Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

"WP:GAR" redirects here. For For the guide to abuse reports use WP:GTAR, see WP:GAR (disambiguation).

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

"WP:GAR" redirects here. For For the guide to abuse reports use WP:GTAR, see WP:GAR (disambiguation).

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

Good article reassessment

Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria (GACR). GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. The GAR Coordinators — Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings — work to organize these efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the {{@GAR}} notification template, or make a comment on the talk page.

Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including not meeting the general notability guideline, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment can be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles can be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delist.

Good article reassessment

Good article reassessment instructions

Before opening a reassessment

1. Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
2. Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
3. Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
4. If there are many similar articles already nominated at GAR, consider delaying the reassessment request. If an editor notices that many similar GARs are open and requests a hold, such requests should generally be granted.

Opening a reassessment

1. To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
2. The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment).
3. Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.

Manual opening steps

1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
2. Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
3. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
4. The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
5. Transclude the assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste {{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}} at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion.
6. Notify major contributing editors, including the nominator and the reviewer. Also consider notifying relevant active WikiProjects related to the article. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.

Reassessment process

1. Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them.
2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
3. If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion.
4. If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.

Closing a reassessment

To close a discussion, use the GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).

1. GARs typically remain open for at least one week.
2. Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
3. If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time.
4. After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
   • If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.

Manual closing steps

1. Locate {{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page.
2. The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
   • If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
     • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
     • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
     • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (example)
   • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this,
     • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
     • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
     • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page, setting currentstatus to DGA (delisted good article). (example)
     • blank the class parameter of the WikiProject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment
     • remove the {{good article}} template from the article page (example)
     • remove the article from the relevant list at good articles (example)
3. Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)

Disputing a reassessment

1. A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect. A closure should only be disputed within the first seven days following the close.
2. Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
3. If discussing does not resolve concerns, editors should post at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the coordinators.

Articles needing reassessment (add new articles above the top article in the list)

Note: Please remember to put a note on the article's talk page informing editors that it has been brought to WP:GAR for reassessment and possible delisting of its Good article status. Include [[WP:GAR|Good article reassessment]] in the section heading.

The Rape of Nanking (book)

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

A certain editor is adamantly opposed to the expansion of the criticism section in the name of keeping it pretty for FA nomination, resulting in content dispute. This is a very controversial book that still has much room for expansion. The article has a npov tag on it now (placed by myself). --Saintjust (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the version that was promoted to GA - [1], and here's the version it was at before User:Saintjust edited the article - [2]. I absolutely believe the article gave enough mention of the criticism before Saintjust came into the picture. Remember, the article is about all aspects of the book, not a battleground for opinions that praise and criticise the book. I've worked very hard at writing a fair and balanced article to try to push it to FA status. I've offered to help Saintjust write a seperate article just on the controversy surrounding the book, if he is so interested in it. But he only wants to inflate the article with more criticism. What more, most of the points he has added was already mentioned in the article before his edit. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Another thing - I can understand if Saintjust disagrees with me about the amount of criticism offered in the article, but I'm sorry, it's ridiculous to imply that editing an article for FA quality is some kind of a negative. FA quality represents the ideal state of an article. We should be writing all articles with FA quality in mind. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment That an editor from China has been lucky enough to edit the article all he likes on his own for the past several months is quite amazing, considering the everlasting edit wars going on China-Japan related articles on Wikipedia. But now here I am contesting your version of the article for a good reason. Who is right isn't of much importance as far as GA status is concerned because this isn't the place for content dispute. --Saintjust (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hurricane Philippe (2005)

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Article was passed with little comments. Article lacks sources and information. I'm suggesting a delistment. ^Mitch32^contribs 03:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

Percy Henn

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Article has gone through a thorough peer review, and all points have been addressed. Failed GA back in March. This article now meets the GA criteria in my opinion. Auroranorth (!) 11:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If it was failed back in March, why did you bring it here instead of just renominating it? That said, the article does not appear to assert the subject's notability. -Malkinann (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't really too sure. The failer said if I wished to contest, I could take it to WP:GA/R (good article review, now good article reassessment). Auroranorth (!) 03:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I will readd it. Auroranorth (!) 03:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Renominate. However, I doubt that the article will be judged GA-class. Majoreditor (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

How come? -Malkinann (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you should bring it to GAN, not GAR. Personally, I agree with Majoreditor, I think it's too short and under-referenced. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Force

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article was quickfailed recently for lack of citations, but the nominator reverted the fail template and the GAN page removal. It was then placed on hold for dubious reasons, and the nominator left a message on the GAN talk page. However, some references have been added, and assuming good faith regarding the reversions I think we can treat this as a disputed quick-fail... hence GAR. EyeSerene^TALK 10:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Renominate. I don't believe that this article should have been quick-failed. Although there are maybe still a few issues with it, including use of citations, none of them seem to be show-stoppers. But quick-failing on a general rule such as that at a minimum every paragraph must have a citation in an article like this one was inappropriate, and the result now looks faintly absurd. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I was following the guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines for citations when I quick-failed the article and at that time it did not meet them. Please also note that my quick-fail says "each paragraph or section". If it is not important to follow these guidelines at GAC, please don't direct reviewers to them at the top of the science sections. I have read over the guidelines carefully so that I can properly review science articles. However if no one is using these standards, there is no reason to list them. Awadewit | talk 09:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I would suggest that the relevant section of those guidelines in this case is the one on uncontroversial knowledge, from which I quote: "in many articles it is cumbersome to provide an in-line reference for every statement ... Therefore, in sections or articles that present well-known and uncontroversial information – information that is readily available in most common and obvious books on the subject – it is acceptable to give an inline citation for one or two authoritative sources (and possibly a more accessible source, if one is available) in such a way as to indicate that these sources can be checked to verify statements for which no other in-line citation is provided." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Renominate. In its current form the article should not quick-fail. Majoreditor (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Not renominate. The article does not include a proper information on a definition of the force. Also a structure of the article needs improvements (There is a mixture of description, equilibria, definitions a Newton's laws which have certain things common but the article makes it a bit unclear). It could be renominate later, in half a year for example, when it will be improved. Nothing pushes us to nominate it now. Miraceti (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate on what you feel the shortcomings of the article are? Where is the article unclear? -Malkinann (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, see Talk:Force#GA_On_Hold. Miraceti (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this guy is being tendentious with his opposition here. Please renominate and prevent him from obstructing proper evaluations. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Miraceti, I would suggest that if you want the article to say "always" rather than "sometimes", that you provide a really good source to say so, per exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Your other issues with the article I'm having trouble understanding. -Malkinann (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency)

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Disagree with decision not to list this as a good article, as per comments at Talk:Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency)#Good article nomination (2). Chrisieboy 10:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak list as GA. This is primarily a broadness issue, so the question is "how broad is broad?" My feeling is that it is just about broad enough for a GA, but here I am disagreeing with some very well qualified GA reviewers, and this is a judgement call. If some efforts were made to address the concerns of the reviewer, I would be able to recommend listing with greater confidence. Geometry guy 21:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• List Endorse Fail. I think the article falls down a little on broadness of coverage, most notably by its lack of a demography section. If one were to be added to the article I would change my opinion to List. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep List as GA as an electoral district, this seems well within "broadness" criteria. Would demography be nice? Yes. Would it be needed for an FA. Yes. Does its absence take it below GA standards? In my opinion, no. I don't think the article misses it. For its subject matter, the topic is adequately broad in my opinion. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The article is about Peterborough parliamentary constituency, not the politics of Peterborough, so I think coverage is broad enough. The dynamic nature of Wikipedia and the subject-matter means that the article will continue to evolve even with GA status. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Census area statistics have now been added under Franchise. I hope this addresses the concerns raised about demography. Chrisieboy (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• That's enough of a nod in the right direction for me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, I am happy that the article is moving in the right direction. Good luck with evolving it further. Geometry guy 21:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

York Museum Gardens

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Someone promoted the article while I was reviewing it; totally my fault as I suffered immense delays. However, now I've reviewed the article, I've come to the conclusion it contains too much repetitive language (i.e. "dates back to the"). The article also suffers from bad grammar. There's so much of it, that I can't correct it all in one go. Even if I could, some of the sentences have an ambiguous meaning. The article also has some statements that while I expect they're sourced, said source isn't next to the sentence in question (and not at the end of the paragraph either). I believe this article should be delisted until it has been copyedited. -- Mgm|^(talk) 20:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

*Delist. I agree that this article ought not to have been promoted, and it is seriously in need of a thorough copyedit before it could be considered to be well-written. I've started to make corrections to it, but there are a lot still required, as Mgm suggested. I don't see anything major though, so it's quite possible that everything will be fixed before this nomination is closed, in which case I'll strike my delist and support it.--Malleus Fatuorum 23:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I think that just about enough work has been done on this article now to warrant its GA listing. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Nice work Malleus. I was going to call in Lara, but you've done the business. Geometry guy 23:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I just hate to see articles that are obviously loved fail GA. But in all fairness I can't take the credit if this article manages to keep its GA listing. User:PamD put in a lot of work as well; I suspect that she may be a Yorkshire lass. :) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep GA worthy easily. Not sure where this one had problems before, but as of today, its a GREAT article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Raoul Wallenberg

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

As per the message left on the article's talk page, I believe the sections "The Holocaust" and "Raoul Wallenberg's mission neither manage to stay on topic nor cover their subject in a neutral fashion. I think the article does not merit GA status.–Joke 19:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It will take me some time to carefully review the article, but my first impression is that it's a borderline case. In its current form I would lean toward failing it because:

• The introduction is clipped and needs further development, per WP:LEAD.
• The section titled "Raoul Wallenberg's mission" is far too long, lacks citations for key facts and needs a proper copy edit and prose refresh.

Perhaps someone can spruce up the article. Majoreditor 20:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the less and less I think that the article can be in any sense described as "borderline". The major contributor to the article, Attila Lajos, is someone who wrote a PhD thesis trying to reinterpret Wallenberg's story [3]. That's fine – it's great to have subject matter experts contributing to an article – but certainly if his point of view is to be represented, it has to be done as a contrast to the many other sources (on the internet and elsewhere) that tell an entirely different story. That story has been systematically removed from the article, although it was visible in the article before Attila started editing [4]. I am going to summarily delist, it is in no sense a "good article." –Joke 21:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Analytical Marxism

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article doesn't appear to meet criteria 2a and 2b. Sections such as "Justice and Power" and "Denoument" have no in-line citations. For example, statements such as "Most of its practitioners agreed that the Marxism that in the beginning they had set out to interrogate and, to an extent, defend, was not theoretically or politically defensible" lack any cites. Additionally, all of article's in-line citations lack page references. Majoreditor (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Delist This has been a GA since Dec. '05; things have changed. I think it simply got a GA tag slapped on it... didn't check GAC.. not sure if GAC even existed then... It does have good content but needs a rewrite in the new GA zeitgeist. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Delist. Because of the paucity of citations and the use of weasel words. "Many Marxists would argue ..." --Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Britain

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I have been reviewing all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" for GA sweeps, and am unsure if this article should remain a GA. The article is well-sourced in some areas, but in others, citations are lacking for entire sections or large paragraphs. I reviewed the article last week and left the article on hold for a week to address the issues I raised here concerning inline citations, but none were added. There are other statements that could be sourced as well, but I believe the statements I mentioned should at least be sourced. I don't know if this is just my obsessive desire for more referencing within articles (see Battle of France below), so I need alternate opinions on the status of the article. Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm only a small way into the article, but am already finding exactly the same kind of sensational language (i.e., matters of opinion) unsupported by citations as I found in Battle of France. Example: "More shocking to the German pilots was the newer Spitfire Mk I, which was quickly recognised as a nimble, world-class fighter." By whom? And who says the German pilots were shocked? I notice that you mostly focus on uncited facts in your analysis, but it is the opinions that really need inline citation in my view: facts can be supported more easily by general sources. Anyway, I suggest you follow your instincts and continue the delisting process that you started. There's no need for a GAR on this in my view. Geometry guy 20:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Delist Again, this smells a bit like a GA in places, but many statements are uncited, including statistics and expressions of opinion; some sections lack any citation at all. It doesn't need a WHOLE lot of work, but it is still not GA in its current state. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Hey Nehrams, good work on all the sweeps. I won't post a hopelessly distracting beer image here, but here's a link: Image:Lager beer in glass.jpg. :-) Hey, have you been posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history about any GAR's and delistings in this area? Those people are (sometimes) good about getting on top of problems like these.... Ling.Nut (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have left messages on the talk pages of the project/task forces when the article was on hold, but I didn't mention the GARs, so I'll do that right now. Thanks for the heads up. By the way, thanks for the picture, because I can't drink the actual thing for another six months! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Pikachu

