Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 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 22) Crystal Clear app file-manager.png Good article review (archive) (Page 20) →


To archive an article from the disputes page, check over the dispute, and see if any enforcement is necessary. For instance, if a discussion results in 5 editors for delisting an article and 1 against, then delist the article as you archive it. If a dispute is close, for instance, an approximately even amount of editors taking a side, try to make a new comment rather than archiving, to see whether the dispute should continue. Make sure not to archive active discussions, a good rule is to not archive anything that has a comment less than a week old, unless a resolution has been posted to the discussion. An exception to this rule involves disputes which have a clear outcome in these ways: There is at least an 80 percent majority to do something with an article, there are at least 6 votes, and at least three days have passed since the article was nominated for review.

Archived Disussions

Michael Jackson

Result: Keep 6-1

previous GA/R

Lead is too long, given the amount of time the article's editors have had to fix this issue since it was last raised. Removing extraneous text is simple and this article has been like it for what I would say was an unacceptable time-span for how long an article should be allowed to sit with issues before being delisted (2 months, anyone?).

I personally feel the article's main editor (UberCryxic) is resisting all change other than he himself makes, whilst this is... unhelpful, I don't (to be honest) care. The fact (and my only grievance) is it makes the article non-GA worthy in this case. The editor seems to be charged with a polarised viewpoint and it shows in the current version of the article.

The GA approved version: [1] and the current: [2]. Is this article GA status? I don't feel it has that neutral quality it once possessed, it's got too many album covers and other non-free images. It sucks.

Personal attempts to shrink the lead/effect basic changes due to lack of attribution for the claims made were reverted by the main current contributor (UberCryxic)[3] (note how this reversion of his reintroduces completely unsourced libel material about him being a part of a circuit involving prostitutes that has no source). Previous attempts to delist article (by another editor) were also stonewalled by by the same contributor "discussion closed in next edit with comment "Michael Jackson - Archiving Michael Jackson: Current discussion shows no hope of consensus. Vote is 5-4 after SIX weeks of discussion. Maintain status quo (keep).)".

The version actually given GA status [4] is nothing like this version either (notice the much shorter, definately more neutral lead - although that article also does not meet GA status requirements). The majority of editors to that version appear to have left editing duties of the article after UberCryxic joined.

Homestarmy, Nehrams2020, Quadzilla99 and LaraLove all pointed out the overlength of the lead in the previous review. This was not rectified. I previously ceased editing May 06 - May 07, on the basis I would make an more balanced attempt to take wikipedia forward on my return. This article has actually gone backwards in that time (unlike my favorite band article, Megadeth). I think we should revert to the GA status version of November linked to previously within my statement, although I would still advocate its delisting in that case until it really does meet the criteria which the November version also did not. That is not a condition of delisting (as if I am in a position to dictate, or to care to), although if you would support that move I'd ask that you state it, so we're in the clear, consensus wise on my idea to perhaps move forwards (even if it does seem like moving backwards). --Manboobies 23:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment This article just finished a GA review, no less than two weeks or so ago I believe. The result was to keep its GA status. As such, this second effort so quickly is completely null and void. Wait a few more months, preferrably three or four, before you renominate so as to give the editors a good opportunity to grapple with the issues raised in the previous nomination.UberCryxic 01:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Man's proposel isn't about delisting or keeping as much as it is proposing to revert this article to an earlier form. Homestarmy 02:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, then that particular request should have been made in the talk page of the article, which is what I suggested to the user. Everything aside, however, this article simply should not be here at this moment; that is, undergoing a GA review.UberCryxic 02:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is all not mentioning the fact that the original version that was promoted to GA status was quite atrocious, stylistically, encyclopedically, and in every other way. Ample evidence can be found in the archives of the talk page detailing the reasons for the changes. The original version became a GA article because of copious citations, but little else.UberCryxic 02:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"I think we should revert to the GA status version of November linked to previously within my statement, although I would still advocate its delisting in that case until it really does meet the criteria which the November version also did not" as you can see I clearly said that it should be delisted and reverted. Not that it should be just reverted. Is anyone here reading other people's comments fully?--Manboobies 18:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment While I too think the lead is laughably overlong, this article really shouldn't be here for the reasons Uber stated. I've never liked the idea of blanket reverting back to another version it basically undoes all the work people have done to an article over a course of time and is disrespectful in my view, it's like saying "Sorry but all your work was useless". Quadzilla99 02:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Quadzilla99. If this is not about delisting the article, as you state, then this is not the place for it. I would have liked to have seen this brought up on the talk page, discussing your opinions and remedies, before bringing it to here. I also feel that more time should be given before resubmitting it to a GAR. --MPD T / C 03:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I see no reason NOT to have another GA review, since the result of the last review was NOT "consensus keep". It was kept as a default. There was NO CONSENSUS, which is not the same as a "keep". The result was keep, but the discussion was deadlocked and thus closed and kept by default; not because there was a consensus that the article was GA quality. I am voting to Delist myself, for the following reasons:
    • Lead isn't well written. There shouldn't be new information in the lead, which is not covered elsewhere in the article, and this one has MUCH of that. The lead isn't really a summary.
    • As long as it is, the referencing is spotty in places, for example:
      • Most of 1958–1979: Early life and career
      • The last paragraph of 1979–1982: Off the Wall era
      • The first paragraph of 1982–1986: Thriller era
      • The second paragraph of 1991–1994: Dangerous era
      • The second paragraph of 1995–2000: HIStory era and Blood on the Dance Floor
      • Several paragraphs of 2001–2003: Invincible era (there's even a citation needed tag)
    • As a whole, the article is QUITE bloated. Much of the information on individual albums should be confined to the ALBUM articles rather than the ARTIST article. Plus, the organization is hard to follow as it doesn't really segregate his personal life from his professional one; they are really two narratives that need to be told separately and the way this article is organized makes it hard to follow. The way it jumps from paragraph to paragraph intertwining album and song reviews with personal life story makes it difficult for the reader to parse.
    • The image in the lead MAY be a problem, since it is NOT the image made by the US government. It is a derivative image, edited from a US government work, and I am not sure how it works. Its inclusion MAY be kosher, but the liscencing tag implies that THIS image is a work of the federal gov't. It isn't. The images was created by someone else by modifying the work of the gov't, and thus is the work of THAT person. Something needs clearing up to make that more clear.
Those are the reasons that I vote to delist it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayron, your initial argument is absolutely irrelevant. Even if you try to sugarcoat the result as "no consensus" or whatever, you're still left with the fact that....there was no consensus. In light of that fact, it is best to wait some time before making such a quick renomination. We are all more than happy to consider all of your points and those of Manboobies, but in the talk page of the article, not in a hasty and inappropriate GA review.UberCryxic 03:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

His initial comment is more than relevant. You are stonewalling any changes you do not want made and using the "I need more time" excuse to perpetuate a rubbish article as one of our best. It needs delisting. Also, please do not contact me on my talk page to give the mistaken idea we are communicating saliently on this one. You are reverting any changes I make, and this article sucks, it needs delisting, and reverting. --Manboobies 18:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And for something else: we can actually use this "GA review" as a vehicle for improving the article (kind of like a peer review), but bear in mind that there will be no such things as votes or what have you. It's too soon for that. The votes have no authority with this GA review because its very existence is faulty and misguided.UberCryxic 03:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Really, so your arguement is "No one has to listen to you because you lost last time..." Nice attitude. I am sorry you are not interested in seeking the honest opinions of GA reviewers, and instead are only looking to "Win" something. It is my honest opinion that this is NOT a Good Article, and it does NOT belong on the GA list as is, since it violates WP:WIAGA. These violations exist irregardless of prior votes on this. If you wish to improve this article to GA status, please do so, and I will be glad to endorse this as a GA when the time comes, but it is my honest opinion that this article should NOT be listed as a GA in the state that it is in. It's isn't about "winning". Its about the fact that having substandard articles on the list degrades the entire project, and that can't be tolerated, if only to say "I won this battle two weeks ago, so we must wait longer before we have it again." There are concrete reasons why this article should not be a GA; there are fixes that need to be made to get it there, I have listed many above. The problems are not minor, they are legion, and I see no reason to keep this substandard article around simply because there was a deadlocked vote two weeks ago. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please no strawmen arguments. Don't try to get an upper hand in this process by throwing around wild claims. I am more than willing to seriously consider a GA review at the appropriate time. Now is clearly not the appropriate time. It is a long-standing tradition in Wikipedia that if something fails to gain consensus, it is best to wait some time before making another major push. In fact, I would just like to direct your attention to this article's FA nominations (the third one is here). After a fairly quick renomination, some reviewers explicitly told the nominating user that more time has to be allotted to address the concerns that were raised in the previous discussions. The same thing has to happen here now. We can't just have a GA review two weeks after we closed a fairly thorough one. What is all this stuff about "winning"? Please leave that out of here. It has nothing to do with improving the article or the arguments that you and I are making towards that end. I am more than happy to address all of these concerns in the talk page, not in a misguided GA review.UberCryxic 03:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, as you can see in the talk page of the nominator, despite reminding the user that many of these claims have been thoroughly addressed before, I still treat them as "very legitimate." I am not trying to dismiss anything. This is just the wrong method to go about improving the article. That's essentially all I'm arguing, as are several others.UberCryxic 03:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. I was jumping to conclusions about your motives, and I appreciate that you want this article improved. I was wrong to make it appear as though you were making arguements when you weren't. Please accept my humble apology. I still feel that the article needs some serious work, and I hope you take my above suggestions to heart and use them to help improve the article. If you would like, please paste them (or I can) to the talk page if you feel that is more appropriate. I want to see this article improved, and I am sorry that I made it seem that you had motives that you did not. It was inexcusable for me to do so, and I offer no explanation beyond my apology. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. No harsh feelings and apology accepted. Process is very important though, especially in Wikipedia. We should give your recommendations, and that of every other person here, every ounce of effort once this GA review closes, and yes posting them in the talk page would be best. Right now, this review itself is the cloud hanging over the actual improvement of the article, amazingly ironic since improving the article is precisely what it's trying to do....it's just going about it the wrong way.UberCryxic 04:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware (for the general audience, although Uber almost certainly knows):
  • It did not pass the last GA review. It failed to recieve enough support either way. It was a defacto pass by total lack of consensus, as the editor who removed the article summarised in his close-of-discussion post.
  • I and many others had no say in the previous GA review, and I consider the complete lack of wider feedback inappropriate (you and a couple of other regular editors doesn't cut it).
  • This article does not represent our best. It needs to go from the list. You are delaying the inevitable. You had 6 WEEKS to improve the article while that GA review discussion went on and you argued incessantly with everyone and did nothing of the sort that would improve it.
  • You are doing your best to insist that the GA review will not reach a consensus because you say it won't. I refuse on this one. This article will be removed from GA status. You refuse to allow me to improve it, reverting my edits.
  • I am making requests for editors because I feel we need neutral opinion. You posted on each one of my requests for outside users that: "users should be aware that the above GA review is meaningless. This article just passed a GA review about two weeks ago. It should not have been renominated so quickly. The current review will have no impact upon the article and, although we do appreciate the interest, you are encouraged to ignore it." You basically told potential reviewers that their views would not matter and procedure means nothing. Where are you pulling this from? You know for a fact that if enough people say this article should be removed from GA status it will no matter what time span and you are trying to delay the inevitable.
  • "It is a long-standing tradition in Wikipedia that if something fails to gain consensus, it is best to wait some time before making another major push" Traditions mean nothing, this is wikipedia, and I choose to IGNORE ALL RULES on this one, which is policy. This isn't even a rule. Tradition is not policy. You are severely mistaken.--Manboobies 19:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A majority of those involved in the last GA review voted to keep this article's status. The user's characterization of what happened at the last review is completely incorrect as most of those who participated shared my opinions. Refer to what I told Jayron above; the lack of consensus, especially such a strong lack of consensus, is a good enough reason to wait some time before attempting something major with this article. We've already had neutral opinions before and we reached no definitive conclusions. Again, have some patience on this one. We can revisit the issue later, but even better, we can revisit the issues right now in the talk page, not here. It does not matter that you specifically were not here. There was plenty of feedback from others; many people participated in that GA review. It also does not matter that you refuse to believe what I'm saying; GA reviews are not bestowed with power and authority simply because someone creates them. This review has no legitimacy whatsoever. Furthermore, as was stated before, you are hurting your own cause it seems. We can talk about all of this in the talk page of the article. There is no need to heighten tensions by creating an unnecessary GA review and imposing loose time limits and forcing an issue at an uncomfortable moment.UberCryxic 19:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken:
  • Everyone has commented the lead is too long.
  • Everyone has pointed out the unsourced information.
  • Everyone agrees on those two points bar you. That is consensus. Previously you drew it out for 6 WEEKS with another user who has now been banned for abuse.
These points make this article non-GA worthy, and it should be delisted. --Manboobies 20:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Additionally I have struck through the text from you implying I have given this a time limit. There is no time limit for discussion. I have said repeatedly now is a perfect time. It is you who said on my talk page we should wait until August.--Manboobies 20:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not mistaken at all, and I can easily show why. Let's roll through these statements one by one, shall we? Ok. You stated, "everyone has commented the lead is too long." That's plainly absurd. Go here to see the last GA review of this article. First of all, there were four delists (one "weak") and five keeps. Let's just make certain we understand that. Secondly, plenty of people commented that they were happy with the lead. Some of those who voted keep made statements like "the lead gives me a good summary of the article" and "The problem seems to be the lead for most delisters. Note that the article is over 100k, meaning that the four-paragraph lead really isn't too long given the article's size." The person who made the latter comment is, of course, absolutely right. This is a long article and almost demands a relatively long lead (relative to other articles, that is).

