues will be fixed anytime soon in light of the article currently being a battleground. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist - This article does not meet good article criteria. It is not:
  • Verifiable. Numerous sources throughout the article are cited by author last name and year only. Many of the other sources are of highly questionable validity. In the course of removing numerous clearly self-published sources, I have left numerous statements to be sourced or removed.
  • Broad in its coverage. It contains unnecessary detail, as evidenced by the limited number of reliable sources available on the subject relative to the depth present in the article.
  • Neutral. Given the lack of in-depth coverage from reliable sources, the amount of detail given on reiki beliefs is unsustainable.
  • Stable. While no one seems to agree on much else, I doubt anyone will contest this.

At present, there are over 30 cite needed tags, which I would categorize as a lot -- enough for an automatic fail, but everything is contentious here, so *I* won't do it. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


Oscar (fish)[edit]

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending
  • Reason: This article is no more a good one. It is full of cn tag and one of the sections does not follow MOS. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 10:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The Fame Monster[edit]

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

The prose in this article is really quite horrible, and I don't believe this passes criterion 1 of GACR. On top of poor grammar throughout, the article also suffers from overquotation, raising copyright issues. The problems are large-scale and article-wide. Examples include, but are not limited to (as of this writing):

  • Initially planned solely as a deluxe reissue of The Fame, it was later decided that the release's eight new tracks would also be released as a standalone EP in some territories, as Gaga thought the re-release was too expensive and that the albums were each conceptually different, describing them as yin and yang. – VERY long sentence.
  • The cover artwork was done by Hedi Slimane – "done"? Very vague language is not encyclopedic.
  • The artwork was originally declined by her record company, however, Gaga convinced them to go through with it – "go through" is informal, unencyclopedic language.
  • "Dance in the Dark" was only released as a single in select territories, but received ... and receiving ... – grammatically incorrect
  • It was nominated in a total of six categories at the 53rd Annual Grammy Awards including Gaga's second consecutive Album of the Year nomination, ultimately winning for Best Pop Vocal Album. – poorly written sentence
  • According to her, she felt a dichotomy within herself – very poorly written sentence

I'm not super familiar with the reassessment process, so I have opened this as a community reassessment. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

  • It should also be noted that Legolas2186, who was the main contributor at the time this was listed as a GA, has been indefinitely blocked for outstanding falsification of sources (see here). Thus, GACR #2 is also potentially an issue. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist in addition to the above concerns, this goes into excessive detail about performances, and some refs aren't correctly formatted. This really needs a copyedit and is not up to par. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • DelistNeutral for now. Its too much of a hassle to go through an old article with numerous errors as Snuggums pointed out. But I will take a shot first with referencing. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 04:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Type 94 Nambu pistol[edit]

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

The article is not currently GA material. First, there's a glaring date conflict was fixed. Second, the article has a fairly heavy POV slant and appears to be making a judgement call regarding whether this weapon was well-designed or not. Encyclopedic articles aren't supposed to do that. Third, the lede itself makes a number of POV claims that the gun is poorly designed and none of them are sourced; while they are in the body, they are still heavily slanted and POV. Fourth, the writing itself contains a great deal of passive voice... things like "it is considered to be"... considered by whom? Passive voice is generally a sign of weak writing and an article that contains a lot of it is not GA material. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