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Speedy delisted with no notice on talk page, and edit summary of "lacks real world information". However, unlike most pokemon articles, this particular one does seem to have information about the real world, in the cultural impact section. Most of the article seems referenced, though a few of the links might be questionable. I'm on the fence about this because some of the references I just don't know about, but one thing I do know is that this article definently has real world information in it. Homestarmy (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - does the real-world content in this article meet the updated WP:FICT? -Malkinann (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Updated? Man, nobody tells me these things anymore.... Homestarmy (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

But to answer the question, it does seem notable per that guideline, a float appeared in a Macy's day parade, and there's something about a plane. Of course, that's the first time i've read the "updated" WP:FICT, so I might not be understanding it right... Homestarmy (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Or it might have been WP:WAF - I forget which one, but one of the fiction guidelines has been made more stringent of late. I note that the "biological characteristics" section is still very in-universe.-Malkinann (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - lede needs additional sourcing to support assertions about the character's notoriety and status as mascot and the source of the name. Sex differences in the bio-characteristics section needs a source. If there must be a pop culture section then the bit about the first balloon being retired and the new balloon need sources. Otto4711 (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• I believe that "pop culture sections" are supposed to show the cultural impact/influence of Pikachu, and that's supposed to be the "meat" of the notability of the article?? -Malkinann (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, it would be nice if that's what they were used for, wouldn't it? But that's a conversation for another day... Otto4711 (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist. Doesn't show the notoriety of the character, and written in a very in-universe style for the "Biological characteristics" section. bibliomaniac15 06:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist until Sweeps come and do a detailed review. Read the whole article, and you'll see that it does relate to real-world (such as trading card game, parade mascot). Even an airplane featured pikachu (Image:Ana.b747.pokemon.arp.750pix.jpg, so do you think it's important? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 08:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ohana, this is the detailed review. The main problem is that text itself isn't hugely convincing. I know that puff phrases aren't allowed, but have you tried Google Scholar? As Pikachu featured in the anime there might be a few sources out there that examine Pikachu in particular. -Malkinann (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The in-universeness of the "Biological characteristics" has been given a going over, and a scholarly source has been provided to say that Pikachu is the most popular Pokemon. Sex differences have been sourced, and the article has been tagged with fact tags at various places. The stricter WP:FICT is currently being disputed. -Malkinann (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that WP:FICT is a guideline, not a policy. It should be "treated with common sense and occasional exception". Common sense tells us this article is important and in good quality, even though it was written slightly "in-universe". OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dante's Cove

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

Listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

GA was failed claiming that the episode summary section violated WP:OR. While it appears that WP:WAF allows for the use of the episodes themselves to write summaries as long as the summaries are factual and not a synthesis, the reviewing editor disagreed, stating that WAF is "a controversial element of policy that may or may not have consensus." Regardless, per his direction I relocated the episode summaries to a sub-page but now the reviewing editor is on break for the next week. I'm hoping since the summaries were the only objection that the article can be listed quickly. Otto4711 (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt you will get a quick answer here: just renominate, and archive this discussion when you do. Geometry guy 20:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest we promote - I'd rather just have discussion here, and not in two places. Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 08:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Batman (1989 film)

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I'm doubting this statusdue to the following concerns:

1. The lead section is far too sparse to be a concise overview of the article.

Done User:Wildroot 16:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The Plot section is too long.

Done User:Wildroot 16:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC) I will get to work on the other three problems.

1. The non-free images in the article besides the identifying image have insufficient fair use rationales.

Wildroot 15:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The Box office performance section is too sparse to warrant its own section.

Wildroot 15:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

1. There is no Critical reaction section from independent perspectives to comment on the film.

Hopefully these concerns can be addressed. Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist especially per a lack of rationales for fair use and a critical reaction section. Very poor article. VanTucky ^Talk 19:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Batman Forever

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I was concerned to see that an editor who has only been editing since November 3, 2007 passed this as a Good Article. These are the following issues:

1. Non-free images in the article besides the identifying poster image lack sufficient fair use rationale.

Done I'll get to work on the other two improvements later. Wildroot 11:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The "Critical analysis" section barely has any reviewers talking about the film. A lot of the content is from people involved with the film itself. It would be appropriate to have more independent perspectives -- see Road to Perdition#Reception for such a section.

Done I think you should see for yourself. I wrote it in the same format/style that you wrote in Road to Perdition#Reception. The reason why I included quotes from Schumacher were because of his reaction towards the reviews, so to speak. Now, I'm just trying my best to find those articles you listed. They are of course hard to find, but I did purchase two magazines off EBAY with a total of three dollars each. They were original published material specifically from Warner Brothers. I'm going to see what I can dig up, catch you later. Wildroot 11:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Purely online sources are not sufficient for shaping an article's content. Take a look at User:Erik/Batman Forever for many sources that should be used in the article. Even Good Articles require some research beyond what's accessible via Google.

Hopefully, these improvements can be made. Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment I make no comments other than to refute the above single claim; that online sources alone are not sufficient. There are many online sources that are reliable enough to pass WP:RS. If individual online sources used by the article are not reliable, please note which references need replacing. However, one cannot summarily reject all online references as inherently unreliable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 15:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Denmark

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I think this article should be reassessed before putting on the list of GA at the moment. Very weak citation:

• 1) No citation can be found in the paragraph of Pre-Christian Denmark.
• 2) No citation can be found in the paragraph of Medieval Denmark.
• 3) Only one citation can be found in the paragraph of Recent history.
• 4) Only one citation can be found in the section of politics.
• 5) some statements in the section of economy need citations:
  • The government has met the economic convergence criteria for participating in the third phase (the common European currency - the Euro) of the Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union (EMU), but Denmark, in a September 2000 referendum, rejected The Monetary Union.
  • In the area of sickness and unemployment, the right to benefit is always dependent on former employment and at times also on membership of an unemployment fund, which is almost always -but need not be- administered by a trade union, and the previous payment of contributions. However, the largest share of the financing is still carried by the central government and is financed from general taxation, and only to a minor degree from earmarked contributions.
  • The Danish welfare model is accompanied by a taxation system that is both broad based (25% VAT and excise) and with high income tax rates (minimum tax rate for adults is 39.6%).
  • Denmark is home to many well known multi-national companies, among them: A.P. Moller-Maersk Group (Maersk - international shipping), Lego (children's toys), Bang & Olufsen (hi-fi equipment), Carlsberg (beer), and the pharmaceutical companies Lundbeck and Novo Nordisk.
• 6) No citation AT ALL in the section of transport.
• 7) No citation can be found in the paragraph of Cinema of Denmark.
• 8) No citation can be found in the paragraph of Danish sport.
• 9) No citation can be found in the paragraph of Danish Food AT ALL.

Several sections need more information:

• Transport
• Religion
• Military

Many references seems not to follow the format of reference (MoS).

• 1
• 14(?)
• 23
• 32-34
• 40-42

No English sources AT ALL provided in the section reference, only Danish and Swedish were given. How about See also?? Coloane 05:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delist I guess it could use some more citations for a few surprising/contentious facts, but in general it seems ok. A paragraph-by-paragraph run-down seems like overkill though: there's no rule that says every paragraph should have a citation. The citations are also poorly formatted, and a few sections are choppy/short. Definitely close to GA, except for those few issues. Drewcifer 05:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per the nomination. I agree that citation is a problem here, but there are also other formatting discrepencies with mid-prose external links and images. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. Several sections, particularly those on history, need references. Statements such as "It is believed that Denmark became Christian to prevent invasion by the rising Holy Roman Empire in Germania which was a constitution by Charlemagne, that made Harald Bluetooth build six fortresses around Denmark..." need in-line citations. With some work this article can be a great GA-class work. Majoreditor (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per referencing and citation problems. VanTucky ^Talk 20:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. And I can't think of any ways that this article is rated A-class. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Call of Duty 2

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

As I see it, fails the 'broad in coverage aspect', giving only a brief bit about anything besides gameplay and plot. The lead reflects this lack of information- it talks about mobile phone versions, but I haven't seen anything in the article about it. David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Woah, I guess I was biased in looking at it when I wrote it...anyways, I'll go add to the reception (etc.) sections now. Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• I added a bit about the mobile version. --Mika1h (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Battle of France

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I have been reviewing all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" for GA sweeps, and am unsure if this article should remain a GA. The article is well-sourced in some areas, but in others, citations are lacking for entire sections or large paragraphs. Although multiple sources have been added since the last recommendation to include them, I don't believe it to be sufficient for the length of the article. Nehrams2020 06:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Much of the article is well-referenced; I count a total of 62 in-line citations. However, two sections lack any citations. The Prelude section would be stronger if it contained a citation on Hitler's peace overtures. The section on Dyle Plan also needs citations. Majoreditor 14:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If the casualties section (which deals with hard numbers) had inline citations for the figures, i'd say this article would be well-referenced overall, neither unferenced section seems critically important, and there are general references at the bottom which probably cover some or most of the material in those sections. Homestarmy (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist It is not the number of citations that matters, but how they are used. Most of the citations here are to specific pages to support specific facts, but which facts get citations seems to be a bit of a lottery. Ironically, one of the few examples of multi-page citation (footnote 45) seems to support only a quotation (probably it is supporting the whole paragraph). The article might benefit from some general cites to its sources to support paragraphs containing uncontroversial material such as "Because of a low birthrate that had even further declined during the First World War, France had a severe manpower shortage relative to the total population — which furthermore was only half of that of Germany." On the other hand, there are also matters of opinion that really need specific citations which do not have them. One example is the section on "Allied reaction", which is full of such unsourced opinion statements. In the next subsection, there is also the assertion that "The Allies seemed incapable of coping with events." which surely needs a source. Geometry guy 20:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist I would argue that it is both the number of citations and how they are used which matters. This is a large article of around 12,000 words, backed up by only 62 in-line citations. Some tracts of up to 1,500 words are entirely unreferenced, with the Blitzkrieg, Allied Reaction, Weygand Plan and Casualties sections of particular concern in my mind given their content - the former three make judgements about events which really should be referenced to published history, while casualty figures without references always look like conjecture. I recommend that the article be delisted and added to the Unreferenced GA Nominations list. Chrisfow (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Tofu

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article was found during sweep process. It carries a lot of information, but I feel that it's a little too much (per criteria 3b). The references are not uniform. Also, trivia section was found. It definetely doesn't deserve a bold delist, so I want others' opinions. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It clearly does not meet WP:LEAD at the moment. Although this doesn't deserve a bold delist, it might be appropriate to use a regular delisting procedure, as described in the guidelines at the top of this page: i.e., list your concerns on the talk page, maybe try to fix some of them, wait a week or so, and if the article still does not meet the criteria, delist it. Geometry guy 20:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Yes, the lead is definently too short, it can't possibly be summarizing most of the article. Homestarmy (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist lead is too short for an article this long. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 04:15, 26 November 2007 (GMT)
• Comment - I've expanded the lead, how does the lead look now? -Malkinann (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  Better! I've done a copyedit and some reordering. I suggest reviewers take another look at the article. Geometry guy 10:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Opus Dei