I thoroughly addressed the arguments of people who wanted to trim the lead and I even complied partially, eliminating a lengthy quotation. As I explained to the main protagonist pushing for a shorter lead, however, the length of the Michael Jackson lead was not that much bigger than the length of the lead of the Michael Jordan article, an article that the user had recently taken to FA status. Instead of attacking me for not paying attention or something to that effect, I sincerely urge you to review my arguments against your position, which are quite detailed. Nevertheless, the point is that not everyone disliked the lead, so your assertion up there is completely false.

You then stated that "everyone" is attacking the "unsourced" information. Generally, they are not. You are the only one doing that. Know why? Because this article is heavily cited, and one could even successfully argue it's overly cited in some parts. One of the people in the review stated the following, also in relation to the lead: "I think it could be trimed down though [the lead], and leads generally shouldn't need that many references." Once again, your suppositions above are highly incorrect. Just out of curiosity: did you read what people wrote in the last GA review?

Your characterization of my interactions with the banned user are also vastly exaggerated. We talked for one or two days; that's it. That person was then banned and could no longer participate. Where did you get 6 weeks from? I don't want to insinuate anything, but again: did you look at the GA review? Just as many people came down on my side as did against (4). When the Supreme Court hands down a 5-4 decision on a controversial issue, it doesn't take up the matter two weeks later. The analogy has flaws for obvious reasons, but the larger point remains: a GA review now is the wrong thing at the wrong time for this article. Your concerns would be much better served in the talk page, and there only.UberCryxic 03:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delist - Can we please not do this again? This is the second time a GA/R on this article has gotten out of hand to ridiculous proportions. So everyone is clear:
    • The last result was 4 regular reviewers voting for delist, plus the delist recommendation of the nomination. Then we have UberCryxic's keep vote, and four additional keep votes from users who (disclaimer as best I can tell) did not previously and have not since voted in GA/Rs.
    • The review ran from 28 March to 11 May. So, as stated above, about six weeks.
    • Past that, the issues addressed, as stated above, have not been sufficiently addressed.
    • I have left a lengthy list of changes that need to be made from what I have read of just the first part of the article and the references section (which I didn't get very deep into, either). I plan to review it further when I have more time. My basic issues are as follows:
      • The lead is too long and the length of the article, as I stated in the first GA/R, does not justify it considering it, too, is too long. WP:LENGTH states that articles over 100KB (which this one is) should be divided. Although this article is divided (with every section in the first half having it's own main article), it has not be sufficiently trimmed.
      • The article is not sufficiently or accurately wikified. It does not follow WP:MOS#Wikilinking standards nor those of the more specific wikilinking guidelines.
      • There are several issues with prose.
      • Referencing is inadequate. There are many statements/claims that require citation.
      • Referencing is also inconsistent. Some statements of a certain topic (i.e. chart positions, award wins, etc.) are referenced while others are not.
      • References are not accurately formatted and several lack all information. Many are missing credit to the author and date of publishing. Many work fields have been inaccurately filled (wrong capitalization, lack of wikification).
  • I'll add additional issues as I find them. Regards, LaraLoveT/C 06:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify for those reading this: please refer to Lara's talk page and read my explanation regarding the user whose comments I crossed out. On the lead: for the article as it is, the lead does a very good job at summarizing the subject. Lara posits that there is "too much detail" but offers no specifics. The lead does perhaps the main thing that a good lead should do: explain the significance of the subject. Bear in mind that Michael Jackson is a living person, so unfortunately many of these supposed problems (especially relating to length), but some actual problems too, will persist until after he dies. Beyond this, I largely agree with Lara's other comments. This article has problems with reference formatting and lack of citations in some areas. We will get to all of those in due time. But, again, this is a debate that should be occurring in the talk page of the article, not in a GA review, at least not in light of what just happened with the last review closing only two weeks ago.UberCryxic 06:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think it's that difficult to figure out what needs to be removed from the lead considering it's been said multiple times between the two reviews. Possibly read back over the suggestions from both reviews. Also reading over summary may help. Remove specifics. He's inspired and influenced a generation... fantastic! Like who?, the readers will wonder... (Read the article). He's won awards and sold millions of records! What awards, and how many millions of records, and for what albums?! (Read the article). Entice the reader. Give them the basic information, but make them WANT to read the rest. And trim the article down so they don't lose interest or get discouraged when they see that four seconds of scrolling only dropped the bar down one inch. LaraLoveT/C 07:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've begun an extensive process with the aim of taking this article below 100 kb. Right now, my edits have taken it from 115 kb to 108 kb. I'm informing people of what I'm changing in the article's talk page under the "Improvements and Suggestions" section. I am mainly focusing on Lara's proposals right now because her's were the most specific, although I am also changing a lot of things that I thought were problematic. I'll give a final assessment here and on the talk page when I'm done with my changes. Right now, the lead has been shortened significantly I would say. Obviously anyone and everyone is encouraged to help me, but please discuss anything and everything in the talk page. Thank you.UberCryxic 18:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The article now stands at 105 kb and is getting shorter and shorter fairly quickly. Again, I'm trying to detail my changes in the talk page of the article for as much transparency as possible. This process should take a few days, so please be patient. Thank you again.UberCryxic 19:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(Referncing vote by Paaerduag in Consensus Check below) That's a comment, not a keep vote. Comments following your vote should be a justification/explanation of your vote, rather than a complaint or suggestion. LaraLoveT/C 18:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC) There's no set standard on what a "Keep" or "Delist" vote should look like in terms of explanation. People complain all the time in their voting comments. If the person says "Keep," he or she means keep the article as a GA, or at least that's what we have to assume if we're being reasonable.UberCryxic 19:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

While that is true, complaints following comments don't generally contradict the vote. If you will notice, all votes from regular GA/R editors are followed by some sort of justification or explanation. That is the expectation of those voting. Even those who apparently only vote when this particular article is up for review. --LaraLoveT/C 06:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if what I said is true, then what you said in the beginning, that what Paarduag wrote was "not a keep vote," has to be false. Yes what Paarduag wrote is unconventional, but not amazingly unique or anything. I myself have had plenty of instances when I've voted on something and then gone off on some tangent that really wasn't related to the vote. That doesn't make votes illegitimate at all. The only thing that matters is the "keep" or "delist" labels.UberCryxic 17:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comment being correct does not make mine false. Just because it's not a written standard does not mean there is no expectation. If you are going to have all the MJ article contributors come sway the consensus, there should at least be some justification behind it. We go to the trouble to list the prodigious issues with the article that disqualify it for GA. There can at least be a paragraph of explanation as to why all of that should be ignored so that the article can keep GA. LaraLoveT/C 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well of course it makes your comment false. If a person can just say "keep" or "delist," which is what I'm saying, it doesn't matter what they follow that up with. Doesn't matter if you consider it an "explanation" or "justification" or whatever. All that matters is the "keep" or "delist" for the vote to count....and, obviously, other important issues, like credibility of the user and so forth.UberCryxic 22:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus check

