Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 3

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

Articles reviewed (add archived ones at the top)

Perl

Result: Keep as Good Article

Perl is no longer a good article because it no longer complies with criteria 4 (neutral point of view) and 5 (stability). There's a custom made POV template in the Opinion section, unless that was reverted. My first POV template at the top of the article was reverted, along with several other of my edits. Four items were reverted from the Con section of the Opinion section. My removal of the good article template was reverted ( [1] ). -Barry- 09:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You can see from the talk page that all the stability and POV problems are because of user who requested. -- RevRagnarok 12:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's some detail about the POV problem. Much of the problem comes from this revision. There's discussion about it here. The other editors keep making lame excuses and want it all gone, and to make matters worse, my POV template keeps getting reverted, so readers won't know that there are several pieces of information that they're not getting. It's insane for this to happen in a Con section, in which you'd expect negative points of view would be allowed.

I had allowed this reversion without a peep, as well as this reversion. I want both of those back now too. All together, just for the Con section, that's a heck of a lot of information.

And then there's the Benchmarks section reversion, and the other bias and the vandalism, and the continued revert war despite an administrator's warning (though that time a Perl vandal vandalized a different article), and the reinsertion of the Perl vandalism by biased Perl author Scarpia AKA Brian D Foy, etc. -Barry- 13:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "Negative points of view" are allowed, provided they are on-topic, rational, and at least semi-encyclopedic. One can critique, but "con section" doesn't mean "editor POV is okay".

The edit comments in the removals of those two additions seem quite reasonable. The second one's especially ("The author notes in his essay that he had been drinking while writing it, and makes many outlandish and unverifiable claims about Perl and persoanl attacks on author Larry Wall")...wow, harder to imagine a less encyclopedic material source than that.

I don't recall any evidence, except your assertion, that Scarpia==brian d foy. It appears a major objection to your edits is that they are often based on poorly- or non-supported assertions. DMacks 15:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Overall, I agree with RevRagnarok...nom, who is self-avowedly anti-perl, has persisted in re-adding material that many other editors keep removing, typically without answering their valid (IMO, or at least objectively valid-sounding) concerns about it. DMacks 15:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, note that as the bone of contention has been between literally every other editor to comment (actually, I think there was one exception, but it was hard to tell, as the editor in question was agreeing with me, but I think they thought I was agreeing with -Barry-), and User:-Barry-, no true consensus can be reached at this juncture. Th

Great Pyramid of Giza

The pyramid construction article, subsection construction method theories, has numerous errors and omissions: notably with Herodotus, ramping and levering methods. For the most part, this article will deal with techniques to lift blocks up the superstrucure, but should provide an overview of the entire process. Primarily, the consensus within the academic community is that there is good information concerning the location of the quarries, tools used to cut stone, and transportation of the stone to the monument. The unknowns revolve around the lack of information regarding the methods of moving the blocks up the superstructure. Therefore, the article should cover the general academic consensus of these well known steps then seek to explain the unknown process of moving the blocks up the pyramid.

See the rest of this statement at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Great_Pyramid_of_Giza

Holocaust

Result issues fixed and GA status retained, stability addressed by partial lock of article Gnangarra 09:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this should be de-listed as a "Good" article for the following reasons:

1. #5 says it should be stable, not changing significantly from day to day. All but the last 5 of the last 50 edits happened today.

2. #4 says it should be neutral point of view. While it is extremly difficult to be neutral about something like the Holocaust, comments such as "dastardly corruption of basic human values that was the Nazi credo" and "Croatian Ustashe collecting blood of a slaughtered Serb in a small pot. Orthodox Serbs had three choices - to emigrate, convert to Catholicism or end up like this" while they may be true, are hardly neutral.

3. #3 says broad in its coverage, addressing all major aspects of the topic. The article says absolutly nothing at all about the causes of the holocaust, and does not say enough about the aftermath of it, including the founding of Israel. These (causes and effects) are really quite important aspects of the topic.