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I am not personally involved in the article, and am actually not sure whether the article should be delisted or not. However, one user has delisted the article without giving any time for concerns to be addressed, and I think it is much better that a consensus be reached (especially as it is not 100% clear this article should be delisted). Some of the concerns can be found at Talk:Opus Dei#Delisted the article as GA. Shudde ^talk 00:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep on the GA list. I honestly don't see the POV problems the delister is complaining about. The article is comprehensive, indeed an excellent overview of the subject, and it DOES present both well publicized positive and negative perceptions of the organization. The sources are approrpriately used; it cites both secondary and primary sources as approrpriate. While I would agree that for obvious cases, it is quite allowable for an article to be delisted without discussion, this was right to be brought here. I see no major issues with this article as it stands now. Indeed, I would recomend an FA run in the future. This seems quite close to meeting the requirements of an FA. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist. I do think that there's a neutrality issue with this article, as noted by the editor who pre-emptorily delisted it. I'm particularly concerned about the Replies to criticism section. If whatever's important in that section was distributed elsewhere in the body of the article then I might be persuaded to change my mind, but as it stands it does look a bit like "set 'em up and shoot 'em down". --Malleus Fatuarum 02:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as the article meets GA criteria and is well-balanced. I'd prefer to see the criticism and the rebuttal integrated into, rather segregated from, the rest of the article -- but that certainly isn't grounds for de-listing. Majoreditor 04:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Well this is a first Of all the articles I have ever read and come away knowing no more than before I began, this is by far the longest and most meticulously documented. I lean toward Delist, because I have no idea why O.D. is so powerful, and the criticisms were glossed over in a hurry. Please feel free to persuade me to Keep... --Ling.Nut 13:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are definately some problems with the article. The introduction is very choppy and should be smoothed out. I saw a lot of criticism of O.D. throughout the article. The controversy section used a lot of weasel words (name critics and supporters.) The controversy section was also where the article was its weakest. The criticism section should be strengthened, while the rebuttal section should be shortened. But overall, I thought the article is clearly a Good Article. I do not, however, agree with Jayron in thinking that it is "quite close" to becoming an FA. Too many sections where the prose wasn't quite there.Balloonman 20:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Nowhere near FA; still very questionable on GA. I think it's a diligently created puff piece, frankly. Glossed over everything. To repeat, I learned nothing except what I could have learned if I had bothered to find some pamphlet in some Catholic library somewhere or other. --Ling.Nut 00:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Diligently created puff piece would be a good summary of my opinion of the article as well. Nowhere near FA, and very dubious for GA. --Malleus Fatuarum 04:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• I shall have to remember "Diligently created puff piece" as a possible GAR recommendation! Although I have seen worse, I would have to agree. I read through the article, trying to imagine I'd never heard of the topic. By the time I reached the "Controversy" section, I was thinking "How dare they criticise such a wonderful organisation! Okay, some of its members may have strange personal practices, but look at all the good work they do."

Controversy sections are not a great idea at the best of times: when they are of the form "Criticism - Rebuttal" they are particularly unhelpful at achieving NPOV. This is yet another article (cf. Freemasonry) which is written from the internal point of view of an organization that feels more widely misunderstood. Consequently, it fails to achieve a neutral tone: where criticism is discussed, the article is defensive, and uses loaded words and sentences. Words not avoided include "claim", "point out", "although", "despite", "report", "allege", "maintain", and "contend". Also, although "while" is not mentioned at WP:WTA, it is misused in several places, including a particularly flagrant abuse in the lead no less. As a result, the lead clearly fails to summarize the article, with all of the controversy swept under the carpet in that loaded sentence.

After my own review, I went to the talk page to read the case for delisting made by Jaimehy. While I cannot verify some of the individual points made, I tend to agree overall with the analysis there.

WP:NPOV is, in my opinion, one of the most misunderstood of Wikipedia policies. I have said this here many times before: NPOV is not primarily achieved via a contest between pro- and anti- viewpoints, it is primarily achieved by writing and structuring the entire article from a neutral perspective. There is a beautiful and eloquent description of this by Gosgood in my talk archives.

I can see that a lot of work has gone into this article, but I cannot support the continued GA listing of an article which is riddled with sentences like "Despite his praise, the relationship between Paul VI and Opus Dei has been described by one Opus Dei critic as "stormy"." Delist. Geometry guy 14:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies I apologise sincerely for preemptorily delisting this article. In my astonishment that it should have been listed in the first place, I didn't stop to understand the accepted procedure. However, given that the article is, on the one hand, very important in its category and, on the other, astoundingly misleading, incomplete and biased that it should be urgently delisted. In tone and content, it is exactly the description of Opus Dei would have made of itself. Considering the controversial nature of the organisation, it is very inappropriate that this should be the case. Please delist as soon as possible Jaimehy (talk)

• Keep. I agree with those who voted "keep" based on GA criteria. I believe this piece follows actual Wikipedia statements on NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." The word "proportionately," I believe, is more often than not forgotten when WP:NPOV is discussed. This word goes with another word "expert" that is also usually missed: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." John Allen, Jr. and Vittorio Messori are highly respected professional journalists and are not Opus Dei members. Marax (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply This sort of argument from authority has no place in Wikipedia. Besides, while John Allen and Vittorio Messori are both highly respected journalists, they are prominent apologists for a variety of flavours of Roman Catholic conservatism. Extraordinarily, even the mild criticisms of John Allen fail to be addressed in the article. Delist urgently Jaimehy (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Jaime, arm-waving comments such as Delist urgently aren't going to help you reach consensus. Calm, civil discussion works best. Majoreditor (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That is good advice. Note that Jaime is relatively new to WP, so we need to allow a bit of slack per WP:BITE. In any case, it is the substance of the argument that is important, and no one has addressed the issues, for example, that I raised above. Geometry guy 17:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Further reply. Even if the article does represent all significant views fairly and proportionately (which I very much doubt), this only means it satisfies part of the neutral point of view policy (described mainly by WP:UNDUE). The NPOV policy requires that articles are written from a neutral perspective. The clue is in the name of the policy. Representing all significant views fairly and proportionately is but a part of that (otherwise the policy would be called ASPOVFP). As for the criteria, I see no counterargument to my assertion that it also fails 1b (via WP:LEAD and WP:WTA), although I am pleased to see that both Jaimehy and Marax are making efforts to improve the article. Geometry guy 17:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Perhaps they can take a crack at re-phrasing the "while" in the lead. Majoreditor (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but one of the reasons that the good article criteria flag up WP:WTA is that it is a strong indication that an article has not been written from a neutral perspective (which, as WP:NPOV boldly declares, is "non-negotiable"). So fixing the "words to avoid" alone is unlikely to solve the problem. The article needs quite a bit of rewriting, and then the lead will need to be rewritten to summarize the article. I've usually found it is pointless to fiddle with the lead until the article is in good shape. Geometry guy 22:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for all your comments. The WTA you mentioned were placed there by Alecmconroy who did a major rewrite (see here please). You might want to look at his his user page. He has been suspected of being an atheist and a Jesuit. He was suspected by a pro-Opus Dei editor of planting a number of straw men arguments (see here) so as to put Opus Dei down. I believe Alecmconroy did a good job in structuring the article so as to include a lengthy coverage of criticisms. I also believe much of Jaimehy's concerns are covered by that generous section and other criticisms found throughout the article. While the section can be improved, I have not seen another article with such generous coverage of criticisms. I do believe Alecmconroy’s use of WTA was balanced. Those words were placed strategically on both sides of the dispute. Balance has always been his main concern. However, in deference to clear Wikipedia consensus on WTA, I am helping bring back the "he state", "he said" and "he wrote" that was in an older version before the major revision by Alecmconroy. All this is to show you that great efforts were expended by editors here to write the article from a neutral perspective. Marax (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

For those who might be confused about how Marax could accuse me of being a Jesuit and an Atheist in the same breath, I should clarify. Opus Dei and the Jesuits are sort of like East Coast and West Coast Rappers. To people who are on the outside looking in, it might seems like the two groups would be close allies-- but actually they are bitter rivals. So, accusing me of "being a Jesuit" is to imply that I have a vested religious interest in promoting criticism of OD.

For the record, I am neither an atheist nor a Jesuit. Although, let's not have that denial just encourage further speculation about "Who and What _IS_ Alec, religiously?". I am not bound by the rules of Rumpelstiltskin, and in the highly unlikely event that someone were to correctly guess my own religious views, they shouldn't expect me to instantly confirm it and then promptly disappear. :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome for the comments, and thanks for the fascinating answer. First you pin the article's problems on an editor and report vague accusations about him, questioning his good faith (excuse the pun). Then you say that you believe he did a good job. Then you suggest that you are helping to undo his edits in deference to consensus on WTA.

Let's unpick that a little. First, the religion of an editor is irrelevant: what matters is the quality of their edits. Second, I can see that Alecmconroy inserted several "claims" for the criticism he added, but the two oldid's given in your link do not support the idea that Alecmconroy is responsible for the words to avoid, loaded sentences, and lack of neutrality in the current article. The pre-Alecmconroy oldid contains plenty of words to avoid and loaded sentences, while many of the problems I noticed with the current text cannot be found in the post-Alecmconroy oldid.

It would be rather odd if the article's bias towards an internal Opus Dei and/or Catholic point of view were directly caused by an editor adding external criticism, especially given your accusation that this editor was hostile to Opus Dei. Instead there seems to have been a defensive response to the added criticism.

Neutral point of view is not primarily achieved by being "generous" in the coverage of criticisms, it is achieved by writing the entire article from a neutral perspective (how many times do I have to say this?). And if you have not seen as "generous" an article, I recommend Homeopathy and Parapsychology. Geometry guy 19:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the Parapsychology article you draw attention to is an excellent example of writing about a potentially controversial subject from a neutral POV. No matter how good the rest of this Opus Dei article was, the mere presence of a Replies to criticism section gives the game away. There is absolutely no question in my mind that it is not written from a NPOV and ought to be delisted as a consequence. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for specifying further the problem you see -- the replies to criticism, and for bringing up two examples of neutral writing. These examples, I believe, strengthen my previous point about proportionality and expertise. With regard to homeopathy and parapsychology, the majority of experts or neutral writers about the field find the criticisms valid. In the case of Opus Dei, the majority of third party experts who have studied it have concluded that the criticisms are not valid, they are myths.

In deference to the fact that the findings of these experts on Opus Dei have not cascaded down to the majority of readers, unlike those of the experts on homeopathy and parapsychology, the replies to criticism section is almost the same length as the criticism section. In fact, if we are to follow the logic of proportionality and expertise on homeopathy and parapsychology, this article would have to be re-written to provide more space to the replies to criticism so as to explain Opus Dei further according to Wikipedia standards of WP:RS.

John Allen, Jr.'s book was published in 2005 and was said to be "widely considered as the definitive book on Opus Dei", and was praised by Opus Dei critics. John Allen, Jr. is CNN Vatican analyst (once described as "maddeningly objective") and his independent work agrees with the findings of other investigators, e.g. Vittorio Messori and Patrice de Plunkett.

I hope I was able to understand your position well and reply accordingly, if not I'll be glad to know your position better. Marax (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's my view that a Replies to criticism section is completely inappropriate, unless you also have a Replies to replies to criticism section, and a Replies to replies to replies to ... section. It appears to be apologists having the last word. You present the case, you present the criticism. You don't then try to refute that criticism. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem then is how to include the findings of studies done by reputable writers such as CNN's Vatican analyst, John Allen, and an encyclopedist of religion, Massimo Introvigne. In the article on parapsychology, there is a whole section with three subsections containing the findings of objective studies on the topic. The research findings of Allen, Introvigne, Messori, Plunkett, et al are worthy of a serious encyclopedia, and perhaps even worthier than the scientific criticism of parapsychology. I believe this matter has to be addressed squarely. Marax (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuarum, I've thought a lot about your suggestion of moving out the replies to another spot. I've attempted to do it mentally but was not satisfied with the results. I believe that (1) it is difficult to write about replies to criticism in some place where criticisms have not been fully expounded, (2) the writers for the replies have clearly greater expertise and notability than the critics, and so deserve number two slot to the discussion; this might be debatable, so am referring you to (3) Alec's defense of this structure here, on giving equal space to responses to Opus Dei. Scroll down a bit and you'll see his argument.