Tangental debates above threaten to derail what should be the point of this discussion. Below this header, I simply want to focus the discussion to the salient point at hand. What is your response to this question: Does the article Michael Jackson, in the state it is currently in, meet all the criteria as spelled out in WP:WIAGA? If you wish to answer this question, please do so below. If you wish to leave other comments, please do so in the above section.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delist The article fails the following aspects of WP:WIAGA:
    • Criteria 1 (b): The lead is not a proper summary and the layout is difficult to follow.
    • Criteria 3 (b): The article does not stay focused on the subject. It does not obey a summary style as required by the standards.
    • Criteria 5: It is not stable. An edit war by proxy is going on here and other places. Until an agreed-upon version of this article can be put forward as the version we consider "Good" we should not list it as such.:For those reasons, this article should NOT be considered a Good Article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It looks as though the lead has greatly improved. I still recommend changing the organization of the article to a more logical layout: Maybe this heading organization might work better for readability. Reorganization could do much more than random cutting in making the article easier to read and follow. Consider this:
  • Recording and performance career
  • Jackson 5
  • Off the Wall
  • Thriller
  • Bad
  • etc. etc.
  • Acting Career
  • Personal Life
  • Early life
  • Marriages and children
  • Charitable work
  • Child molestation charges
  • Influence
  • Music Video
  • Performance Style
  • Themes and genres
  • Discography
  • Filmography
  • Awards and honors
  • Apendices (refs, see alsos, etc.)
This organization has the benefit of separating the public Michael Jackson persona (as a recording artist, performer, and actor) from the private Michael Jackson (personal life). You'll see that most GA and FA Biographical articles do this kind of organization, since really there are two narratives here, and the way they are intertwined now does not do service to the article. I am glad to see this article improving, and hope to see it reach GA status real soon. I am looking forward to changing my vote if this can improve. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
WOW has this article gotten better in a short time. A few small things I spotted since the recent reorganization:
  • There is a [citation needed] tag next to a direct quote that needs resolving. We need a ref for that quote.
  • Consider splitting early life from the Jackson 5 section. Keep the Jackson 5 section on the music only and move the birth, early childhood, and relationship with his parents and religion to its own section under Personal Life. Also, all of that information, on his early life, is as yet unreferenced.
  • Not really required for GA, but consider a seperate bullet list section of "Awards and honors" listing major recording awards (AMAs, Grammys, etc) or important citations. The article could benefit from it.
  • Under the section "Music video and MTV" consider changing the opening sentance to say "Some say that Michael Jackson was the first to..." rather than just "Michael Jackson was the first to..." Unequivocal statements of greatness like this sentance implies that Wikipedia endorses that opinion wholeheartedly. Wikipedia does not endorse opinions (even widely held ones); it reports the opinions of others, and prose should reflect that. Look through the article for other places where this happens.
  • Consider a minor reorganization of the personal life section to gather the non-controversial sections (early life, marriages, and humanitarian work) at the beginning and the controversies (physical appearence, child molestation charges) at the end. More consistant narrative that way.
I know I am getting nit-picky here in some places, but since we are doing this, we might as well do it all the way. This article is doing SO much better. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep even though it is a strange "keep" given my feelings that this GAR is irrelevant. Anyway, Criteria 5 is definitely in danger of being violated here, although I wouldn't rush to judgment that quickly Jayron. This article was quite stable for months until just recently. Articles always have disputes creep up here and there at certain times; not a good reason at all to remove their GA status. What you mentioned would normally be a problem for an article on President Bush or someone like that. Criteria 1 and 3 are not violated.UberCryxic 17:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist - I believe the article fails the following GA criteria:
    • 1a: Prose needs work. There are several places that need to be reworded.
    • 1b: The lead, along with the article, is too long and not in compliance with WP:LEAD.
    • 2a: Many references are also incorrectly formatted and missing information.
    • 2b: There are several unsourced statements.
    • 2c: See 2b.
    • 3b: There is a large amount of unnecessary detail. The point of main articles for subtopics is to keep the article of the main topic trimmed down to a readable length. This is not the case for this article.
    • 5: It seems all attempts to make corrections to the article get reverted. This is unacceptatble. Edit wars fall under quick-fail criteria.
A thorough list of issues, as I find them, is being compiled on the article's talk page. Regards, LaraLoveT/C 19:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Ubercryxic seems to be working hard on the concerns addressed above. And looking at the history, I wouldn't call it an "edit war", although there are disputes at times. The original complaint in the article is still vague to me, but I feel it still satisfies GA criteria, and if Uber and Manboobies can work together to address the aforementioned concerns, the article should remain GA. --MPD T / C 04:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think that separating personal life from the main article makes it weak and way too categorized, far too much for a wikipedia article anyway. The article was BETTER before this change occured, and I believe that, since that change seems to have occured as a direct result of this GA review, that it would be better for that change (the separation of personal life from the main article) to be reverted and the article kept as GA. that's my opinion anyway. it's just way to thin and meaningless if we categorize it like that. --Paaerduag 12:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep struck through prior vote. The article has improved in many ways:
    • The lead now adequately summarizes the article. It is still fairly long, but it should be noted that to summarize all parts of the article it should be.
    • The organization is much easier to follow; the professional life narrative is now separate from the personal life, as is standard in nearly every biographical article out there; it is much easier to read.
    • The language has been largely neutralized; there are no more POV problems from my perspective.
    • It is fully referenced to reliable sources.
Great job. It should be noted that an article of this length and comprehensiveness is really on the GA list in holding for FA status. It still needs work, but I highly recommend listing it at peer review and the League of Copyeditors to get more eyes on it and put some polish into it to get ready for eventual FA nomination. Its still rough around the edges, but I could easily see this being an FA some day in the future. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, The shorter lead now seems adequate, and I see no other problems. Homestarmy 20:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. This isn't featured article candidates. — Deckiller 21:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Keane (film)

Result: Relisted at GAC by custodian before consensus. Votes were Endorse fail 2-0

User:The Giant Puffin has failed my article Keane (film) for GA status and i am not sure why? The reasons he gives do not seem valid reasons for failing a nomination for GA and they seem to be purely based on the subject matter not having lines and lines of trivia and non essential references. I have pasted his reasons and my respone below.

I have failed the article for GA status. My reasons are:

  • The article is not comprehensive enough, particuraly concerning the sections near the end of the article
  • Although the references are properly formatted, most of the article's sections rely solely on one or two references each
  • The Alternative version section is a stub, and needs extending
  • Release dates and Critical reaction could do with merging, with the latter being placed as a type-3 header. Interpretation could also be merged as a type-3 header
  • The Featured cast section needs extending

• The Giant Puffin • 12:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My Response

  • You have asked me to extend the featured cast section, great, shall i call the director up and ask him to re-shoot the movie and add some extra parts this time because Wikipedia say that a film with less than 5 characters in it cannot be a Good Article?
  • The alternative version is a stub? okay, so once i have explained what the extended version is about what else should i say? Should i make it up? just write any old crap just to make the section long enough? what happened to be concise and to the point?
  • The Project Film Style Guidelines suggest that the Distribution (i have used the heading release dates) and critical reaction sections are separate sections, you are suggesting that i merge them now, so to be a Good Article i need to ignore the style guidelines? now i am confused!
  • "most of the articles sections rely soley on one or two references each"!Count again dude, there are two main sections with three refernces in each, and the other sections are references where needed and only when needed, again do you want me to add stuff in for the sake of it?


What is a good article?

A good article has the following attributes:

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:

(a) provides references to sources used; (b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles;[2][3] and (c) contains no original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:

(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[4] and (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

5. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.[5]

6. Any images it contains are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly.

So, please could someone tell me exactly which of the reasons i was given for failing this article fit into any of the above guidelines? If I had been told it had failed because it was badly written or not neutral or anything that falls into the above then i would say thanks for reading it and giving some feedback and i would go away and try to fix it. But i feel that my article has been failed only because the subject does not have enough bloat to fill a few more lines with. I am confused Murphy Inc 14:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The main reason for failing is that it is not comprehensive enough, and does not have a lot of information. Now I appreciate that it is a low budget film, and if there is no other information on the internet or in books, then fine. I apoligise if made it sound like the article was bad, because it isnt. If you truly cant find any more information to add, then thats fine. But at the moment, it looks like more general information could be added. The reason I suggested merging the two sections is because the release dates section isnt long. Again, thats not your fault, you can only have so much information about release dates. But, seeing as reaction is also to do with the film's release, it is possible to merge the two together. Its only a possibility. - • The Giant Puffin • 14:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse Fail Though not necessarily for comprehensivness. The GA requirement is broadness (hits all relevent points) not comprehensiveness (complete coverage of everything). The article is formated like any good film article, and hits all the points adequately. So, for that reason I would NOT have failed the article. HOWEVER, that being said, the article is NOT GA quality. Several sections have NO apparent sources whatsoever:
    • "Filming" section, second paragraph makes critical analysis of the style of the film. From where does this analysis come?
    • "Featured cast" is unreferenced. Insofar as it only reports the characters and actors names, the film credits would be the implied source. HOWEVER, this section goes much farther than that, giving bried biographies of the actors and critiquing their roles. As such, that analysis needs sources.
    • "Release dates" is unreferenced.
    • "Interpretation" section is very unencyclopedic in tone, and presents critical analysis of the film which is unreferenced. The quote is referenced, but the analysis that precedes it (which is a mess, and not well written at all) has no source at all, and looks like original research.
    • In addition, the lead is inadequate, as it does NOT cover all aspects of the article, see WP:LEAD. Production gets NO treatment in the lead, for example.
There you go. As I said above, it appears that the article does meet the "broadness" requirement of GA (Criteria 3), so the initial reason for failure seems to be void; however the article is poorly written in places (Criteria 1) and has serious referencing problems (Criteria 2) and so should have been failed. Wrong reasoning, but ultimately the right result. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse Fail per Jayron's assessment.
    • Additionally, I found that there are issues with the referencing concerning placement and naming. These are minor issues, however. Citations should be placed outside of punctuation; this includes quotations. References 1, 4, and 5 are the same reference. It needs to be named so that it will appear only once on the reference list (as "1a b c") and will show in the inline citations that it is reference 1 being used multiple times. If you need help with this, feel free to drop a line on my talk page. Regards, LaraLoveT/C 17:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This, I am afraid, passes the point of tolerability. WP:WIAGA does not require any particular style of footnote format; merely clarity and consistency. The style with LaraLove would impose upon the article has disadvantages; which become obvious if one ever chooses to reorder an article with notes in that style. Editors are free not to use it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Removed, considering it in no way addresses the issues with the article and implies that PMAnderson did not even look at it. LaraLoveT/C 19:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • More proof that you're just trolling me and not actually reading anything. And another example of you backing my point while opposing it. I didn't recommend that they use the cite web template. They already use it. I am merely recommending that they be consistent, as you so kindly pointed out above is included in the criteria. Many references are used multiple times in articles and are named for clarity (also in the criteria, as you mentioned. ;) Thanks!). But, as mentioned above, in this instance there is one for which this hasn't been done. I also, if you'll notice, offered to help them with it if they so desired. LaraLoveT/C 19:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It would be nice if LaraLove would at some point reply to what I actually wrote. My comment above does not say - or mean - {{citeweb}}; that's not the issue on this article. Rather, it is that LaraLove insists on the use of <ref "notename">, which is one possible means of inline citation. I do not see where it is required by WP:WIAGA, and it is not clear that it is desirable for all editors and all articles. Going beyond WP:WIAGA is unfair to the nominator and the initial reviewer alike. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Thanks to you all for your feedback, i knew that the original feedback i got was not correct and of little use to me. At least i have a better understanding of where i can change things and how i can improve the article. I will leave this now and spend some time on the article before i re-submit for GA status. Thanks Again.Murphy Inc 03:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • You're so very welcome. That's what we're here for. LaraLoveT/C 19:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Some help needed then please