If it is highly sourced as a weapon of poor quality and design how is not to be presented as such? Do you want authors and experts quoted as calling it a poor weapon or removal of statements about quality overall?--Molestash (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Two points:
* Which of the cited sources specifically refer to it as poor design and bad quality? I know there are lots of gun boards and fan pages out there that like to make it out to be "the worst gun evaaarrr", but I think a lot of that is hyperbole and even racism, to some degree. Gun culture can be very cliquish, and I'm speaking as someone who is a part of it. I actually own a Type 94, it's not nearly as bad as some make it out to be. BUT;
* The sources in the article are good ones, so if that's where you've pulled this from I think it's more a matter of graceful writing than sourcing. Something along the lines of "Japanese weapons experts typically refer to the design of the Type 94 as overly complex and in some cases, dangerous". I would also make note of the fact that the decline in fit and finish/build quality over time had much to do with Japan's factories being destroyed and the need to crank out guns more quickly (all of the Axis countries and the USSR had the same issues with late war guns being more crude and sometimes poorly made). Additionally, the issue with the seer bar is present on the Luger, although it's protected more elegantly, it would be nice to mention this. I'm having some issues with Wikipedia, not sure if it's my internet or the site is just slow, going to log out for now. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Derby & Brown along with Kinard take a two fold approach. They've come to the conclusion that complaints Western shooter make about the gun being too small and awkward to hold and fire are baseless because the weapons were made for the 5'4" Japanese soldier not the average Western Soldier 5'11" and taller. Derby & Brown do however take an engineering approach and detail how the firing pin is weak and easy to break. The ability to shoot the pistol from the sear bars with just your hand is covered by all authors I have used/read (hence the picture and it's own paragraph). The inclusion of the sear bar problem in the luger, which I am unfamiliar with, would lose focus from the article. The Type 94 to my knowledge did not borrow design features from the Luger directly. When writing an article about pistols I feel you need to tread a light line about getting too technical and thus don't pound why something is a design flaw, just weapon authors indicate it as such. The decline very much has to do with the rush completion of the pistols and shortages in supply but they show the decline in production quality probably best of all weapons of WWII. You have to remember the Japanese were getting ready to fight the allies using makeshift spears and original matchlock rifles to defend the home islands. They didn't have the stockpiles the Germans acquired and only started having a modern army 80 years earlier. The military industrial complex was also the weakest in Japan with natural resource scarce on the home islands and Japan cut from their factories in Manchuria and Korea. I have the same personal interest in early Japanese firearms and would agree that Westerners tend to be hostile towards Japanese weapons out of pseudo nationalism. --Molestash (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with you on expanding somewhat on the specifics engineering and design flaws. If I were a casual reader or someone with an interest in old firearms who happened to read the article, I would want to know why the authors say the gun has engineering and design shortcomings. Readers should be able to come to this article and get all of the best ideas from the works cited. In addition to tightening up the prose I'm also thinking of ways to actually expand the article, somewhat. One thing you might consider is posting a request at the League of Copyeditors to have the article reviewed by someone who is an experienced (and perhaps trained) editor rather than a writer who is into firearms. I wonder if the League are still around, it has been years since I checked. Even the best writers have editors who clean up and tighten their writing. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 05:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, they are still around. Worth a look! The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 15:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War[edit]

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

The subject of this article is important - the Spanish Civil War - a subject which has been researched by a wide range of academics of varying nationalities. Bonafide copy editors, with the best of intentions, have attempted to extend the article in order to give it a similar length to the very well writen good article in Spanish Wiki. Unfortunately as a result of maintaining the unusually narrow range of sources, the article now appears as though it is the paraphrasing of one main source, Thomas, whose book was written in 1960, though re-published more recently. This article was previously subjected to community assessment for doubtful quality and the view that the article was not of good article class was unanimous on both occaisions. There was not one single view that the article was of good article class. I cannot see that a topic of such importance can have good article status when it relies to such an extent on one source which is out of date. I recommend that this article good article status be withdrawn until it can reflect a similarly broad range of sources as the Spanish wiki article. Translation from Spanish to English has been suggested and a notice has been posted on the Spanish article last year. Similarly the the English article has been tagged for improvement by could also be considered. An editor who has a fascination with war articles has unilaterally promoted the article to good article, though previous discussion indicated that although there were a small number of participants in the discussion, the view was unanaimous.Isthisuseful (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Also, I put the article forward for editing in order to bring it up to good article class. An experienced editor took on this task but found the number of sources far too limited and agreed that the article was paraphrasing Thomas. For information the discussion about the article's status took place twice by way of RFC and to be doubly sure that this article is not being unfairly demoted from good article category I will post a further RFC.