So, in response to your concern that the replies are an "apparent refutation of the previously stated criticism," and to these 3 reasons, what I have done is to change the subtitles to Critical Views and Supporting Views. I've also tweaked the previous section title to "Statements of Catholic leaders." What do you think? Marax (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Delist. I've seen enough. See my comments above. Ling.Nut (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delist Mainly sticks to a factual breakdown of Opus Dei, but a bit spotty in its coverage/handling of its controversial nature. Much of the content necessary for a neutral approach seems there, so perhaps a reorganization of the article would do the trick. But as it stands it reads a little too positively. Drewcifer (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Updated comments needed. I read the article again a week ago, and once more this week. It has improved: the lead is better, and the assertion that it is a "puff piece" is not so easy to justify. However, it still falls down as soon as it gets onto controversial or critical material. The problem with separate criticism sections is that they marginalize criticism. Criticism is particularly marginalized in this article, with legitimate criticisms folded in with outrageous ones. It seems from the above that editors feel this is justified, because the criticisms are myths created by opponents, and the supportive voices have more expertise than the critical ones. This echos comments made by editors of Freemasonry, when that was brought here.

However, it is not Wikipedia's role to set the record straight, only to report on what is stated elsewhere. We show, we do not tell. The key is to let the reader decide. It is a matter of opinion whether Allen is a "maddeningly objective" observer, or in part an apologist. It would be much better to demonstrate his objectivity, for example by quoting his criticisms of Opus Dei, than by stating his credentials. The article shoots itself in the foot by separating the reaction into critical and supporting views. It would be much better to organize criticism by topic than viewpoint, because it makes it easier to include objective analysis (without, I emphasise, asserting objectivity), and to let the reader decide.

There are still loaded sentences (including the awful one I quoted above). I also had closer look at the sources, and found rather too much reliance on primary sources (Opus Dei related websites and literature). There is plenty of secondary literature on this topic, and it could be deployed more effectively. The cosmetic changes made so far have not convinced me to change my delist recommendation. I encourage other reviewers to revisit the article, as further comments are needed to determine consensus here. Geometry guy 17:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Updated comment. I agree that the article has improved, but it has still not addressed my concern over the criticism and rebuttal sections being separate. If that criticism had been addressed I would have been prepared to consider altering my !vote to keep. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Updated comment. I still vote to keep, as the article appears to meet GA criteria. I agree that criticism sections are usually cluncky; tacking on response to criticism sections doesn't help. However, there is no consensus on the matter in Wikipedia. There are many GA-class articles with criticism sections and several with both criticism and response to criticism sections; for examples, see Kyoto Protocol and Anna Wintour (the sections may use slightly different names but are essentially "opposition"/"criticism" vs. "pro"/"response"). That said, I would encourage the article's editor to discuss how they can dismantle the two sections and integrate the material into the rest of the article. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• What other articles may or may not do is up to them. We're discussing this article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I appreciate the comments on the separate controversy section and suggestion to dismantle it. For you to understand the historical evolution of this article, this suggestion was tried for some time, but was frowned upon by a number of Wikipedians (non-editors of this article) who believed that Opus Dei's highly controversial nature deserves a separate treatment of the controversy. They viewed the redistribution of controversial material as hiding the controversy. Marax (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not against the existence of a controversy section, as in this case the controversy is notable and needs to be discussed. However, that should not prevent criticisms being discussed in other parts of the article, as every part of the article needs to be written from a neutral point of view, not just the controversy section. I agree with Malleus that the main problem is splitting the controversy into criticism and rebuttal. It is virtually impossible to achieve neutral point of view with such a structure. Geometry guy 19:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I remember, Alec et al argued to allow critics to have a opportunity to make their case in toto. Once that decision is made and given the demands of neutrality, you then arrive at the other decision of allowing supporters to air their views. I've asked Alec to argue his point further if he wishes, for I might not be doing justice to his able work. As the other editors here have noted, I see that criticisms do exist in other parts of the article. Marax (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they do. There is a discussion about mortification, which does not read neutrally at all ("opponents" and "critics" provide the critical viewpoints, but the supportive viewpoints are worded authoritatively). Apart from that, the only other critical remark I found was the awful sentence on the stormy relation between Opus Dei and Pope Paul VI, which still has not been changed. Geometry guy 19:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep on GA list. This is not for Featured Article, but only for GA. This is not meant to be perfect, but good. As such I vote for keep. I agree with Majoreditor. If other GA articles have this system of criticism and response, with greater reason should this article be allowed to keep its system. Walter Ching (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note. Just to clarify process here: this is not a vote. Consensus is determined by weight of argument and comparison of the article with the good article criteria. Those who believe that this article does not violate neutral point of view need to provide arguments to support their view and/or refute the arguments made by others that it does not. The argument that other stuff exists is widely viewed as irrelevant. Thanks, Geometry guy 19:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• No opinion, but lean toward delist. As I explain in more detail below, I don't think this is one of our better articles. It's still clear, reading it over, that most of the editors on the page have a very pro-OD stance-- if the page were truly neutral, I shouldn't be able to guess what POV the editors had. That said, I practically never involved with GA criteria discussions, so please take my words with a grain of salt. It's important that GA criteria be applied uniformly, and I'm not even remotely familiar enough with how GA criteria is usually applied to offer an educated opinion on how they apply to this situation. --Alecmconroy (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks for such detailed comments. I agree almost entirely with what you say here and below, especially with the point that one shouldn't be able to guess the point of view of the editors from reading the article, and with the comment about the huge problem that Wikipedia faces in writing good articles about controversial subjects, when the editors who are attracted to contribute to such an article tend to have a point of view.

  I also share your sympathy with all editors involved: everyone is doing their best to make a good article here. I am similarly sympathetic with the editors of Freemasonry who want to set the record straight and explain what Freemasonry really is about to Wikipedia readers. There is no doubt in their good faith, but the result is a non-neutral article. I have also recently opposed the listing of Universe as GA because it was not broad enough in its coverage of other viewpoints. Another example is Veganism, which has benefitted from the contributions of many good faith editors, but still fails to achieve NPOV.

  NPOV is not only a GA criterion, it is a policy that every article must satisfy. Listing a POV article as GA sends the wrong message. The criticism-rebuttal section is not neutral, but I agree that if the two sections were integrated, the article would rapidly become worse, not better. I don't know what to do about this either. The article faces a Catch 22: to make it NPOV will make it unstable (another GA criterion). However, we certainly shouldn't be closing our eyes and listing such articles as GAs, just because we can't think of a better solution. Geometry guy 19:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's not so clear to me that merging the criticism and rebuttal sections would necessarily result in the article becoming worse. As I think you said earlier, there is sufficient controversy around Opus Dei to warrant the inclusion of a section discussing it. While I do take on board the very good points made by Alecmconroy, I don't take such a gloomy view on the practicality of producing a balanced article on controversial subjects. For me, the only thing holding this article back from a GA listing is the rebuttal section. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Mild delist. On account of the criticism/replies sections, especially the latter. I do take strong issue with the characterization as a puff piece, and second the contrast by Marax above between this topic and (say) homeopathy, noting "neutral" does not necessarily mean "equal". But a 'replies to criticism' section, even if the totality of the article somehow still remains NPOV, gives the strong impression of POV and even OWN, and is a very poor editorial issue. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of the issues raised by Opus Dei

Probably more than any one person, I'm responsible for the text that's currently on the page. Last year, I did a major rewrite on this page, taking a 100% puff piece and trying to rewrite it to be far more verifiable and somewhat more NPOV. I went through and tried to make sure every single statement was at least backed up by sources. I spent a long long time on the article.

A big part of that time was devoted to getting allow the existence of a small section dedicated to controversy. The problem we had before was that any criticisms would get overwhelmed by rebuttals, to the point that trying to find criticism was like trying to find a needle in a haystack. By having one dedicated controversy section, I felt like at least no matter what else happened, there would always be one section dedicated to putting forward the criticisms of Opus Dei-- which even supporters admit is "the most controversial organization in the largest religion on the planet".

That say, as someone who fought hard to make the article the way it is, I have to be honest-- I still don't consider to be a "good" article (where good is an English word, not necessarily GA criteria-based). I'm very proud of the rewrite I did, but whenever I brag about it to people, I always show the "look what it was like BEFORE the rewrite", because it's only an article I'm proud of by comparison with the mess it was before. I don't think the end product is a good article, but I'm incredibly proud that the end product was an article that is "consistently not horrible"-- in that, at least one portion of the article is there, if the reader finds it, that actually explains why "the most controversial force in the world's largest religion" is, in fact, at all controversial. Yes, it could, in theory, be improved in lots of ways, but I don't know how to actually create an article here on wikipedia that would both be better and would be "stably better".

The truth is, the problem posed by the Opus Dei article leave me very stymied, and I think it's a question that may have to be solved by something outside wikipedia, something like Veropedia. The question it's left me with is this: On Wikipedia, how do you write a GA or a FA, when the article attracts large numbers of people who have incredibly strong, completely uniform views on the subject matter???.

I'm not sure how to make Wikipedia work in these instances, where a large number of authors come to Wikipedia, all with a very clear and uniform predefined POV, and want very strongly for Wikipedia to reflect what they know in their hearts is the truth-- that Opus Dei is probably the most wonderful organization on the planet earth. You can't accuse them of acting in bad faith-- they're not-- they're just trying to edit Wikipedia so that it accurately reflects the truth they believe in with all their hearts. And you can't simply point them to NPOV, because to them, the wonderfulness of OD is so obvious that any neutral observer will come to the conclusion that OD is wonderful, and deviation from that point of view is non-neutral. And you can't point them to Not a Soapbox, because they care about OD so so so much more than wikipedia, that spreading the truth about OD is vastly more important that Wikipedia. And you can't fault them for this belief, either, because honestly-- who is more important-- God's message or some internet encyclopedia project? And you can't even fault them for coming here, because we're the encyclopedia anyone should be able to edit-- we've invited the world to come here, and they're just doing their best to make sure that the encyclopedia reflects the truth as they see it.

So, that's the dilemma. There's a large number of editors here who, although they choose to be private about their personal religious lives, certainly embody the POV of an OD member, and I expect most of them are members. I think they systemically have trouble writing articles that outside editors see as NPOV, but I don't actually have anything against them. They're doing their best to make the world a better place, using Wikipedia as a tool to spread THE most important message on the entire planet. If they have conviction, they have to come here and try to turn the article into a puff piece. If they have true faith, they have to try to make the article reflect the Neutral Truth that OD is wonderful. If they have any since of what's truly important, they have to put OD ahead of Wikipedia, because OD is an organization trying to do the will of God, while wikipedia is just a fly by night internet project.

I know all this sound ad hominem, but I actually have great respect for those my fellow editors who are OD members. If I was an OD member and believed exact the same as they believe, I hope I too would have their courage of conviction to come to wikipedia and fight to transform it so it reflects the Truth that OD is wonderful, and stop the "lies" that have been spread about it. I feel similarly about the critics who feel OD is a great danger and have come here to help spread that truth. And I feel similarly about people who edit the article not because they're pro-OD or anti-OD, but merely because we're pro-Wikipedia, and want Wikipedia to have the best article it can. There are no "bad guys" here, everyone's doing their best to do their job to improve the world, as they each see it.

But unfortunately, the end product is an article that most outside editors will feel doesn't do a good job of being NPOV. Of course, to the OD members who edit the article, the inclusion of criticism is already too much, because a NPOV will be on which properly reflects the truth that OD is a wonderful organization, beloved by practically everyone except a few vocal malcontents.

If I were the sole editor, I can think of lots of ways to improve the article. But as a practical matter, within the wikicommunity, I don't honestly know how to improve the article. The ratio of outside editors to OD members & opponents is just too small, and I personally don't know how to, as a practical matter, improve the article in a way that will stick. Honestly, I'm flattered that some people think the article might meet GA-- when I did the rewrite last year, I trying to take a complete puff piece and turn it into an article that could be stable while still meeting WP:V and was within the ballpark of meeting WP:NPOV.

As I've said elsewhere, the criticism and rebutal section is one issue. If I were writing it myself, I wouldn't do it that way, but that was the only section styling I could figure out that would protect the criticism from being totally overrun by rebuttal. As a practical matter, I think if the two are integrated, the article will wind up getting worse, not better.