Can you help me then please to understand what is expected of a good article, some of the points made i agree with in places but other points seem to make no sense at all.

  • "Filming" section, second paragraph makes critical analysis of the style of the film. From where does this analysis come?:See i am not aware this is a critical analysis of the style of film, most of it states facts i.e. a single camera, no cutaways, no score etc.. - surely facts such as these are not analysis and the best reference is the film itself.
  • "Featured cast" is unreferenced. Insofar as it only reports the characters and actors names, the film credits would be the implied source. HOWEVER, this section goes much farther than that, giving bried biographies of the actors and critiquing their roles. As such, that analysis needs sources.
Not sure you read this section, i have just re-read and cannot see a single critique of their roles, the brief biog seems standard for many Good articles about films and is not referenced as each actor is linked and their own article has all the relevant information regarding previous roles. Unless I have missed something?
    • What you missed is that the version I reviewed when I wrote my assessment: [5] was very different than it is now. Since this has been cleaned up, it is no longer a problem. I would have preferred, rather than removing the extra material, that it was assigned a reference again. This solves the problem, but not in an ideal way.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "Release dates" is unreferenced.
Again every single film article on wikipedia has unreferenced dates of release, this information is very hard to reference, and for an example see Jaws (film) a featured article no less.
    • The existance of another substandard article does not excuse this one. The release date MUST have been written somewhere before it was added to this article. How hard is it to note WHERE this information comes from? If it wasn't invented out of whole cloth, it was written down somewhere before it was written in Wikipedia. Simply cite where.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "Interpretation" section is very unencyclopedic in tone, and presents critical analysis of the film which is unreferenced. The quote is referenced, but the analysis that precedes it (which is a mess, and not well written at all) has no source at all, and looks like original research.
I agree this needs rewriting, though i am not sure this could be called original research, the film does not answer any questions and this is fact. it is obvious from the film this is the case and i even referenced a quote from the director saying this was intentional.
  • In addition, the lead is inadequate, as it does NOT cover all aspects of the article, see WP:LEAD. Production gets NO treatment in the lead, for example.
I agree and i will rewrite

Thanks124.187.21.235 07:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Anaximander

Result: Endorse fail 4-0. Status quo maintained

I believe this article meets the GA criteria. It was failed today for the following reason:

Talk:Anaximander#More_sources_-_GA_comments

Please add more sources. I just had a brief look at this. Many sentences are not sourced. Please source them and renominate this for GA. Thanks" --Aminz 05:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Citing Sources quoting the policy in Wikipedia:Verifiability states that "attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." As best I can tell, any fact open to challenge in this article is sourced. Not every line has to be sourced. The GA standard is different from the FA standard, and while I am strongly supportive of sourcing (and have failed articles for weak or missing sources) I believe that this article should be listed. I ask that you review and list Anaximander. Argos'Dad 22:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're familiar with this article, would you say the references given at the bottom cover most of the article? The problem with a lack of internal citation is that its quite impossible for a non-involved reviewer to know how much of an article is supposed to be referenced by the refs at the bottom and how much is OR just by looking at the article if there are no internal citations. By internal citations alone i'm sort of on the fence, but if the references below really do comprehensively cover this article, then i'd support it for GA status. Homestarmy 02:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I did not have much involvement with it before I nominated it, but I have done some work on this article and I do not see any OR in it. The sentences that are not sourced are not in doubt. The bulk of the article and any thing that sounds extraordinary is sourced. Argos'Dad 03:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse fail. The reviewer's comments are quite inadequate, as they give NO guidance for improving the article so it can be renominated, but I would have failed it for the same reason, and left the following list of sentances that require sourcing:

  • Very few documents can provide details on his life. According to whom? This fact should be referenced to someone who said it, as it is an interpretation, and if the author of the article is the only one making the assertion, it is OR. Statements like this, that present an interpretation of something, need to be referenced to WHO made the interpretation. Several other sentances below suffer from the same problem...
  • Anaximander would have reached the pinnacle of his career around the time of Polycrates, tyrant of Samos. Really? You just said in the sentance before we could not make such statements, as the documentary evidence does not exist. Who is making this assertion?
  • It is very likely that leaders of Miletus sent him there as a legislator to bring forth a constitution or simply maintain the colony’s allegiance. According to whom?
  • He is the first philosopher to employ, in a philosophical context, the term arkhế (ἀρχή), which until then had meant beginning or origin. For Anaximander, it became no longer a mere point in time, but a source that could perpetually give birth to whatever will be. Superlative claims are always challengable... Source this please.
  • However, it is generally accepted that this quote is not Simplicius' own interpretation, but Anaximander's writing, in "somewhat poetic terms". Who offers the interpretation that it is "generally accepted"?
  • Anaximander's bold use of non-mythological explanatory hypotheses considerably distinguishes him from previous cosmology writers such as Hesiod. It confirms that pre-Socratic philosophers were making an early effort to demythify the genealogical process. Anaximander's major contribution to history was writing the oldest prose document about the Universe and the origins of life; for this he is often called the "Father of Cosmology" and founder of astronomy. Again superlative claims. Who calls him these things? Who has called him "bold"? Who has noted that these ideas of his are noteworthy to report here?
  • Anaximander was the first astronomer to consider the Sun as a huge mass, and consequently, to realize how far from Earth it might be, and the first to present a system where the celestial bodies turned at different distances. Again, superlative claim, so challangeable...
  • The map probably inspired the Greek historian Hecataeus to draw a more accurate version. Really? Who is making this claim?
  • Anaximander's innovation was to represent the entire inhabited land known to the ancient Greeks. Was he the first to do this? If so, and it is important, who says it is important. Again, superlative claim...
  • Anaximander, surely aware of the sea's convexity, may have designed his map on a slightly rounded metal surface. How do we know he was aware of this? Who claims he designed his map this way?