A machine translation of the Spanish article is already superior to the current version in English. A page for translation has been created and is being progresssed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Isthisuseful (talkcontribs) 21:00, 2 March 2015

  • Comment: G'day, you state that the article was previously subjected to community assessment for doubtful quality and the view was that it was not of good article class. Can you please provide a link to this discussion? The last community GAR that I can find is this one: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Spanish Civil War/1 from August 2013, where it seems the vote was in favour of keeping. Likewise, could you please specifically state which GA criteria you believe that the article fails? I had a quick look, and from what I can see there appears to be a reasonable number of citations to authors other than just Thomas, for instance Beevor, Alpert, Preston, Jackson, Bieter, Howson, Westwell, Payne, Santos, etc. So at least from my superficial look it appears like the article uses a reasonably broad range of sources (I'm not an expert on the topic, though, but at least from a lay perspective it seems ok to me). Which source from the Spanish article do you think should be added? Finally, please do not cast aspersions about other editors' motives, as it is not conducive to creating a collaborative editing environment. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

→I am sorry that your friend is upset that I have put the article which he promoted to good article forward for community assessment. My understanding is that page is to discuss the merit of the article rather than whether I have done the right thing by asking for community reassessment. I have put my comments on my talk page and I'm happy to have that discussion there. Isthisuseful (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Good Article Criteria:
Well-written:
the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[2]
Verifiable with no original research:[3]
it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[4]
all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[5] and
it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage:
it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[6] and
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[7]
Illustrated, if possible, by images:[8]
images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[9]
  • Reasoning that Good Article Criteria are not met:

Above are the good article criteria as requested. The article reflects an Anglo-Centric view of the Spanish Civil War at time of British raprochment with the dictatorship in Spain in the 1950s & 1960s. This view, which is the view in the two source books which are the primary source of the article, was accepted in Britain in the 1960s but it is no longer current. The article paraphrases Thomas and presents the Spanish Civil war in terms military battles and particular artists that were notable at the time. This creates a very oddly shaped article which is lacking in historical analysis and perspective, in particular the historical causes of the Spanish Civil War, something which is fundamental to historical understanding, are almost ignored. The majority of historical reasearch into the Spanish Civil War has taken place much more recently that the 1960s and 1970s when the dictatorship was still in place. This makes the article out of date and unsuitable for good article status. Isthisuseful (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, so to clarify, could you please confirm that you are saying that you believe this article does not pass the "broad in its coverage" and the "neutral" criteria? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time with the repeated assertions that the current article is largely based on Thomas' 1961 book: there are a mere 20 cites to the 1961 book, out of 264 book cites in the whole article. The general assertion that the sources are outdated doesn't seem to hold water either: a quick analysis of the book cites shows that 14% are pre-1990 and 86% post-1990 (by comparison, the Spanish article is 5% pre-1990 and 95% post-1990). I certainly don't see (1) an over-dependence on Thomas 1961 (in fact the Spanish article cites it 11 times), nor (2) a preponderance of aged sources. Can we drop the 'based on Thomas' and 'outdated sources' arguments which don't seem supported by the facts, and instead focus on the quality of the sources and any deficiencies in the content of the article, please? Maralia (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: @Isthisuseful: - you state: "the historical causes of the Spanish Civil War, something which is fundamental to historical understanding, are almost ignored..." The article has a background section which at approx. 800 words is admittedly fairly short; however, it appears summarise what is obviously a fairly broad topic, with more details available in the main article at Background of the Spanish Civil War (4,800 words and currently an GA/A class article). Given the length of the main article (already 130 kb) it seems appropriate to me that it would use summary style in this fashion. However, I am not an expert on this topic so I'm unsure if it is a good summary or not. Perhaps you might explain what is missing from this section that you feel is relevant? Equally, as you seem to be fairly knowledgeable on the topic, might it not just be easier and more productive for you to amend the article yourself and add the information you believe is missing (respecting of course the need to provide references per WP:V and in keeping with WP:UNDUE) rather than continually open GARs? Anotherclown (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

British Bangladeshi[edit]

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

Unfortunately, this article has not been consistently updated since being listed as a GA. As a result, much of the data in the article is out-of-date, relying on the 2001 rather than the 2011 census, for example. There are also unsourced statements in the article and numerous grammatical errors. I have tried to find editors who will work with me to update the article, but no one has responded to my comments on the talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)