So, my opinion is that, even though I wrote most of it, it's still not "good", it's just "a lot better" than it was a year and a half ago. Any suggestions on how to improve it further, in light of the fact that there's a veritable army of people with such a strong pro-OD view of the world, is most welcome. --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria (GACR). GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. The GAR Coordinators — Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings — work to organize these efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the {{@GAR}} notification template, or make a comment on the talk page.

Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including not meeting the general notability guideline, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment can be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles can be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delist.

Good article reassessment

Good article reassessment instructions

Before opening a reassessment

1. Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
2. Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
3. Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
4. If there are many similar articles already nominated at GAR, consider delaying the reassessment request. If an editor notices that many similar GARs are open and requests a hold, such requests should generally be granted.

Opening a reassessment

1. To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
2. The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment).
3. Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.

Manual opening steps

1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
2. Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
3. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
4. The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
5. Transclude the assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste {{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}} at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion.
6. Notify major contributing editors, including the nominator and the reviewer. Also consider notifying relevant active WikiProjects related to the article. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.

Reassessment process

1. Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them.
2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
3. If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion.
4. If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.

Closing a reassessment

To close a discussion, use the GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).

1. GARs typically remain open for at least one week.
2. Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
3. If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time.
4. After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
   • If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.

Manual closing steps

1. Locate {{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page.
2. The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
   • If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
     • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
     • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
     • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (example)
   • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this,
     • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
     • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
     • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page, setting currentstatus to DGA (delisted good article). (example)
     • blank the class parameter of the WikiProject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment
     • remove the {{good article}} template from the article page (example)
     • remove the article from the relevant list at good articles (example)
3. Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)

Disputing a reassessment

1. A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect. A closure should only be disputed within the first seven days following the close.
2. Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
3. If discussing does not resolve concerns, editors should post at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the coordinators.

Articles needing reassessment (add new articles above the top article in the list)

Note: Please remember to put a note on the article's talk page informing editors that it has been brought to WP:GAR for reassessment and possible delisting of its Good article status. Include [[WP:GAR|Good article reassessment]] in the section heading.

The Rape of Nanking (book)

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

A certain editor is adamantly opposed to the expansion of the criticism section in the name of keeping it pretty for FA nomination, resulting in content dispute. This is a very controversial book that still has much room for expansion. The article has a npov tag on it now (placed by myself). --Saintjust (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the version that was promoted to GA - [5], and here's the version it was at before User:Saintjust edited the article - [6]. I absolutely believe the article gave enough mention of the criticism before Saintjust came into the picture. Remember, the article is about all aspects of the book, not a battleground for opinions that praise and criticise the book. I've worked very hard at writing a fair and balanced article to try to push it to FA status. I've offered to help Saintjust write a seperate article just on the controversy surrounding the book, if he is so interested in it. But he only wants to inflate the article with more criticism. What more, most of the points he has added was already mentioned in the article before his edit. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Another thing - I can understand if Saintjust disagrees with me about the amount of criticism offered in the article, but I'm sorry, it's ridiculous to imply that editing an article for FA quality is some kind of a negative. FA quality represents the ideal state of an article. We should be writing all articles with FA quality in mind. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment That an editor from China has been lucky enough to edit the article all he likes on his own for the past several months is quite amazing, considering the everlasting edit wars going on China-Japan related articles on Wikipedia. But now here I am contesting your version of the article for a good reason. Who is right isn't of much importance as far as GA status is concerned because this isn't the place for content dispute. --Saintjust (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hurricane Philippe (2005)

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Article was passed with little comments. Article lacks sources and information. I'm suggesting a delistment. ^Mitch32^contribs 03:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

Percy Henn

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Article has gone through a thorough peer review, and all points have been addressed. Failed GA back in March. This article now meets the GA criteria in my opinion. Auroranorth (!) 11:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If it was failed back in March, why did you bring it here instead of just renominating it? That said, the article does not appear to assert the subject's notability. -Malkinann (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't really too sure. The failer said if I wished to contest, I could take it to WP:GA/R (good article review, now good article reassessment). Auroranorth (!) 03:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I will readd it. Auroranorth (!) 03:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Renominate. However, I doubt that the article will be judged GA-class. Majoreditor (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

How come? -Malkinann (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you should bring it to GAN, not GAR. Personally, I agree with Majoreditor, I think it's too short and under-referenced. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Force

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article was quickfailed recently for lack of citations, but the nominator reverted the fail template and the GAN page removal. It was then placed on hold for dubious reasons, and the nominator left a message on the GAN talk page. However, some references have been added, and assuming good faith regarding the reversions I think we can treat this as a disputed quick-fail... hence GAR. EyeSerene^TALK 10:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Renominate. I don't believe that this article should have been quick-failed. Although there are maybe still a few issues with it, including use of citations, none of them seem to be show-stoppers. But quick-failing on a general rule such as that at a minimum every paragraph must have a citation in an article like this one was inappropriate, and the result now looks faintly absurd. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I was following the guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines for citations when I quick-failed the article and at that time it did not meet them. Please also note that my quick-fail says "each paragraph or section". If it is not important to follow these guidelines at GAC, please don't direct reviewers to them at the top of the science sections. I have read over the guidelines carefully so that I can properly review science articles. However if no one is using these standards, there is no reason to list them. Awadewit | talk 09:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I would suggest that the relevant section of those guidelines in this case is the one on uncontroversial knowledge, from which I quote: "in many articles it is cumbersome to provide an in-line reference for every statement ... Therefore, in sections or articles that present well-known and uncontroversial information – information that is readily available in most common and obvious books on the subject – it is acceptable to give an inline citation for one or two authoritative sources (and possibly a more accessible source, if one is available) in such a way as to indicate that these sources can be checked to verify statements for which no other in-line citation is provided." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Renominate. In its current form the article should not quick-fail. Majoreditor (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Not renominate. The article does not include a proper information on a definition of the force. Also a structure of the article needs improvements (There is a mixture of description, equilibria, definitions a Newton's laws which have certain things common but the article makes it a bit unclear). It could be renominate later, in half a year for example, when it will be improved. Nothing pushes us to nominate it now. Miraceti (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate on what you feel the shortcomings of the article are? Where is the article unclear? -Malkinann (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, see Talk:Force#GA_On_Hold. Miraceti (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this guy is being tendentious with his opposition here. Please renominate and prevent him from obstructing proper evaluations. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Miraceti, I would suggest that if you want the article to say "always" rather than "sometimes", that you provide a really good source to say so, per exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Your other issues with the article I'm having trouble understanding. -Malkinann (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency)

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Disagree with decision not to list this as a good article, as per comments at Talk:Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency)#Good article nomination (2). Chrisieboy 10:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak list as GA. This is primarily a broadness issue, so the question is "how broad is broad?" My feeling is that it is just about broad enough for a GA, but here I am disagreeing with some very well qualified GA reviewers, and this is a judgement call. If some efforts were made to address the concerns of the reviewer, I would be able to recommend listing with greater confidence. Geometry guy 21:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• List Endorse Fail. I think the article falls down a little on broadness of coverage, most notably by its lack of a demography section. If one were to be added to the article I would change my opinion to List. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep List as GA as an electoral district, this seems well within "broadness" criteria. Would demography be nice? Yes. Would it be needed for an FA. Yes. Does its absence take it below GA standards? In my opinion, no. I don't think the article misses it. For its subject matter, the topic is adequately broad in my opinion. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The article is about Peterborough parliamentary constituency, not the politics of Peterborough, so I think coverage is broad enough. The dynamic nature of Wikipedia and the subject-matter means that the article will continue to evolve even with GA status. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Census area statistics have now been added under Franchise. I hope this addresses the concerns raised about demography. Chrisieboy (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• That's enough of a nod in the right direction for me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, I am happy that the article is moving in the right direction. Good luck with evolving it further. Geometry guy 21:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

York Museum Gardens

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Someone promoted the article while I was reviewing it; totally my fault as I suffered immense delays. However, now I've reviewed the article, I've come to the conclusion it contains too much repetitive language (i.e. "dates back to the"). The article also suffers from bad grammar. There's so much of it, that I can't correct it all in one go. Even if I could, some of the sentences have an ambiguous meaning. The article also has some statements that while I expect they're sourced, said source isn't next to the sentence in question (and not at the end of the paragraph either). I believe this article should be delisted until it has been copyedited. -- Mgm|^(talk) 20:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

*Delist. I agree that this article ought not to have been promoted, and it is seriously in need of a thorough copyedit before it could be considered to be well-written. I've started to make corrections to it, but there are a lot still required, as Mgm suggested. I don't see anything major though, so it's quite possible that everything will be fixed before this nomination is closed, in which case I'll strike my delist and support it.--Malleus Fatuorum 23:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I think that just about enough work has been done on this article now to warrant its GA listing. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Nice work Malleus. I was going to call in Lara, but you've done the business. Geometry guy 23:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I just hate to see articles that are obviously loved fail GA. But in all fairness I can't take the credit if this article manages to keep its GA listing. User:PamD put in a lot of work as well; I suspect that she may be a Yorkshire lass. :) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep GA worthy easily. Not sure where this one had problems before, but as of today, its a GREAT article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Raoul Wallenberg

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

As per the message left on the article's talk page, I believe the sections "The Holocaust" and "Raoul Wallenberg's mission neither manage to stay on topic nor cover their subject in a neutral fashion. I think the article does not merit GA status.–Joke 19:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It will take me some time to carefully review the article, but my first impression is that it's a borderline case. In its current form I would lean toward failing it because:

• The introduction is clipped and needs further development, per WP:LEAD.
• The section titled "Raoul Wallenberg's mission" is far too long, lacks citations for key facts and needs a proper copy edit and prose refresh.

Perhaps someone can spruce up the article. Majoreditor 20:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the less and less I think that the article can be in any sense described as "borderline". The major contributor to the article, Attila Lajos, is someone who wrote a PhD thesis trying to reinterpret Wallenberg's story [7]. That's fine – it's great to have subject matter experts contributing to an article – but certainly if his point of view is to be represented, it has to be done as a contrast to the many other sources (on the internet and elsewhere) that tell an entirely different story. That story has been systematically removed from the article, although it was visible in the article before Attila started editing [8]. I am going to summarily delist, it is in no sense a "good article." –Joke 21:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Analytical Marxism

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article doesn't appear to meet criteria 2a and 2b. Sections such as "Justice and Power" and "Denoument" have no in-line citations. For example, statements such as "Most of its practitioners agreed that the Marxism that in the beginning they had set out to interrogate and, to an extent, defend, was not theoretically or politically defensible" lack any cites. Additionally, all of article's in-line citations lack page references. Majoreditor (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Delist This has been a GA since Dec. '05; things have changed. I think it simply got a GA tag slapped on it... didn't check GAC.. not sure if GAC even existed then... It does have good content but needs a rewrite in the new GA zeitgeist. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Delist. Because of the paucity of citations and the use of weasel words. "Many Marxists would argue ..." --Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Britain

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I have been reviewing all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" for GA sweeps, and am unsure if this article should remain a GA. The article is well-sourced in some areas, but in others, citations are lacking for entire sections or large paragraphs. I reviewed the article last week and left the article on hold for a week to address the issues I raised here concerning inline citations, but none were added. There are other statements that could be sourced as well, but I believe the statements I mentioned should at least be sourced. I don't know if this is just my obsessive desire for more referencing within articles (see Battle of France below), so I need alternate opinions on the status of the article. Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm only a small way into the article, but am already finding exactly the same kind of sensational language (i.e., matters of opinion) unsupported by citations as I found in Battle of France. Example: "More shocking to the German pilots was the newer Spitfire Mk I, which was quickly recognised as a nimble, world-class fighter." By whom? And who says the German pilots were shocked? I notice that you mostly focus on uncited facts in your analysis, but it is the opinions that really need inline citation in my view: facts can be supported more easily by general sources. Anyway, I suggest you follow your instincts and continue the delisting process that you started. There's no need for a GAR on this in my view. Geometry guy 20:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Delist Again, this smells a bit like a GA in places, but many statements are uncited, including statistics and expressions of opinion; some sections lack any citation at all. It doesn't need a WHOLE lot of work, but it is still not GA in its current state. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Hey Nehrams, good work on all the sweeps. I won't post a hopelessly distracting beer image here, but here's a link: Image:Lager beer in glass.jpg. :-) Hey, have you been posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history about any GAR's and delistings in this area? Those people are (sometimes) good about getting on top of problems like these.... Ling.Nut (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have left messages on the talk pages of the project/task forces when the article was on hold, but I didn't mention the GARs, so I'll do that right now. Thanks for the heads up. By the way, thanks for the picture, because I can't drink the actual thing for another six months! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Pikachu