Thats a start. When interpretations of data are offered, a source for such interpretations are required. When superlative claims are made, sources for such claims are required. Both of these kinds of statements are easily challengable...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Thanks you Jayron32 for these precisions. As a major editor to the article, I'm very familiar with the subject. I can assure that the references provided cover the article. I mainly used Marcel Conche's book, which provided all primary sources and some secondary sources, all listed in the references, and I second checked them all to ensure they were accurate. What sometimes seems like OR is usually Marcel Conche's analysis. I don't have the books at hand, but I will try to get them back so I can provide the exact secondary sources for the points mentioned above. However, as Argo's Dad suggests, the article is not in nomination for FA, but for GA. Sourcing every sentence is not necessary. — Robin des Bois ♘ 17:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I never said once that each sentance needed to be referenced. An article that sourced every single sentance would be resoundly rejected at FA as excessive anyways. Also, don't disparage GA as a somehow inferior process where standards should not be upheld. GA's standards of referencing are largely identical to FA. See and compare WP:WIAFA Criteria 1(c):"Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. and WP:WIAGA Criteria 2: It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:(a) provides references to sources used; (b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles; and (c) contains no original research. Don't imply that GA reviewer should let things slide because well, "It's only GA". Our standards are real, even if different in some areas from FA.
Back to my point: where a superlative claim is made (So-and-so was the first to....) or where an obvious interpretation of data is done (It is believed that so-and-so did this because...), sources ARE needed because these statements are challengable.
Where an entire paragraph gives a straight set of facts from one source (So-and-so was born on XXXX to John and Jane Doe. He grew up in Anytown USA, where he attended Anytown State University and majored in Criminal Justice...) it is quite appropriate to reference the entire paragraph with a single reference.
Also, where an entire SECTION of the article is referenced to a SINGLE source, it may also be appropriate to simply indicated such in the reference section:
  • Personal Life: Doe, John (2002). Biography of Tom Jones Any University Press, ISBN: 12323454376
Professional Life: Smith, Jane (1975). Tom Jones: The Greatest Guy Ever Dick Williams Publishing, ISBN: 94509800
Still, which ever method of referencing is most appropriate for this article, anytime a statement makes a superlative claim or expresses an interpretation, it is likely subject to challenge and should be referenced to a specific location where such a claim or interpretation is made, either a specific webpage or page number(s) in a book.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse fail per Jayron32's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 18:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse fail per most of Jayron's review. Additionally, I noted the small things, as I always do. They don't fail the article in themselves, but while we have our attention here: there is a missing comma in the lead by reference 2; in the first sentence of Apeiron, the hyphen needs to be removed from 4th-century; hyphens used in the third paragraph of the same section need to be changed to —s; Anaximander is over-used — "he" should be used in place of his name more frequently than it currently is; Cosmology, fourth paragraph, ref 10 should be outside of parenthesis; end of first paragraph in Multiple worlds constitutes full quote, therefore punctuation should be inside quotations; Meteorological phenomena, second paragraph, ref 19 has space between punctuation and citation; Origin of humankind, quote should use {{cquotetxt|Blah blah blah.}}. Also, I don't see where the moon crater comment from the lead is expanded in the article. Notes and references need to be cleaned up. There are references in the article in parenthesis, these should be made into notes and Footnotes should use {{reflist|2}}. LaraLoveT/C 19:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    All corrected except for the cleanup in the references and the location of ref to the crater. Robin des Bois ♘ 20:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - If the moon crater comment is not necessarily encyclopedic and can't be smoothly worked into the body, it needs to be deleted. The lead is a summary of the article. No information should be in the lead that isn't expanded upon in the body. LaraLoveT/C 05:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Though some cosmetic fixes have been done to this article, I still endorse its failure as outlined above because it still remains underreferenced. There are MANY statements that it makes which offer interpretation of Anaximanders work (he was bold to do this, or he was the first to do that) where we have NO specific reference to who is making that claim.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Most of the statements about Anaximander cited in this discussion are consensus among the scholarship; it would probably have been useful to check some other secondary source to avoid being colored by Conche's particular PoV. That being said, this is a perfect example of why it is better to write good articles than Good Articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    I see Giorgio de Santillana did one on the Origins of Scientific Thought; and there are several good anthologies of the Presocratics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Some more comments: You will find several good, experienced editors who will respectfully disagree with you on the level of referencing needed here. I think the level of referencing I have indicated above represent a fair middle ground; some editors are happy to fill articles with unreferenced material and leave it at that; others require multiple citations so that scholarly concensus is apparent from the referencing. I am only asking that where a statement seems to be making a superlative claim, or offering an interpretation of facts, that there be a reference to who is making that claim or that interpretation. Look, every world expert on Anaximander may agree that every statement made in this article is generally agreed upon, the problem is those people are not your audience. Since you are writing for an audience of people who are unfamiliar with the man, his works, and their proper context, it is vital to establish that context with specific references. When fantastic claims (and they may be true) are made such as "Anaximander was the first ever to think X, Y, and Z" or "Anaximander's work had a profound influence on A, B, and C", such claims may be plainly evident to people who know Anaximander well; but to the average reader of the article they have no means to verify the claims. What you are saying, essentially, is "we are the experts, so trust us, this is true". For other venues, that may be adequate, but Wikipedia's unique place in scholarship, in that it is freely edited, carries an additional burden. Look, let's say 4 months from now someone comes along and adds some false claim to this article, next to another true (but unreferences) claim, what gives THAT editor less right to include it? I mean, you have offered no verification to back up several claims made about Anaximander; so we have no way to judge whether or not one claim is correct and the other is not, since there is no specific reference to look them up. The problem is that Wikipedia is different and unique and thus has its own level of requirements.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Footnotes do not prevent or control that; statements can be added without attribution to an article with many footnotes as easily as with one. Text can be, and often is, reversed, leaving a footnote in place. And it is quite frequent for biased editors to include a footnote to a source which does not in fact support them. (I believe, but cannot prove, that this is often googling the key words in their claim, without actually reading the paper cited.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, but one thing that footnotes DO that the lack of footnotes do NOT is allow anyone to check, and verify that the statements are correct. Is not Verifiability a cornerstone policy of Wikipedia?--Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
            • So does a general reference to Conche's book; I presume it has an index. Checking in both cases is about equally difficult; and I observe that noone from GA seems to have done either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Fail for the following reasons in addition to those cited by Jayron32 and others:
  • Themistius, a 4th century Byzantine rhethorician, mentions that he was the "first of the known Greeks to publish a written document on nature" and by this very fact, his texts would be amongst the earliest written in prose, at least in the Western world. - All direct quotations, such as this one, need to be sourced. I saw several unsourced quotations in the article.
  • Primary sources should be used sparingly. An article that relies almost exclusively on primary sources for its citations appears to be original research (WP:NOR). Most citations should come from secondary sources because those sources are written by experts in the field who have experience interpreting Anaximander's text within its historical context. Almost every section lacks references to secondary sources. Readers can only assume that what is presented in the article is OR since no authority is given for these facts and interpretations. If the editors have indeed read the books in the "References" section they should find it easy to cite the claims they are making from secondary sources. WP:ATT
  • The lead is not a summary of the article. The "moon" tidbit, for example, is just sitting there, all alone, with no context and is not part of the article. WP:LEAD Awadewit Talk 07:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The direct quotation is of course sourced, to Themistius [and now has an explicit footnote 20:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)]; by implication as quoted by Conche. I see that this is another GA reviewer who has not read even the discussion above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Where is this footnote? The quote, as of this posting, remains unsourced. --LaraLoveT/C 06:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Footnote 2, which says "Themistius, Oratio (36, 317)"; the quotation has been made into a paraphrase. The formating here could be improved, and I will do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Klee's measure problem

Result:Delisted by an individual Wikipedian (Geometry Guy)

This short article was reciently given a maths rating of start, indicating that there was considerable amount which could be added. As such it fails 3a, the article could also benefit from some illustrations so 6 is questionable. --Salix alba (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delist Looks like Math Wikiproject people don't think its even close to compleate, the lead is not sufficient, and it has a question to the reader in the lead. Homestarmy 20:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per above and discussion on the article's talk page. Incredibly short lead and incredibly short article- not at all comprehensive. -- Kicking222 22:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist - The lead definitely needs expanding and, according to the to-do list, it is not as comprehensive as it could be. I don't feel there is an issue with the question posed in the lead, considering that is the topic of the article. Images are also not required for all articles, and for this one I believe it passes criteria 6b. LaraLoveT/C 04:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am the editor who gave this article a maths rating of start (and other editors have supported this rating). Regarding its GA status, I believe it falls short mainly on 3a and WP:LEAD, although I would note that comprehensiveness is not required at this level.
I do think the article would benefit from an image of a union of rectangles, although more than this is certainly not required. I could add my voice to the votes here, but instead I am going to practise what I preach and take responsibility for delisting the article. If I do delist it (which I will do soon unless substantial improvements make the case for delisting unclear) then I will return here and archive this discussion. Geometry guy 16:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I have now delisted the article. See Talk:Klee's measure problem for further details. I will archive this discussion once I figure out how to do that - or maybe one of the regulars can do it for me. Thanks Geometry guy 13:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

1973 oil crisis

Result: Delist 3-0

Has several [citation needed] tags in the article, and some sections have no inline references at all. Promoted as GA in 2005, btw. Delist. -Malkinann 11:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Delist MrZaiustalk 13:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Little discussion of the developing world and the embargo's impact on countries outside of Western Europe and North America.
  • References - Several sections completely unreferenced - 12 references for ~16 sections, discounting refs/see also/ext links. Low frequency of refs for even the referenced sections.
  • OAPEC or OPEC? - Need expansion and clarification of leadup and which organizations took part and which countries tried to stay out of it, which non-members, if any, might have helped.
  • End of the embargo - Could use a clearer explanation of how/when/why the embargo ended.
  • Delist 2b, not enough sources. Also, needs some work on WP:DATE dates aren't wikified and some end in -th (on October 16th, 1973). Good informative article overall though just need some work. Aaron Bowen 02:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    There is no 1c at WP:WIAGA. I suggest you reread the criteria and adjust or rephrase your comment. Geometry guy 21:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Meant to say 2b; what I was getting at is there are not enough citations. Aaron Bowen 01:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


Julius Caesar

Result: Delist 5-0

Nomination for delisting: I believe the article does NOT meet the GA requirements of referencing as found in WP:WIAGA. Of specific concern, the,many sections are ENTIRELY without references. These sections include:

  • Conquest of Gaul - last two paragraphs
  • Fall of the First Triumvirate - entire section
  • Civil war - entire section
  • Aftermath of the civil war - entire section
  • Assassination plot - entire section
  • Aftermath of assassination - entire section
  • Military career - entire section
  • Honours - Entire section

It should be noted that the rest of the article is VERY well referenced. Since the article passed almost a year ago, this would lead me to two conclusions: The article was passed under a different set of GA standards, and as the standards have changed the article no longer qualifies as a GA, OR the unreferenced sections were added after the original well-referenced article was passed, making the article substandard. Either way, this article needs to be fixed or delisted.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Attempt fix - This article was promoted with ZERO inline citations. Reviewed version. But it has great potential. I think a summary of necessary changes should be left on the talk page to inform the main contributing editor(s). They may be able to bring it up to standards within a few days. The article is extremely well-written from what I saw (although I've not read it all the way through), and it's layout is impressive. It's a bit lengthy and could benefit from some trimming, but overall, it's definitely a high quality article. LaraLoveT/C 03:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Note my comments on Tupac Shakur review as well. The article may be in process of become a GA, but unless the fixes are made in the next few days, I see no compelling reason to keep a substandard article on the list simply because it shows promise. If the article is at standard within a week from now, I would obviously vote keep, but given the sheer number of references that are needed, it may be best to delist it and let it be renominated later when it IS up to standard.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
      • If there isn't significant progress over the next couple of days, I will change my vote. But I feel that, considering the only real issue is referencing, this can be addressed in a matter of hours. Reference what can be and delete what can't. If the contributing editor(s) take the initiative, it can be done in a day. It was promoted with nothing. To be at the point it is now shows that someone has taken enough interest in it to bring it up to a good quality without the goal of GA. If whoever has that passion is still active, I definitely think it can be brought up to standards quickly. LaraLoveT/C 04:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist - There has been no progress whatsoever. Although, there was an addition of OR. LaraLoveT/C 20:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist - Much of this article has been plagerized from a British website that takes liberties with the history. There are a few contradictions as well. I was overwhelmed trying to correct the quotations from the Latin texts. A good project now that the term is over and while the article is still vandal protected. Legis Nuntius 05:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist The way I see it, if this article is plaugerizing, then it can't be one of Wikipedia's Good Articles if it isn't even compleatly our article in the first place, irregardless of its quality. Homestarmy 14:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Many of our articles, and most of the decent ones aren't "ours in the first place"; they're the 1911 Britannica's. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Copied and pasted straight from Britannica nearly word-for-word? Homestarmy 20:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Except for wikilinking, yes. Check the first edit of almost any article with the {{1911}} tag. This does not excuse us from removing the copyvio here; but that's a legal and moral requirement, not an intellectual one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per Jayron32's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 17:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