Frankly, I think the topic deserves a much better article. I realise that with the painful and controversial nature of the topic there will always be vandalism of the article, and that creating a stable article may be difficult, but my other objections would be easier to fix. If no one else fixes the article I might in the future, but right now I'm busy with other things and don't want to think so much about such a depressing topic. At any rate, I feel it should be de-listed as a good article, and am asking for review of the situation. ONUnicorn 21:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral - point 1 is valid and so is point 2. point 3, however, seems to be invalid, as the founding of israel as a result is mentioned.--Urthogie 22:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You said point 3 seems to be invalid, as the founding of Israel is mentioned. If you read the little section on Israel in the Holocaust article it mentions the Berihah, or smuggling of jewish immigrants into the area that would become Israel, which was an important part of the founding of Israel, but it doesn't go on from there to talk about the actual founding of a recognized state. I said in my point three that the article didn't say enough about the founding of Israel and the other effects of the holocaust, and that it didn't say anything about the causes of the holocaust. I still think it ought to say more about the effects, and whether you agree with that or not, it still doesn't say anything about the causes. ONUnicorn 13:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Very well. I'm still neutral though, as its right on the border line in my opinion.--Urthogie 14:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think point 1 applies, it all appears to be reverting vandals. Point 2, if not resolved by an editor, probably would make this a candidate to be de-listed. On point 3, its possible that the article is so big that putting in more information would be insanely too big, have you checked to see if there is maybe a Causes of the Holocaust or Aftermath of the Holocaust type article out there? Homestarmy 18:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• ""Delist"" no citations in the section curelty, making it completely POV, I see random paragraphs that sound more like a High School Social Studies paper rather than an Encyclopedia entry.

Keep the article has 53 references links listed plus a seperate 17.5k article on additional references, sources and external links. Both cause and aftermath are clearly discussed, most sections contain daughter articles. Gnangarra 13:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

checked stability today at (13:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)) last 50 edits have occured between 31st May and today thats 2.5 edits per day most changes are listed as minor or rv of NPOV and vandalism. From this the editors are trying hard to keep it free of vandalism and NPOV statements Gnangarra 13:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Allmost all of the images have invalid licenses. Some are marked with the deprecated {{PD}} tag with no explanations, or source information, others are copyright to the Polish Government (which is a non-free license) - the latter are also tagged with {{fairuse}} but no fair use rationales are given.--Konstable 13:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment I didnt check images (have now), I have left a message on the talk page for the article advising of this problem. Suggest we give them sometime (say 7 days) to address this problem then reconsider. Gnangarra 16:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• • 'status editors of the article are currently verifying copyright status of images. Are there any other issues, besides stability as this dispute is requesting changes we cant fault them for stabiliy. Gnangarra 08:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

discussion completed this can be archived, if there are no further concerns Gnangarra 09:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway

This article has been listed as a GA, but I think it is woefully inadequate in that it is missing portions of his life, and the sequence of events is jumbled so badly it's very difficult to find any one bit of information from a certain time. I don't know whether or not it qualifies as a GA, but I know it needs improvement. Thanks. --Demonesque 06:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have looked at the article's talk page, and you have posted a similar message there (under Good Article? heading), and there you did not elaborate either. From a very quick flip through the article I could not see anything majorly wrong as you suggest, but I don't know anything in this area. Could you please tell us which portions you feel are missing, and give an example of how the time jumps around.--Konstable 07:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Mars Exploration Rover

While running GAAuto this article came up. It has been listed, delisted and relisted without nomination by three separate authors over the last week. The controversy is mostly due to the references (which are quite weak). I am therefore listing it here, in the hope to resolve whether or not it qualifies for good article status. I currently have no vote on the issue. Cedars 02:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In cases like this where most of the material is drawn from public domain sources it doesn't make sense, IMHO, to cite every fact that is copied from the main source. That said, a quick review shows that its referecnes could be much better formatted. It is hard to judge what a consensus might be because there has been no substantial discussion or review on the Talk Page. So overall, I guess I support Keeping it de-listed pending some work on sourcing and the resource section. Still the whole thing seems a bit odd to me. Eluchil404 02:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Without nomination, I don't see why it should be allowed to bypass the system, I vote Keep Delisted. Homestarmy 02:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Vestigial structure

Only one reason was left for the failing of this article, that "the bullet-pointed list of examples should be converted to normal prose." In most cases I would agree with the failing, but in the case of this particular article, I believe that the list format is the most accessible for those reading the article. If it were converted to prose, the quick access, which previously existed (the ability to just scroll down and find something you wanted in the list), would no longer exist. The reader would now be required to sift through the prose for the bit of information they required. I know from personal experience, that in many cases, the only thing that many readers want is simply to know examples of vestigial structures.--SomeStranger^(t|c) 12:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Stay Failed I agree with what you say. The list there is a good choice. BUT. I have flipped through the article myself and the Controversy section is a classic example of WP:WEASEL. Hence it is not NPOV, and I don't see how it can pass. Don't take me wrong. I'm a very staunch "Evolutionist", but this is really not only POVish but it reads like it is attacking the opposing side.--Konstable 14:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• How is it Weasel words? Everything there is specifically sourced and cited from specific cases. I would be happy not to have a 'controversies' section, but people kept adding objections which were factually incorrect, and unsourced. These were weasel words. Therefore I added specific cases of people specifically claiming specific things, then added sourced responses that indicate why these do not correspond with what the theory states, and has always stated. If you can NPOV the words, feel free. I would say, if something is commonly said by a specific group of people, saying that that group of people tend to say it and providing a reference to them saying it is not weasel words. Skittle 10:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