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Speedy delisted with no notice on talk page, and edit summary of "lacks real world information". However, unlike most pokemon articles, this particular one does seem to have information about the real world, in the cultural impact section. Most of the article seems referenced, though a few of the links might be questionable. I'm on the fence about this because some of the references I just don't know about, but one thing I do know is that this article definently has real world information in it. Homestarmy (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - does the real-world content in this article meet the updated WP:FICT? -Malkinann (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Updated? Man, nobody tells me these things anymore.... Homestarmy (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

But to answer the question, it does seem notable per that guideline, a float appeared in a Macy's day parade, and there's something about a plane. Of course, that's the first time i've read the "updated" WP:FICT, so I might not be understanding it right... Homestarmy (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Or it might have been WP:WAF - I forget which one, but one of the fiction guidelines has been made more stringent of late. I note that the "biological characteristics" section is still very in-universe.-Malkinann (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - lede needs additional sourcing to support assertions about the character's notoriety and status as mascot and the source of the name. Sex differences in the bio-characteristics section needs a source. If there must be a pop culture section then the bit about the first balloon being retired and the new balloon need sources. Otto4711 (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• I believe that "pop culture sections" are supposed to show the cultural impact/influence of Pikachu, and that's supposed to be the "meat" of the notability of the article?? -Malkinann (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, it would be nice if that's what they were used for, wouldn't it? But that's a conversation for another day... Otto4711 (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist. Doesn't show the notoriety of the character, and written in a very in-universe style for the "Biological characteristics" section. bibliomaniac15 06:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist until Sweeps come and do a detailed review. Read the whole article, and you'll see that it does relate to real-world (such as trading card game, parade mascot). Even an airplane featured pikachu (Image:Ana.b747.pokemon.arp.750pix.jpg, so do you think it's important? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 08:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ohana, this is the detailed review. The main problem is that text itself isn't hugely convincing. I know that puff phrases aren't allowed, but have you tried Google Scholar? As Pikachu featured in the anime there might be a few sources out there that examine Pikachu in particular. -Malkinann (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The in-universeness of the "Biological characteristics" has been given a going over, and a scholarly source has been provided to say that Pikachu is the most popular Pokemon. Sex differences have been sourced, and the article has been tagged with fact tags at various places. The stricter WP:FICT is currently being disputed. -Malkinann (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that WP:FICT is a guideline, not a policy. It should be "treated with common sense and occasional exception". Common sense tells us this article is important and in good quality, even though it was written slightly "in-universe". OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dante's Cove

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

Listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

GA was failed claiming that the episode summary section violated WP:OR. While it appears that WP:WAF allows for the use of the episodes themselves to write summaries as long as the summaries are factual and not a synthesis, the reviewing editor disagreed, stating that WAF is "a controversial element of policy that may or may not have consensus." Regardless, per his direction I relocated the episode summaries to a sub-page but now the reviewing editor is on break for the next week. I'm hoping since the summaries were the only objection that the article can be listed quickly. Otto4711 (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt you will get a quick answer here: just renominate, and archive this discussion when you do. Geometry guy 20:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest we promote - I'd rather just have discussion here, and not in two places. Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 08:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Batman (1989 film)

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I'm doubting this statusdue to the following concerns:

1. The lead section is far too sparse to be a concise overview of the article.

Done User:Wildroot 16:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The Plot section is too long.

Done User:Wildroot 16:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC) I will get to work on the other three problems.

1. The non-free images in the article besides the identifying image have insufficient fair use rationales.

Wildroot 15:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The Box office performance section is too sparse to warrant its own section.

Wildroot 15:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

1. There is no Critical reaction section from independent perspectives to comment on the film.

Hopefully these concerns can be addressed. Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist especially per a lack of rationales for fair use and a critical reaction section. Very poor article. VanTucky ^Talk 19:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Batman Forever

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I was concerned to see that an editor who has only been editing since November 3, 2007 passed this as a Good Article. These are the following issues:

1. Non-free images in the article besides the identifying poster image lack sufficient fair use rationale.

Done I'll get to work on the other two improvements later. Wildroot 11:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The "Critical analysis" section barely has any reviewers talking about the film. A lot of the content is from people involved with the film itself. It would be appropriate to have more independent perspectives -- see Road to Perdition#Reception for such a section.

Done I think you should see for yourself. I wrote it in the same format/style that you wrote in Road to Perdition#Reception. The reason why I included quotes from Schumacher were because of his reaction towards the reviews, so to speak. Now, I'm just trying my best to find those articles you listed. They are of course hard to find, but I did purchase two magazines off EBAY with a total of three dollars each. They were original published material specifically from Warner Brothers. I'm going to see what I can dig up, catch you later. Wildroot 11:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Purely online sources are not sufficient for shaping an article's content. Take a look at User:Erik/Batman Forever for many sources that should be used in the article. Even Good Articles require some research beyond what's accessible via Google.

Hopefully, these improvements can be made. Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment I make no comments other than to refute the above single claim; that online sources alone are not sufficient. There are many online sources that are reliable enough to pass WP:RS. If individual online sources used by the article are not reliable, please note which references need replacing. However, one cannot summarily reject all online references as inherently unreliable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 15:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Denmark

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I think this article should be reassessed before putting on the list of GA at the moment. Very weak citation:

• 1) No citation can be found in the paragraph of Pre-Christian Denmark.
• 2) No citation can be found in the paragraph of Medieval Denmark.
• 3) Only one citation can be found in the paragraph of Recent history.
• 4) Only one citation can be found in the section of politics.
• 5) some statements in the section of economy need citations:
  • The government has met the economic convergence criteria for participating in the third phase (the common European currency - the Euro) of the Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union (EMU), but Denmark, in a September 2000 referendum, rejected The Monetary Union.
  • In the area of sickness and unemployment, the right to benefit is always dependent on former employment and at times also on membership of an unemployment fund, which is almost always -but need not be- administered by a trade union, and the previous payment of contributions. However, the largest share of the financing is still carried by the central government and is financed from general taxation, and only to a minor degree from earmarked contributions.
  • The Danish welfare model is accompanied by a taxation system that is both broad based (25% VAT and excise) and with high income tax rates (minimum tax rate for adults is 39.6%).
  • Denmark is home to many well known multi-national companies, among them: A.P. Moller-Maersk Group (Maersk - international shipping), Lego (children's toys), Bang & Olufsen (hi-fi equipment), Carlsberg (beer), and the pharmaceutical companies Lundbeck and Novo Nordisk.
• 6) No citation AT ALL in the section of transport.
• 7) No citation can be found in the paragraph of Cinema of Denmark.
• 8) No citation can be found in the paragraph of Danish sport.
• 9) No citation can be found in the paragraph of Danish Food AT ALL.

Several sections need more information:

• Transport
• Religion
• Military

Many references seems not to follow the format of reference (MoS).

• 1
• 14(?)
• 23
• 32-34
• 40-42

No English sources AT ALL provided in the section reference, only Danish and Swedish were given. How about See also?? Coloane 05:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delist I guess it could use some more citations for a few surprising/contentious facts, but in general it seems ok. A paragraph-by-paragraph run-down seems like overkill though: there's no rule that says every paragraph should have a citation. The citations are also poorly formatted, and a few sections are choppy/short. Definitely close to GA, except for those few issues. Drewcifer 05:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per the nomination. I agree that citation is a problem here, but there are also other formatting discrepencies with mid-prose external links and images. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. Several sections, particularly those on history, need references. Statements such as "It is believed that Denmark became Christian to prevent invasion by the rising Holy Roman Empire in Germania which was a constitution by Charlemagne, that made Harald Bluetooth build six fortresses around Denmark..." need in-line citations. With some work this article can be a great GA-class work. Majoreditor (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per referencing and citation problems. VanTucky ^Talk 20:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. And I can't think of any ways that this article is rated A-class. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Call of Duty 2

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

As I see it, fails the 'broad in coverage aspect', giving only a brief bit about anything besides gameplay and plot. The lead reflects this lack of information- it talks about mobile phone versions, but I haven't seen anything in the article about it. David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Woah, I guess I was biased in looking at it when I wrote it...anyways, I'll go add to the reception (etc.) sections now. Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• I added a bit about the mobile version. --Mika1h (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Battle of France

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I have been reviewing all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" for GA sweeps, and am unsure if this article should remain a GA. The article is well-sourced in some areas, but in others, citations are lacking for entire sections or large paragraphs. Although multiple sources have been added since the last recommendation to include them, I don't believe it to be sufficient for the length of the article. Nehrams2020 06:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Much of the article is well-referenced; I count a total of 62 in-line citations. However, two sections lack any citations. The Prelude section would be stronger if it contained a citation on Hitler's peace overtures. The section on Dyle Plan also needs citations. Majoreditor 14:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If the casualties section (which deals with hard numbers) had inline citations for the figures, i'd say this article would be well-referenced overall, neither unferenced section seems critically important, and there are general references at the bottom which probably cover some or most of the material in those sections. Homestarmy (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist It is not the number of citations that matters, but how they are used. Most of the citations here are to specific pages to support specific facts, but which facts get citations seems to be a bit of a lottery. Ironically, one of the few examples of multi-page citation (footnote 45) seems to support only a quotation (probably it is supporting the whole paragraph). The article might benefit from some general cites to its sources to support paragraphs containing uncontroversial material such as "Because of a low birthrate that had even further declined during the First World War, France had a severe manpower shortage relative to the total population — which furthermore was only half of that of Germany." On the other hand, there are also matters of opinion that really need specific citations which do not have them. One example is the section on "Allied reaction", which is full of such unsourced opinion statements. In the next subsection, there is also the assertion that "The Allies seemed incapable of coping with events." which surely needs a source. Geometry guy 20:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist I would argue that it is both the number of citations and how they are used which matters. This is a large article of around 12,000 words, backed up by only 62 in-line citations. Some tracts of up to 1,500 words are entirely unreferenced, with the Blitzkrieg, Allied Reaction, Weygand Plan and Casualties sections of particular concern in my mind given their content - the former three make judgements about events which really should be referenced to published history, while casualty figures without references always look like conjecture. I recommend that the article be delisted and added to the Unreferenced GA Nominations list. Chrisfow (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Tofu

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article was found during sweep process. It carries a lot of information, but I feel that it's a little too much (per criteria 3b). The references are not uniform. Also, trivia section was found. It definetely doesn't deserve a bold delist, so I want others' opinions. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It clearly does not meet WP:LEAD at the moment. Although this doesn't deserve a bold delist, it might be appropriate to use a regular delisting procedure, as described in the guidelines at the top of this page: i.e., list your concerns on the talk page, maybe try to fix some of them, wait a week or so, and if the article still does not meet the criteria, delist it. Geometry guy 20:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Yes, the lead is definently too short, it can't possibly be summarizing most of the article. Homestarmy (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist lead is too short for an article this long. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 04:15, 26 November 2007 (GMT)
• Comment - I've expanded the lead, how does the lead look now? -Malkinann (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  Better! I've done a copyedit and some reordering. I suggest reviewers take another look at the article. Geometry guy 10:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Opus Dei