James F. Robinson

Result:6-0 list as GA

The Giant Puffin failed this article because it was not broad enough and suggested that additional images would help. Within half an hour, LuciferMorgan expressed concerns about that decision. As you can see on the article's talk page, I concur with LuciferMorgan's concerns that article length and lack of available sources may be the only reason for this article's failure of GA. I would like additional opinions. Thank you. Acdixon 13:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a lack of information and sources were the main reasons for failing the article. The article in itself is not very long. I agree that length is not a crucial factor in GA status, past a point. But it does not seem to cover a lot of his life. It does have a lot of information in his involvement in the civil war, but he must have done something else with his life. I know that information is often hard to find for people like this who lived hundreds of years ago, but what about other literary works or internet sources? Five sources is not a lot. If that is all that can be found after a lot of searching, then I hold my hands up to the decision being off. I'd happily see it passed as a GA article if this is all the information that can be found. What is there is very well written, but I just wasnt sure that this was all that could be found about James F Robinson - • The Giant Puffin • 14:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I did some more searching and found one book at Google Books that allowed me to clarify some family information. I also found this short biography that explicitly states that Robinson shunned politics in favor of his career for most of his life. Apparently he was well-liked, but did very little else that was notable to any great degree. Acdixon 17:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Giant Puffin is actually correct in his reply / fail - I was merely stating that being short isn't relevant, and that it depends on the notability of the topic. He is correct in saying it's relative to what sources are available, and in doubting that the article doesn't use all the available sources he was correct in failing. If you can prove otherwise though that the article actually does use all the available sources per consensus, then fair enough and the decision will be overturned then per that consensus. LuciferMorgan 01:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I would go about proving that I have consulted all available sources. I know I have done a Google search for both "James F. Robinson" and "James Fisher Robinson" and used pretty much everything I could find. I also work at a community college in Kentucky, and have searched our card catalog as well as that of the Kentucky Community and Technical College System for additional materials without success. Acdixon 13:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • List as GA The article appears broad enough. The man was Governor of Kentucky for 1 year. He wasn't President of the U.S. The article is of an appropriate level of coverage given his historical importance; he was ultimately an important, but minor, political player in the Civil War and gets his just due here. All other aspects of the criteria look fine. This kind of article, for a subject that is unlikely ever to be FA, is what GA is supposed to honor and this one appears to be a model article.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • List as GA—article meets the criteria. Please note that this isn't featured article candidates. — Deckiller 21:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • List as GA, looks to pass all criterion.--Wizardman 13:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • List as GA - I found one minor MOS issue, which I corrected. Otherwise, it reads like a good article to me. However, I do believe that United States should be included with his location. Does anyone know off-hand if there is a policy that includes this? --LaraLoveT/C 16:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I've seen it done, but I don't think it's a requirement. My FA nom of William Goebel took a beating before it passed, but that was never mentioned as one of the concerns. Acdixon 16:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • We have two cases. If a reader knows who the Governor of Kentucky is, she does not need United States; if she does not, she should click on it anyway, and the second line will tell her that Kentucky is a U.S. State. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
        • You know, you're right! We should removed the country from ALL articles based on the fact that anyone can just click on the state or township or whatever for that respective country. Brilliant! LaraLoveT/C 18:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • List I'm willing to pass short articles like this if I'm certain there aren't sources to expand the article. I'm sure there aren't any or that they haven't been found yet after an exhaustive search for this subject. Quadzilla99 16:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • List as GA If that's all the material the available references have on this guy, then that's that, and the material that is this article doesn't appear to have any problems. Homestarmy 21:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

How long does this remain open before it's regarded as a consensus? Acdixon 13:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Technically, at what seems to be a 6 to keep and 1 to delist discussion, it could be speedily kept right now, but I wasn't going to do it because I voted. Homestarmy 14:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree it should be speedily kept... is that something that admins are expected to do or is it something that anybody can do? If the later, how do we do it?Balloonman 16:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The instructions are in the archives, normally someone who frequents GA/R archives things, it used to be just me, but nowadays other people jump in to do it for the most part. Homestarmy 17:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Dani California

Result: 2 to Keep, 2 to Delist, 2 to relist at GAC, no consensus

It was failed due to a lack of fair use rationale in Image:Dani california.gif, but the rationale was added. Is the article able to pass now? igordebraga 18:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The article should be renominated in order for it to pass. Zeus1234 18:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The original rationale for failing WAS correct, and so does not need to be reviewed here. The person who failed it was right to do so. If the fixes HAVE been made, then the article has changed siginficantly from what was reviewed, and should be resubmitted for another review. It should also be noted that it is NOT GA ready yet, since there is an unresolved [citation needed] tag that makes it fail referencing requirement (Criteria 2). --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The GAC nominator also needs to review {{citeweb}}. LuciferMorgan 17:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Somebody's just come along and passed this, yet it doesn't even use {{citeweb}} and has an embedded link which commits a copyright violation. (Done and Removed NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 22:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)) LuciferMorgan 21:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Why does it need citeweb, and which link is in violation? Homestarmy 21:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Why does it need citeweb? Because everyone else who's got GA has worked their ass off by adding citeweb, so why should this one be an exception? The violation is under "Reception and criticism", and if the editor was actually as thorough as he should've been he would've spotted this. The line says; "(The two songs are compared here [13].", and the embedded link is to an mp3 file with no proof that the copyright holders of both songs have given the site permission to do this. LuciferMorgan 23:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I've just never seen the necessity of citeweb before is all, it was my understanding that even lowely external links were acceptable for internal citations in regards to GA status. Homestarmy 23:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
While that may be true, consistent referencing style IS required. Once the article has an established referencing style (be it links, footnotes, or parentheticals) further additions should be referenced in the same way. Since other refs us the citeweb template, the fact that there are some that do not (and even to a questionably copyvio song file at that) should raise concern.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, well, I didn't see that it wasn't in a consistent style :/. However, back to this review, Zeus is probably right, the article should be re-nominated for GA status. Homestarmy 04:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
But someone's already passed this and shouldn't have.... LuciferMorgan 12:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
You know, looking at WIAGA, it looks like a consistant referencing style is just highly recommended... Homestarmy 23:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Citation templates are unnecessary. As long as the references are in a consistent format it doesn't matter if its done using templates or manually. See Michael Jordan, Toronto Raptors, and Tourette syndrome for FAs with correctly formated referencing done manually. Quadzilla99 17:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Lawrence Taylor is another good example, although thats just a GA and not an FA yet. Quadzilla99 17:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep or delete this process. Demanding the use of a particular template on an otherwise good article is irrelevant; our readers can't tell. But I will link to this example of ownership and disruptive editing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The template improves verifiability - for example, retrieval dates indicate when the article was retrieved, and if the article link goes dead it can be retrieved using the Wayback Machine. Also, the name of the magazine / source and author helps other editors make a judgment on whether the source used is WP:RS. Of course the template was a recommendation, and other templates offer the same resource. Criterion 2. of GA criteria says "It is factually accurate and verifiable", and in using retrieval dates etc. I feel this goes to further satisfy that criterion. As concerns ownership, that's total rubbish since I don't even bother to edit RHCP articles. As concerns disruptive editing, I don't wish to reply to that other than saying it's simply untrue. LuciferMorgan 01:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep—meets the GA criteria. Dislike the reference style being used, but that's not in the criteria. — Deckiller 21:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse fail - This does not meet GA criteria.
    • The lead is too long for the length of the article per WP:LEAD. It's also not really a summary... information in the lead needs to be less specific. It also introduces new information that is not expanded upon in the article (paragraph 4).
    • There is an inconsistency in stating chart positions. Some are written out while others are not. Second paragraph of lead, for example. I recommend that none be written out, instead numerical listing as #24, #6, #1, as this is what I see used most in music articles. Done NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 21:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I feel there is insufficient wikification.
    • The references are messy. I see there is an issue with not wanting to use the cite web template.It is the preferred method for GA and there doesn't appear to be any real justification not to do it. There are problems with the refs that could be corrected if the template were used. For example, many of the works (i.e. Rolling Stone) are not italicized as they should be. In fact, there are three instances of Rolling Stone magazine being cited, each time is formatted differently. Author credits are missing, for the most part. Page specifications are not present. Article dates are missing from most refs. Retrieval dates are also missing. This is important for finding archived pages once links have expired. Other issues:
      • 1. News, Red Hot Chili Peppers official fan site, April 3, 2006. [1]<- Billboard.com - Why is the external link to Billboard.com when it states the ref is from their fan site?
      • 2. Red Hot Chili Peppers - Singles, Billboard.com, http://www.billboard.com - Link being exposed is inconsistent with other refs. Additionally, the link merely leads to the main site page, not to the page of reference. Done NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 21:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If issues are addressed, I may change my vote at a later time. --LaraLoveT/C 07:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
        • If you wish to advocate a {{citeweb}} requirement at WP:WIAGA, feel free; until then, this is not actionable; in fact, most of these are not. The last two are genuine, if minor, concerns; the rest are FA nitpicks, not impediments to a decent or satisfactory article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delist, but a little work could maintain its GA status:
    • Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the article. The third paragraph should be moved to the criticism section since it is a specific review, and should be replaced with a summary of all reviews of the song. Done NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 22:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Put the chart positions in Infobox Single in order.
    • A few MOS violations: Billboard is a magazine, so it should always be italicized. Also, one of the Grammys is improperly capitalized. Done NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 22:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Does citation 5 cover the entire first paragraph of Writing and creation? If so, you should probably put it both before and after the Kiedis quote so that readers will know that it doesn't only cover the quote. If not, it needs to be cited. Clarified NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 22:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • "The curious character 'Dani'..." and " Although it is barely notable... the main riff plays throughout as an underlying tone" are both POV. Removed/Referenced NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 22:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • "Some have dismissed this as a publicity stunt by the DJs" contains a weasel word. Removed
    • Posters on a RCHP message board are not reliable sources. Done
    • If you dont want to use citeweb, then so be it. However, each web source needs a date: either when it was published or when it was last accessed (this is so that if the link ever dies, people can use webarchive.org to see it). Also, the citations need to be consistent, so make the link in cite 2 a number like the other ones. Citations also need to conform to the MOS, so italicize magazine names and de-italicize article titles. Citation 1 needs to link to an actual review, and not just the Billboard main page. Done, Added, and Fixed NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 22:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Teemu08 06:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Phineas Gage