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I am not personally involved in the article, and am actually not sure whether the article should be delisted or not. However, one user has delisted the article without giving any time for concerns to be addressed, and I think it is much better that a consensus be reached (especially as it is not 100% clear this article should be delisted). Some of the concerns can be found at Talk:Opus Dei#Delisted the article as GA. Shudde ^talk 00:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep on the GA list. I honestly don't see the POV problems the delister is complaining about. The article is comprehensive, indeed an excellent overview of the subject, and it DOES present both well publicized positive and negative perceptions of the organization. The sources are approrpriately used; it cites both secondary and primary sources as approrpriate. While I would agree that for obvious cases, it is quite allowable for an article to be delisted without discussion, this was right to be brought here. I see no major issues with this article as it stands now. Indeed, I would recomend an FA run in the future. This seems quite close to meeting the requirements of an FA. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delist. I do think that there's a neutrality issue with this article, as noted by the editor who pre-emptorily delisted it. I'm particularly concerned about the Replies to criticism section. If whatever's important in that section was distributed elsewhere in the body of the article then I might be persuaded to change my mind, but as it stands it does look a bit like "set 'em up and shoot 'em down". --Malleus Fatuarum 02:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as the article meets GA criteria and is well-balanced. I'd prefer to see the criticism and the rebuttal integrated into, rather segregated from, the rest of the article -- but that certainly isn't grounds for de-listing. Majoreditor 04:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Well this is a first Of all the articles I have ever read and come away knowing no more than before I began, this is by far the longest and most meticulously documented. I lean toward Delist, because I have no idea why O.D. is so powerful, and the criticisms were glossed over in a hurry. Please feel free to persuade me to Keep... --Ling.Nut 13:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are definately some problems with the article. The introduction is very choppy and should be smoothed out. I saw a lot of criticism of O.D. throughout the article. The controversy section used a lot of weasel words (name critics and supporters.) The controversy section was also where the article was its weakest. The criticism section should be strengthened, while the rebuttal section should be shortened. But overall, I thought the article is clearly a Good Article. I do not, however, agree with Jayron in thinking that it is "quite close" to becoming an FA. Too many sections where the prose wasn't quite there.Balloonman 20:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Nowhere near FA; still very questionable on GA. I think it's a diligently created puff piece, frankly. Glossed over everything. To repeat, I learned nothing except what I could have learned if I had bothered to find some pamphlet in some Catholic library somewhere or other. --Ling.Nut 00:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Diligently created puff piece would be a good summary of my opinion of the article as well. Nowhere near FA, and very dubious for GA. --Malleus Fatuarum 04:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• I shall have to remember "Diligently created puff piece" as a possible GAR recommendation! Although I have seen worse, I would have to agree. I read through the article, trying to imagine I'd never heard of the topic. By the time I reached the "Controversy" section, I was thinking "How dare they criticise such a wonderful organisation! Okay, some of its members may have strange personal practices, but look at all the good work they do."

Controversy sections are not a great idea at the best of times: when they are of the form "Criticism - Rebuttal" they are particularly unhelpful at achieving NPOV. This is yet another article (cf. Freemasonry) which is written from the internal point of view of an organization that feels more widely misunderstood. Consequently, it fails to achieve a neutral tone: where criticism is discussed, the article is defensive, and uses loaded words and sentences. Words not avoided include "claim", "point out", "although", "despite", "report", "allege", "maintain", and "contend". Also, although "while" is not mentioned at WP:WTA, it is misused in several places, including a particularly flagrant abuse in the lead no less. As a result, the lead clearly fails to summarize the article, with all of the controversy swept under the carpet in that loaded sentence.

After my own review, I went to the talk page to read the case for delisting made by Jaimehy. While I cannot verify some of the individual points made, I tend to agree overall with the analysis there.

WP:NPOV is, in my opinion, one of the most misunderstood of Wikipedia policies. I have said this here many times before: NPOV is not primarily achieved via a contest between pro- and anti- viewpoints, it is primarily achieved by writing and structuring the entire article from a neutral perspective. There is a beautiful and eloquent description of this by Gosgood in my talk archives.

I can see that a lot of work has gone into this article, but I cannot support the continued GA listing of an article which is riddled with sentences like "Despite his praise, the relationship between Paul VI and Opus Dei has been described by one Opus Dei critic as "stormy"." Delist. Geometry guy 14:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies I apologise sincerely for preemptorily delisting this article. In my astonishment that it should have been listed in the first place, I didn't stop to understand the accepted procedure. However, given that the article is, on the one hand, very important in its category and, on the other, astoundingly misleading, incomplete and biased that it should be urgently delisted. In tone and content, it is exactly the description of Opus Dei would have made of itself. Considering the controversial nature of the organisation, it is very inappropriate that this should be the case. Please delist as soon as possible Jaimehy (talk)

• Keep. I agree with those who voted "keep" based on GA criteria. I believe this piece follows actual Wikipedia statements on NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." The word "proportionately," I believe, is more often than not forgotten when WP:NPOV is discussed. This word goes with another word "expert" that is also usually missed: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." John Allen, Jr. and Vittorio Messori are highly respected professional journalists and are not Opus Dei members. Marax (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply This sort of argument from authority has no place in Wikipedia. Besides, while John Allen and Vittorio Messori are both highly respected journalists, they are prominent apologists for a variety of flavours of Roman Catholic conservatism. Extraordinarily, even the mild criticisms of John Allen fail to be addressed in the article. Delist urgently Jaimehy (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Jaime, arm-waving comments such as Delist urgently aren't going to help you reach consensus. Calm, civil discussion works best. Majoreditor (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That is good advice. Note that Jaime is relatively new to WP, so we need to allow a bit of slack per WP:BITE. In any case, it is the substance of the argument that is important, and no one has addressed the issues, for example, that I raised above. Geometry guy 17:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Further reply. Even if the article does represent all significant views fairly and proportionately (which I very much doubt), this only means it satisfies part of the neutral point of view policy (described mainly by WP:UNDUE). The NPOV policy requires that articles are written from a neutral perspective. The clue is in the name of the policy. Representing all significant views fairly and proportionately is but a part of that (otherwise the policy would be called ASPOVFP). As for the criteria, I see no counterargument to my assertion that it also fails 1b (via WP:LEAD and WP:WTA), although I am pleased to see that both Jaimehy and Marax are making efforts to improve the article. Geometry guy 17:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Perhaps they can take a crack at re-phrasing the "while" in the lead. Majoreditor (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but one of the reasons that the good article criteria flag up WP:WTA is that it is a strong indication that an article has not been written from a neutral perspective (which, as WP:NPOV boldly declares, is "non-negotiable"). So fixing the "words to avoid" alone is unlikely to solve the problem. The article needs quite a bit of rewriting, and then the lead will need to be rewritten to summarize the article. I've usually found it is pointless to fiddle with the lead until the article is in good shape. Geometry guy 22:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for all your comments. The WTA you mentioned were placed there by Alecmconroy who did a major rewrite (see here please). You might want to look at his his user page. He has been suspected of being an atheist and a Jesuit. He was suspected by a pro-Opus Dei editor of planting a number of straw men arguments (see here) so as to put Opus Dei down. I believe Alecmconroy did a good job in structuring the article so as to include a lengthy coverage of criticisms. I also believe much of Jaimehy's concerns are covered by that generous section and other criticisms found throughout the article. While the section can be improved, I have not seen another article with such generous coverage of criticisms. I do believe Alecmconroy’s use of WTA was balanced. Those words were placed strategically on both sides of the dispute. Balance has always been his main concern. However, in deference to clear Wikipedia consensus on WTA, I am helping bring back the "he state", "he said" and "he wrote" that was in an older version before the major revision by Alecmconroy. All this is to show you that great efforts were expended by editors here to write the article from a neutral perspective. Marax (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

For those who might be confused about how Marax could accuse me of being a Jesuit and an Atheist in the same breath, I should clarify. Opus Dei and the Jesuits are sort of like East Coast and West Coast Rappers. To people who are on the outside looking in, it might seems like the two groups would be close allies-- but actually they are bitter rivals. So, accusing me of "being a Jesuit" is to imply that I have a vested religious interest in promoting criticism of OD.

For the record, I am neither an atheist nor a Jesuit. Although, let's not have that denial just encourage further speculation about "Who and What _IS_ Alec, religiously?". I am not bound by the rules of Rumpelstiltskin, and in the highly unlikely event that someone were to correctly guess my own religious views, they shouldn't expect me to instantly confirm it and then promptly disappear. :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome for the comments, and thanks for the fascinating answer. First you pin the article's problems on an editor and report vague accusations about him, questioning his good faith (excuse the pun). Then you say that you believe he did a good job. Then you suggest that you are helping to undo his edits in deference to consensus on WTA.

Let's unpick that a little. First, the religion of an editor is irrelevant: what matters is the quality of their edits. Second, I can see that Alecmconroy inserted several "claims" for the criticism he added, but the two oldid's given in your link do not support the idea that Alecmconroy is responsible for the words to avoid, loaded sentences, and lack of neutrality in the current article. The pre-Alecmconroy oldid contains plenty of words to avoid and loaded sentences, while many of the problems I noticed with the current text cannot be found in the post-Alecmconroy oldid.

It would be rather odd if the article's bias towards an internal Opus Dei and/or Catholic point of view were directly caused by an editor adding external criticism, especially given your accusation that this editor was hostile to Opus Dei. Instead there seems to have been a defensive response to the added criticism.

Neutral point of view is not primarily achieved by being "generous" in the coverage of criticisms, it is achieved by writing the entire article from a neutral perspective (how many times do I have to say this?). And if you have not seen as "generous" an article, I recommend Homeopathy and Parapsychology. Geometry guy 19:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the Parapsychology article you draw attention to is an excellent example of writing about a potentially controversial subject from a neutral POV. No matter how good the rest of this Opus Dei article was, the mere presence of a Replies to criticism section gives the game away. There is absolutely no question in my mind that it is not written from a NPOV and ought to be delisted as a consequence. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for specifying further the problem you see -- the replies to criticism, and for bringing up two examples of neutral writing. These examples, I believe, strengthen my previous point about proportionality and expertise. With regard to homeopathy and parapsychology, the majority of experts or neutral writers about the field find the criticisms valid. In the case of Opus Dei, the majority of third party experts who have studied it have concluded that the criticisms are not valid, they are myths.

In deference to the fact that the findings of these experts on Opus Dei have not cascaded down to the majority of readers, unlike those of the experts on homeopathy and parapsychology, the replies to criticism section is almost the same length as the criticism section. In fact, if we are to follow the logic of proportionality and expertise on homeopathy and parapsychology, this article would have to be re-written to provide more space to the replies to criticism so as to explain Opus Dei further according to Wikipedia standards of WP:RS.

John Allen, Jr.'s book was published in 2005 and was said to be "widely considered as the definitive book on Opus Dei", and was praised by Opus Dei critics. John Allen, Jr. is CNN Vatican analyst (once described as "maddeningly objective") and his independent work agrees with the findings of other investigators, e.g. Vittorio Messori and Patrice de Plunkett.

I hope I was able to understand your position well and reply accordingly, if not I'll be glad to know your position better. Marax (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's my view that a Replies to criticism section is completely inappropriate, unless you also have a Replies to replies to criticism section, and a Replies to replies to replies to ... section. It appears to be apologists having the last word. You present the case, you present the criticism. You don't then try to refute that criticism. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem then is how to include the findings of studies done by reputable writers such as CNN's Vatican analyst, John Allen, and an encyclopedist of religion, Massimo Introvigne. In the article on parapsychology, there is a whole section with three subsections containing the findings of objective studies on the topic. The research findings of Allen, Introvigne, Messori, Plunkett, et al are worthy of a serious encyclopedia, and perhaps even worthier than the scientific criticism of parapsychology. I believe this matter has to be addressed squarely. Marax (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuarum, I've thought a lot about your suggestion of moving out the replies to another spot. I've attempted to do it mentally but was not satisfied with the results. I believe that (1) it is difficult to write about replies to criticism in some place where criticisms have not been fully expounded, (2) the writers for the replies have clearly greater expertise and notability than the critics, and so deserve number two slot to the discussion; this might be debatable, so am referring you to (3) Alec's defense of this structure here, on giving equal space to responses to Opus Dei. Scroll down a bit and you'll see his argument.