Result: 3 to 1, delist

There's really very few citations in this article at all. One specific uncited piece of information is shown here. Lack of citations is why I think that GA status should be removed from this article -- while there are sufficient sources listed at the end, the information in the article itself is not sufficiently tagged with citations (as it is in an article such as Electroconvulsive Therapy: if you compare the quality of citations in the two articles and consider the extremely high standards that a "good article" is expected to meet, then it's a wonder why Phineas' article has GA status and the ECT article does not). --24.199.103.240 16:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Added one of the links at the botton as a citation for that piece of information; since it talked about the topic.Apart from that I think that you can´t really compare a topic like electroconvulsive therapy to the biography of a person like Phineas Gage: I believe the article has the most important books and journal papers talking about Phineas Gage as bibliography. Of course it doesn´t have as many as electroconvulsive theraphy since the information written about this topic is very small while there are journal dedicated only to electroconvulsive... and the fact that is shorter doesn't mean is not good. --Garrondo 17:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delist Several direct quotes are uncited. These need inline citations to the specific book and page number where they appear. The lead could also use to be expanded to more fully summarize the article. Some more treatment in the lead needs to be given to Gage's specific neurologic problems and their wider implication. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per Jayron's assessment. Additionally, related texts, references, and external links are messy and inconsistent. Reference 4 does not use the cite template as the rest do. Reference 7 has a future retrieval date and is also included in related texts. --LaraLoveT/C 18:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • In the words of one of Wikipedia's oldest mottoes {{sofixit}}. As it says above, it is better to fix an article than delist it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes. Instead of delisting, I will go to the library, check out all of the cited books, read them and find all cited sentences, then reference each properly citing the page numbers. Yes. That is what GA/R is for. That's what we do... Seriously, knock it off with the ridiculous, harassing comments. LaraLoveT/C 18:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
        • You complained of the absence of {{cite book}}, which is completely invisible to the reader. If you think it important, feel free to put it in. The retrieval date is not completely trivial; but it's been fixed. Where in this do you have to step away from the computer? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Changing the inline citation method (from template to plain text or vice versa) isn't something that should be done without consensus. I've done some fixes myself, above and beyond the call of duty, because in my initial look through the article, I thought it would be easy to fix up, with the assistance of Garrondo. However, I have also found a seeming POV problem with the article that can't be resolved without the help of people who maintain the page, because hopefully they've read Harlow's later papers, and Macmillian.-Malkinann 03:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I've given it a pass over with AndyZ's javascript program, and fixed the future retrieval date. I'd suggest that the reason why the Related texts section (now called Further reading) looks messy is because they're a mix of books and a journal article, but they are at least ordered by author's last name. -Malkinann 01:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think I see a POV concern in the article. The original doctor first said in his 1848 report that once Gage recovered, barring some memory loss, he was remarkably alright, even going shopping and remembering the people around him. The doctor then later changed his mind, in a paper written 20 years later, after Gage's death. (I've only read an extract of the later paper, but I've read the full text of the original paper.) In the wikipedia article, a fair amount of weight is given to Macmillan's idea that the doctor and other writers (who??) embellished the account. There isn't much discussion of the possibility of a deterioration in Gage's health. (whether Macmillian considered it and dismissed it, for example.) Is there any such information available? -Malkinann 01:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A question of style: when you cite a journal article the pages should not be included since they are not usually longer than 10 pages. That applies to this two citings

^ Harlow, J.M. (1848). "Passage of an iron rod through the head". Boston Medical and Surgical Journal 39: 389-393. (Republished in Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience., 11, 281-283) pp.2 of the republished edition. ^ Harlow, J.M. (1848). "Passage of an iron rod through the head". Boston Medical and Surgical Journal 39: 389-393. (Republished in Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience., 11, 281-283) pp.3 of the republished edition.

(and even if they were included the page numbering should be the one of the journal being page 2 page 282 and page 3 383 of the republished article)--Garrondo 09:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the page numbers, but I guess we'll have to wait on someone else to see if we really need the page reference for the (3 page long in the reprint) journal article. Can you shed any light on where the quote from Harlow comes from, (it's not in the paper that's cited) and which page the quote from Antonio Damasio's book comes from? Do you have access to some of Macmillan's works on Gage? This passage makes me a bit uneasy: "It was Harlow's account from 1868, eight years after Gage's death, that introduced the now-textbook changes.[citation needed] Later writers began to embellish even more,[attribution needed] adding drunkenness, braggadocio, a vainglorious tendency to show off his wound as part of Barnum's Traveling Exhibition and an utter lack of foresight — all unmentioned by Harlow.[8][9]" The citations are only to Harlow's earlier work, so you can't really see who the other people are, or what Harlow said later on. Thanks.-Malkinann 10:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment: As someone who has actually checked journal references, I will add that page numbers, when available, are somewhat helpful in online journals, and irreplacable in hard copy journals. Often they are the only determinant which physical issue the paper is in. (You often don't need to specify page within the article - although that can be helpful; but the range of pages which make up the article is part of standard scholarly convention and should be left. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that the specific page reference (Doe, J (2032) "Article title" such and such a journal, pages 281-283, and page 282 of this article) was what Garrondo was questioning. Perhaps I was getting a bit overeager by citing the page numbers of the sources that I can get my grubby mitts on. But as Damasio's book is substantially longer than your average journal article, we should get a page reference for that, even if it's in a foreign-language edition.-Malkinann 13:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I did refer to the saying twice the page. I think the correct thing to do would be to only cite once the text and link the different citings to that only reference. I´ve seen some pages that do it with letters but I don´t know how to do it. Does anybody know? --Garrondo 15:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I've done the dual citing, but there are still other problems with the referencing (worst perhaps is that the long quote in "Effect on Gage" isn't in the source it says it is) to be fixed.-Malkinann 15:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to get the original 3 papers from people that had direct contact with Gage. The 2 from Dr Harlow and the one from Bigelow. I now that the 3 of them appear in McMillans book; but I dont have access to it. Does anybody have it? I have the first report from Dr. Harlow; but not the original second report; 20 years after the accident. However what I have found is an article in which the 2 most cited pages of this second report appear as an appendix. (If anybody wants it: Kotowicz Z (2007);"The strange case of Phineas gage" History of the Human Sciences 20(1) 115-131). Whith it I can confirm that the long quote in "effect on gage" is from this second article. I procced to change it.--Garrondo 16:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the Damasio quote: Gage's story "was the historical beginnings of the study of the biological basis of behavior" I'm reading the chapters from the book and I can´t find it although there are similar ones. --Garrondo 16:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

As I say is almost sure that the citation is from the 1968 text of Dr. Harlow; I tried to change it but I couldn´t do the thing of the letters so not to have twice the same citation. Can anybody fix it?--Garrondo 11:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Result: 6-1 delist

Nomination for delisting: This article currently fails wikipedia GA criteria - WP:WIAGA especially on point 2. There are numerous missing references, many citation request tags and above all an entire section which is under dispute and requires cleanup. The article is on the whole written to a good standard but at present I do not think it meets GA. LordHarris 23:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment I actually think this article could be a relatively clear GA with just a little bit of work, the thing about his heart valve that isn't referenced can just be removed, the few other things with citation needed templates don't seem very important either, the Bodybuilding section appears to obviously be covered by like the first five references in the bibliography, and the personal life section doesn't seem to have an active discussion on the talk page, i'm inclined to conclude its not really being disputed by any editors there at present. Homestarmy 01:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Only the first part of the article is referenced. It needs a lot more to be considered GA class. Zeus1234 00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist - Although it is a well-written article, it is in need of cleanup. There appears to be quite a bit of OR. Although it has an impressive layout of references that isn't often seen, there are still issues, like lack of page specifications for books, newspapers, and PDFs. I think this article has a lot of potential, but it will need to be renominated after being worked on. --LaraLoveT/C 04:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I've nominated this article for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Collaboration of the week. If passed, it will be over a week before work begins as another article is set to take this week. --LaraLoveT/C 05:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
      • If you feel this article would benefit from being the WikiProject Good Articles Collaboration of the Week, please vote at its nomination here. Thank you, LaraLoveT/C 17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I also think it is very close to a GA. I think with minor work it could pass. I think it is pretty well cited in general although maybe slightly less than important incumbent politicians. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - This article is currently the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Collaboration of the week. I recommending letting this discussion sit until they have completed their work. LaraLoveT/C 19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Agree with Lara. Quadzilla99 19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Large amounts of improvement, especially reference-wise, and I can't tell exactly why there are dispute tags over one section. Might want to remove this sentence though, "Schwarzenegger scrambled toward the political middle, determined to build a winning legacy with only a short time to go until the next gubernatorial election.", as it is compleatly meaningless to people unfamiliar with American politics, and it isn't referenced, and "scrambled" indicates to me a lack of neutrality went into this sentences creation. Homestarmy 17:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I am still avoiding voting on this one, as it seems like it is still in process, and the first few sections on body-building and acting are quite good; however the entire article from "Political career" to the end still has major problems:
    • As a candidate in the recall election, Schwarzenegger had the most name recognition in a crowded field of candidates, but he had never held public office and his political views were unknown to most Californians. His candidacy was immediate national and international news, with media outlets dubbing him the "Governator" (referring to The Terminator movies, see above) and "The Running Man" (the name of another of his movies), and calling the recall election "Total Recall" (ditto) and "Terminator 4: Rise of the Candidate" (referring to his movie Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines). At first Governor Gray Davis refused to debate or talk about the issues with Arnold, instead only making a flippant reference to the way Arnold pronounced California. As the election came near and Gray Davis realized that Arnold was a force to be reckoned with, he tried to change his policy, but Arnold had already become a strong candidate. It would help if we had a reference or two where the nicknames are quoted. They say only "media outlets". Well, if there use as nicknames was so widespread, references should be easy to find. Get on it.
    • On October 7, 2003, the recall election resulted in Governor Gray Davis being removed from office with 55.4% of the Yes vote in favor of a recall. Schwarzenegger was elected Governor of California under the second question on the ballot with 48.6% of the vote to choose a successor to Davis. Schwarzenegger defeated Democrat Cruz Bustamante, fellow Republican Tom McClintock, and others. His nearest rival, Bustamante, received less than 30% of the vote. In total, Schwarzenegger won the election by about 1.3 million votes. Under the regulations of the California Constitution, no runoff election was required. Stats do not arise from the head of Zeus fully formed. These came from somewhere. Where???
    • Schwarzenegger enjoyed a large degree of success and victories in his early governorship, including repealing an unpopular increase in the vehicle registration fee as well as preventing driver's licenses being given out to illegal immigrants, but later began to feel the backlash when powerful state unions began to oppose his various initiatives. Key among his reckoning with political realities was a special election he called in November 2005, in which four ballot measures he sponsored were defeated. Schwarzenegger accepted personal responsibility for the defeats and vowed to continue to seek consensus for the people of California. He would later comment that "no one could win if the opposition raised $160 million dollars to defeat you". Needs many references. There is a direct quote, which is unreferenced. There is critical interpretation ("enjoyed a large degree of success" - according to WHOM?) which is not attributed to anyone. Other terms of opinion, like "unpopular" or "backlash" or "Key among" also need references...
    • Schwarzenegger then bucked the advice of fellow Republican strategists and appointed a Democrat, Susan Kennedy, as his Chief of Staff. Schwarzenegger scrambled toward the political middle, determined to build a winning legacy with only a short time to go until the next gubernatorial election. Unreferenced.
    • The "Personal Life" section currently has TWO cleanup tags that need addressing.
    • "Accidents and medical issues" has a fact tag.
    • "Allegations of sexual and personal misconduct" has a fact tag
    • Overall, the organization could use some clean-up, especially the end, where we jump from issue to issue with no sense of context. This may not be a GA issue, but an article of this size is easily FA ready with some work; and that WILL eventually come up, so there is no reason not to fix it now.
  • If these fixes are not made soon, then I will have to vote delist. This seems a well cared for article, so I hope to see the fixes made. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Would be very easy to source and cite everything to bring this up to scratch. Someone more invested should do it because it is a decently written article
  • Delist Given a week to make the fixes needed that I noted above, nothing appears to be done. I am left with no choice but to vote delist here. Its a shame, since parts of this article are well written and well referenced, but the last third is such a mess that it drags the whole article down. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per Jayron32's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 08:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This has been on the books here for far too long: it has not been good article collaboration of the week since 3 June. Some parts of the article are so littered with footnotes (even on adjectives) that they are unreadable. In other places, significant facts are unsupported, as pointed out above. The footnotes create a false impression of authority: I counted that 56 of the footnotes were just links to Schwarzenegger.com. This is not verifiability, but travesty. I suggest that the article be politely delisted and encouraged to go again for GAC when editors are condident that WP:WIAGA criteria 1a (clarity), 1b (lead), 2b, 2c and 4 are fully addressed. Geometry guy

Chocolate

Result: no consensus to delist, and possibly a recent (9 June) consensus to keep due to article improvement; no further comments for over a week since then.

Delist recommendation based on the following issues:

  • Lead does not adequately summarize the article per WP:LEAD.
  • Inadequate wikification.
  • Multiple tags and templates for referencing and cleanup.
  • Citations are not consistently formatted.

There may be more, but that's what I noticed from scanning the article. LaraLoveT/C 06:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delist per above reasoning. LuciferMorgan 15:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per above, and fictioncruft. Carson 19:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per all of the above, AND I spoted a few external links in the main text, violation of WP:EL. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    This isn't mentioned in WP:WIAGA 1b. Geometry guy 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Is work progressing on this article? At a quick glance the lead looks comprehensive. what's left out? I'll look this over more later on. Aaron Bowen 02:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply: An entire section of the article deals with Physiological Effects of Chocolate; this isn't even mentioned in the lead. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • There has been progress made to the article, but it's still below standards. LaraLoveT/C 05:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The expected standards in this case seem to me to be a touch on the high side. This is not FAC, after all (I know this expression is rapidly becoming a cliche — apologies!). I have adjusted the lead so that it refers to the physiological effects section, and also added a reference for one of the unsourced segments. I think the tags could now be removed, and the wikification is acceptable. It would be nice to format the citations consistently (maybe someone here can do it), but I don't think this is a GA issue.
There is a remaining GA issue: ideally, the "Chocolate in popular culture" section should be replaced by a section on "Chocolate in society" which elaborates on the final paragraph of the lead. However, if this section (and the corresponding lead paragraph) were deleted, then the article, while not comprehensive, would still have the coverage needed for GA. Yet, I'm reluctant to delete content, and potential for improvement, just to pass some tick boxes: GAs should have potential for improvement, shouldn't they?
The most compelling reason I can think of for delisting this one is that it provides a torment for those who love chocolate, but don't have any immediately available :) Geometry guy 19:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
CommentsThis article is getting much better.
  • The "unreferenced" banners can be removed: These sections look appropriately referenced now.
  • I agree that in the form it is in, the Pop Cultue section needs to go. It is a trivia section in disguise. If it can be prosified (turned from list into writing) it may make a better section, but as it stands now it is a black mark on this article.
  • And with regard to the external link in the article: In every case, the external links belong somewhere other than the main text: In the case of this one: "(2007P-0085, Copy of 2007P-0085 Appendix C -- search for cacao)" it's a reference and would be better served set off with ref tags. Also this one: "Archer Daniels Midland, are lobbying the FDA to change " contains an external link that would be better served as a reference, with a footnote at the end of the sentance. That is the purpose BOTH of the external links are serving; they are there to back up statements made in the article, thus are references, and thus belong with the other references. Consistant referencing style IS a requirement of WIAGA.
    • References (including external links) can be made in the text. There is no requirement that they should be footnotes (aka ref tags). If you disagree, please educate me in wikipolicy with a link! Please also point me to a link which explains the extent to which consistent referencing style is a requirement of WIAGA. Thanks. Geometry guy 23:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
      • "It is highly recommended that the article have a consistent style of footnoting" from footnote 2. Also, from WP:CITE "Please follow the style used by the article's existing citations". Look, if it is important to you to have an article that is not as good as it could possibly be, just so you can feel that your one particular interpretation of WIAGA can be right, go ahead. These external links are making the article less than perfect, and it is an easy fix. I am sorry that mediocrity is OK with you, but I am in the interest of making every article at wikipedia better. Poor quality is never "good enough" especially when the fix is easy. Look, I fixed it myself, and it now looks much better. I don't really understand what the insistence is on refusing to improve articles. It just flabbergasts me.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. I didn't realise you were asking for such an easy fix as I thought you would have fixed it immediately (instead of complaining about it) in that case. I'm not interested in mediocrity either, but perfection can only be attained in stages and if an article needs to be so close to FA standard to achieve GA, then GA loses a lot of its value as a stepping stone.
In case you think I'm not interested in making articles better, check the edit history of this article. I was not involved in the article before it came to GA/R (so I am not a "custodian"), but I noticed it was close to GA standard, and so I have improved it quite a bit as part of this review, by fixing the lead, finding a tricky citation, removing trivia and eliminating some OR. So I don't understand how you can be "flabbergasted" by my "insistence on refusing to improve articles": I've improved the article far more substantially than you have. I hope you will reconsider the accuracy of your accusation and apologise if you feel you were in error. Geometry guy 09:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I was not AGFing there. I should have. Please accept my humble apology for that. Lately, there has been a lot of contention at this project by MANY people who feel that since this is NOT FA, it is OK to ignore any suggested improvements to an article with "This ain't FA, so I don't have to fix anything". Many of us here spend a LONG time reading and carefully critiquing articles, and to have our suggestions summarily ignored or rejected with throw away statements like "I don't see that fix being expressly required by the standards page so I am not going to fix it" misses the point. We are working hard to find inadequacies in the articles, and trying to list specific problems that are actionable and that we honestly think will make the articles better. That is my primary goal, not some blank adherance to a set of standards. When someone says "It isn't in WIAGA so I don't have to do it" it's like saying to me "The time you spent reviewing this article isn't worth it because I am not looking for ways to improve the article, I just want that little green plus..." I understand that is not what you were after now. Thanks for all your help in improving the article, and as you should note, I did change my vote to support. This is REALLY getting close to FA. Taking it to peer review is a good next step. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks Jayron, I really appreciated you taking the time to reply to my comment, and for explaining where you are coming from: I can understand your frustration with the "I just want the little green plus" attitude! As for this article, a peer review for it has just closed, with very few comments, unfortunately. As I mentioned above, I think the main "gap" is some material on chocolate in society. Geometry guy 09:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The history section could stand to have each paragraph properly referenced.
  • Ref 5 is a plain wikilink. Please expand this to full bibliographic information. Either do it manually or use a template like cite web as you prefer, but it needs to include full information like author, title, work, publication info, etc.
For the record, the fixes this needs now are small, and if the above three fixes are made, I would support this remaining a GA, and change my vote.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. There's a section named "As an addiction"? I highly doubt that this is true (not that it isn't humorous to ponder rehab clinics for chocolate). There are no citations to support the fact that the compounds listed can cause addiction. Teemu08 04:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    Indeed: in fact the citations in this section instead support the statement that chocolate is a stimulant, or has other chemical effects on the body. But hey, hang on a minute, apart from the title and opening sentence, this is all the section is claiming. Title changed. Opening sentence tweaked. Problem solved. :) Geometry guy 11:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as a GA Struck through vote above. The article now meets all GA criteria, and is quite good. I would highly recommend taking this article to Peer Review in preparation for future FA status, as it is pretty close. Some more relatively minor fixes are needed for FA, but for an article of this length and comprehensiveness, FA is not that far off. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Jayron and I have fixed some of the problems the article had which brought it to GA/R. It's still not perfect, but it is pretty good. Let's hope it continues to improve! Geometry guy 09:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)