So, in response to your concern that the replies are an "apparent refutation of the previously stated criticism," and to these 3 reasons, what I have done is to change the subtitles to Critical Views and Supporting Views. I've also tweaked the previous section title to "Statements of Catholic leaders." What do you think? Marax (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Delist. I've seen enough. See my comments above. Ling.Nut (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delist Mainly sticks to a factual breakdown of Opus Dei, but a bit spotty in its coverage/handling of its controversial nature. Much of the content necessary for a neutral approach seems there, so perhaps a reorganization of the article would do the trick. But as it stands it reads a little too positively. Drewcifer (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Updated comments needed. I read the article again a week ago, and once more this week. It has improved: the lead is better, and the assertion that it is a "puff piece" is not so easy to justify. However, it still falls down as soon as it gets onto controversial or critical material. The problem with separate criticism sections is that they marginalize criticism. Criticism is particularly marginalized in this article, with legitimate criticisms folded in with outrageous ones. It seems from the above that editors feel this is justified, because the criticisms are myths created by opponents, and the supportive voices have more expertise than the critical ones. This echos comments made by editors of Freemasonry, when that was brought here.

However, it is not Wikipedia's role to set the record straight, only to report on what is stated elsewhere. We show, we do not tell. The key is to let the reader decide. It is a matter of opinion whether Allen is a "maddeningly objective" observer, or in part an apologist. It would be much better to demonstrate his objectivity, for example by quoting his criticisms of Opus Dei, than by stating his credentials. The article shoots itself in the foot by separating the reaction into critical and supporting views. It would be much better to organize criticism by topic than viewpoint, because it makes it easier to include objective analysis (without, I emphasise, asserting objectivity), and to let the reader decide.

There are still loaded sentences (including the awful one I quoted above). I also had closer look at the sources, and found rather too much reliance on primary sources (Opus Dei related websites and literature). There is plenty of secondary literature on this topic, and it could be deployed more effectively. The cosmetic changes made so far have not convinced me to change my delist recommendation. I encourage other reviewers to revisit the article, as further comments are needed to determine consensus here. Geometry guy 17:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Updated comment. I agree that the article has improved, but it has still not addressed my concern over the criticism and rebuttal sections being separate. If that criticism had been addressed I would have been prepared to consider altering my !vote to keep. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Updated comment. I still vote to keep, as the article appears to meet GA criteria. I agree that criticism sections are usually cluncky; tacking on response to criticism sections doesn't help. However, there is no consensus on the matter in Wikipedia. There are many GA-class articles with criticism sections and several with both criticism and response to criticism sections; for examples, see Kyoto Protocol and Anna Wintour (the sections may use slightly different names but are essentially "opposition"/"criticism" vs. "pro"/"response"). That said, I would encourage the article's editor to discuss how they can dismantle the two sections and integrate the material into the rest of the article. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• What other articles may or may not do is up to them. We're discussing this article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I appreciate the comments on the separate controversy section and suggestion to dismantle it. For you to understand the historical evolution of this article, this suggestion was tried for some time, but was frowned upon by a number of Wikipedians (non-editors of this article) who believed that Opus Dei's highly controversial nature deserves a separate treatment of the controversy. They viewed the redistribution of controversial material as hiding the controversy. Marax (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not against the existence of a controversy section, as in this case the controversy is notable and needs to be discussed. However, that should not prevent criticisms being discussed in other parts of the article, as every part of the article needs to be written from a neutral point of view, not just the controversy section. I agree with Malleus that the main problem is splitting the controversy into criticism and rebuttal. It is virtually impossible to achieve neutral point of view with such a structure. Geometry guy 19:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I remember, Alec et al argued to allow critics to have a opportunity to make their case in toto. Once that decision is made and given the demands of neutrality, you then arrive at the other decision of allowing supporters to air their views. I've asked Alec to argue his point further if he wishes, for I might not be doing justice to his able work. As the other editors here have noted, I see that criticisms do exist in other parts of the article. Marax (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they do. There is a discussion about mortification, which does not read neutrally at all ("opponents" and "critics" provide the critical viewpoints, but the supportive viewpoints are worded authoritatively). Apart from that, the only other critical remark I found was the awful sentence on the stormy relation between Opus Dei and Pope Paul VI, which still has not been changed. Geometry guy 19:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep on GA list. This is not for Featured Article, but only for GA. This is not meant to be perfect, but good. As such I vote for keep. I agree with Majoreditor. If other GA articles have this system of criticism and response, with greater reason should this article be allowed to keep its system. Walter Ching (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note. Just to clarify process here: this is not a vote. Consensus is determined by weight of argument and comparison of the article with the good article criteria. Those who believe that this article does not violate neutral point of view need to provide arguments to support their view and/or refute the arguments made by others that it does not. The argument that other stuff exists is widely viewed as irrelevant. Thanks, Geometry guy 19:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• No opinion, but lean toward delist. As I explain in more detail below, I don't think this is one of our better articles. It's still clear, reading it over, that most of the editors on the page have a very pro-OD stance-- if the page were truly neutral, I shouldn't be able to guess what POV the editors had. That said, I practically never involved with GA criteria discussions, so please take my words with a grain of salt. It's important that GA criteria be applied uniformly, and I'm not even remotely familiar enough with how GA criteria is usually applied to offer an educated opinion on how they apply to this situation. --Alecmconroy (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks for such detailed comments. I agree almost entirely with what you say here and below, especially with the point that one shouldn't be able to guess the point of view of the editors from reading the article, and with the comment about the huge problem that Wikipedia faces in writing good articles about controversial subjects, when the editors who are attracted to contribute to such an article tend to have a point of view.

  I also share your sympathy with all editors involved: everyone is doing their best to make a good article here. I am similarly sympathetic with the editors of Freemasonry who want to set the record straight and explain what Freemasonry really is about to Wikipedia readers. There is no doubt in their good faith, but the result is a non-neutral article. I have also recently opposed the listing of Universe as GA because it was not broad enough in its coverage of other viewpoints. Another example is Veganism, which has benefitted from the contributions of many good faith editors, but still fails to achieve NPOV.

  NPOV is not only a GA criterion, it is a policy that every article must satisfy. Listing a POV article as GA sends the wrong message. The criticism-rebuttal section is not neutral, but I agree that if the two sections were integrated, the article would rapidly become worse, not better. I don't know what to do about this either. The article faces a Catch 22: to make it NPOV will make it unstable (another GA criterion). However, we certainly shouldn't be closing our eyes and listing such articles as GAs, just because we can't think of a better solution. Geometry guy 19:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's not so clear to me that merging the criticism and rebuttal sections would necessarily result in the article becoming worse. As I think you said earlier, there is sufficient controversy around Opus Dei to warrant the inclusion of a section discussing it. While I do take on board the very good points made by Alecmconroy, I don't take such a gloomy view on the practicality of producing a balanced article on controversial subjects. For me, the only thing holding this article back from a GA listing is the rebuttal section. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Mild delist. On account of the criticism/replies sections, especially the latter. I do take strong issue with the characterization as a puff piece, and second the contrast by Marax above between this topic and (say) homeopathy, noting "neutral" does not necessarily mean "equal". But a 'replies to criticism' section, even if the totality of the article somehow still remains NPOV, gives the strong impression of POV and even OWN, and is a very poor editorial issue. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of the issues raised by Opus Dei

Probably more than any one person, I'm responsible for the text that's currently on the page. Last year, I did a major rewrite on this page, taking a 100% puff piece and trying to rewrite it to be far more verifiable and somewhat more NPOV. I went through and tried to make sure every single statement was at least backed up by sources. I spent a long long time on the article.

A big part of that time was devoted to getting allow the existence of a small section dedicated to controversy. The problem we had before was that any criticisms would get overwhelmed by rebuttals, to the point that trying to find criticism was like trying to find a needle in a haystack. By having one dedicated controversy section, I felt like at least no matter what else happened, there would always be one section dedicated to putting forward the criticisms of Opus Dei-- which even supporters admit is "the most controversial organization in the largest religion on the planet".

That say, as someone who fought hard to make the article the way it is, I have to be honest-- I still don't consider to be a "good" article (where good is an English word, not necessarily GA criteria-based). I'm very proud of the rewrite I did, but whenever I brag about it to people, I always show the "look what it was like BEFORE the rewrite", because it's only an article I'm proud of by comparison with the mess it was before. I don't think the end product is a good article, but I'm incredibly proud that the end product was an article that is "consistently not horrible"-- in that, at least one portion of the article is there, if the reader finds it, that actually explains why "the most controversial force in the world's largest religion" is, in fact, at all controversial. Yes, it could, in theory, be improved in lots of ways, but I don't know how to actually create an article here on wikipedia that would both be better and would be "stably better".

The truth is, the problem posed by the Opus Dei article leave me very stymied, and I think it's a question that may have to be solved by something outside wikipedia, something like Veropedia. The question it's left me with is this: On Wikipedia, how do you write a GA or a FA, when the article attracts large numbers of people who have incredibly strong, completely uniform views on the subject matter???.

I'm not sure how to make Wikipedia work in these instances, where a large number of authors come to Wikipedia, all with a very clear and uniform predefined POV, and want very strongly for Wikipedia to reflect what they know in their hearts is the truth-- that Opus Dei is probably the most wonderful organization on the planet earth. You can't accuse them of acting in bad faith-- they're not-- they're just trying to edit Wikipedia so that it accurately reflects the truth they believe in with all their hearts. And you can't simply point them to NPOV, because to them, the wonderfulness of OD is so obvious that any neutral observer will come to the conclusion that OD is wonderful, and deviation from that point of view is non-neutral. And you can't point them to Not a Soapbox, because they care about OD so so so much more than wikipedia, that spreading the truth about OD is vastly more important that Wikipedia. And you can't fault them for this belief, either, because honestly-- who is more important-- God's message or some internet encyclopedia project? And you can't even fault them for coming here, because we're the encyclopedia anyone should be able to edit-- we've invited the world to come here, and they're just doing their best to make sure that the encyclopedia reflects the truth as they see it.

So, that's the dilemma. There's a large number of editors here who, although they choose to be private about their personal religious lives, certainly embody the POV of an OD member, and I expect most of them are members. I think they systemically have trouble writing articles that outside editors see as NPOV, but I don't actually have anything against them. They're doing their best to make the world a better place, using Wikipedia as a tool to spread THE most important message on the entire planet. If they have conviction, they have to come here and try to turn the article into a puff piece. If they have true faith, they have to try to make the article reflect the Neutral Truth that OD is wonderful. If they have any since of what's truly important, they have to put OD ahead of Wikipedia, because OD is an organization trying to do the will of God, while wikipedia is just a fly by night internet project.

I know all this sound ad hominem, but I actually have great respect for those my fellow editors who are OD members. If I was an OD member and believed exact the same as they believe, I hope I too would have their courage of conviction to come to wikipedia and fight to transform it so it reflects the Truth that OD is wonderful, and stop the "lies" that have been spread about it. I feel similarly about the critics who feel OD is a great danger and have come here to help spread that truth. And I feel similarly about people who edit the article not because they're pro-OD or anti-OD, but merely because we're pro-Wikipedia, and want Wikipedia to have the best article it can. There are no "bad guys" here, everyone's doing their best to do their job to improve the world, as they each see it.

But unfortunately, the end product is an article that most outside editors will feel doesn't do a good job of being NPOV. Of course, to the OD members who edit the article, the inclusion of criticism is already too much, because a NPOV will be on which properly reflects the truth that OD is a wonderful organization, beloved by practically everyone except a few vocal malcontents.

If I were the sole editor, I can think of lots of ways to improve the article. But as a practical matter, within the wikicommunity, I don't honestly know how to improve the article. The ratio of outside editors to OD members & opponents is just too small, and I personally don't know how to, as a practical matter, improve the article in a way that will stick. Honestly, I'm flattered that some people think the article might meet GA-- when I did the rewrite last year, I trying to take a complete puff piece and turn it into an article that could be stable while still meeting WP:V and was within the ballpark of meeting WP:NPOV.

As I've said elsewhere, the criticism and rebutal section is one issue. If I were writing it myself, I wouldn't do it that way, but that was the only section styling I could figure out that would protect the criticism from being totally overrun by rebuttal. As a practical matter, I think if the two are integrated, the article will wind up getting worse, not better.

So, my opinion is that, even though I wrote most of it, it's still not "good", it's just "a lot better" than it was a year and a half ago. Any suggestions on how to improve it further, in light of the fact that there's a veritable army of people with such a strong pro-OD view of the world, is most welcome. --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)