From WP:WEASEL: "Weasel words are words or phrases that smuggle bias into seemingly supported statements by attributing opinions to anonymous sources." (my emphasis) Skittle 10:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The main part with which I had a problem was: Those who consider... tend to claim that the meaning has been changed over time as structures thought to be vestigial were found to have other uses.[17] However, documentation indicates... vestigial structures have invariably been understood to "sometimes retain their potentiality"[18], becoming either "wholly or in part functionless".[19] It was thought that "not infrequently the degenerating organ can be turned to account in some other way".[20] - this looks like a one sided argument as it seems to present overwhelming evidence on the side of evolutionists. However I have spent some time googling trying to find any other arguments that have been presented against this, and I couldn't find any! So it turns out that the argument really is about the definition of the word rather than the concepts (I thought this part was just some one-sidedness on your part).

So I withdraw my opposition to passing the article.--Konstable 11:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

(: I thought I'd misunderstood when I first realised that was the deal as well. Weird, no? Skittle 12:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

So should this be put back up for review? Or do we just pass it since the only criticism has been dealt with, and Konstable has withdrawn his?--SomeStranger^(t|c) 12:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• I also agree that the list format was superior to the prose. To call it a list is probably incorrect, rather subtitled paragraphs. In the 'list' format the content is clear as the eye scans the page. This is not the case for the prose.

With regard to weasel words all I can see is the phrase "some creationists oppose the validity of the idea". Would this be OK if the Sarfati cite was used here? If anything this is being generous by not painting all creationists with the same view. With regard to attacking creationists the ONLY part that could be taken that way is the reference to "children's encyclopedias" with respect to creationist ideas being an oversimplification. Maybe childrens could be replaced with "non technical"?

I will note that I have never edited this page so I feel I can give a fair outside review in this case. For transparency, I will say I am a biologist and have edited a few of the evolution pages as well as the AiG and Sarfati pages from that perspective. David D. (Talk) 10:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the controversy paragraph in question, and found one instance of what might be taken as an attack against creationnism. I changed the wording of that one section, but I can't seem to find anything else. Twice the phrase "Those who yadadadad" is used, but each time it is sourced. Isn't anonyminity okay if there is a source to back it up?--SomeStranger^(t|c) 11:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I think the proper way to do this would be to renominate. However, I do not see any reason to fail, and I'd really like to see this article move to FA standards. It's not quite there yet, but it's the best article I've read in quite a while!

I think the immediate renomination here would be a good example of WP:IAR. I also think that there is at least one minor issue to be fixed: while the bullet-pointed list is fine, the preceding text

Although the list of human vestigial structures is still more or less the same, the relative usefulness of certain structures on the list is a subject of debate. The following structures are often included in this list:

reads like a self-reference. Clearly the article cannot hope to list every structure that someone might consider vestigial, so replacing this with essentially "here are some examples in humans" would seem an improvement.

RandomP 13:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If it's the best article you've seen in a while, might I recommend you stop by Autostereogram some time? I think it's lovely :-) Then maybe comment on it when it comes up in 'Request for Comments' or is renominated for FA :D [/advertise] Skittle 13:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Reinstate. Strong Support to relist this, I found the aticle interesting, well written and clear with apropriate images. Ghostieguide 07:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, if you think it is good, you don't have to "vote". I listed it again on the nominations for review by someone else, and if you want to, you can pass it yourself.--SomeStranger^(t) 10:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion completed article Reinstated as GA - 10:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

And here we are again! Passed by one User:HighwayCello and immedietly delisted by one User:Raphael1.....again, supposedly for not reflecting the POV of Muslims from first-hand Muslim sources or something, and that supposedly makes the article POV. It's been long enough since the first dispute entry on this article, so I figure we may as well revisit it again. We'd change the rules to get rid of that annoying single user veto stuff except the dispute is pretty stalemated in informal mediation, supposedly we were supposed to be having some poll on the matter, but it seems to have not yet materialized. Homestarmy 16:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I just thought i'd type up here since this is looking so much like a vote, it currently looks like 11 to be a Good Article and 2 against it being a Good Article Homestarmy 22:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Stay failed Please read this declaration of many Muslim leaders around the world and tell me afterwards, that this view is as fairly presented in the article text as the view of the Jyllands-Posten editorial staff. IMHO the article completely misses the subject of this controversy by displaying it as a conflict between the aniconistic islamic tradition and free speech laws. Raphael1 17:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I was not under the impression that the Muslims whom chose to violently protest the cartoons were united under this declaration you speak of. Homestarmy 19:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What about the majority of Muslims who chose not to protest violently? Is their view fairly presented in the article? Raphael1 15:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You are of course aware that several Muslim editors actively worked on this article? Given its topic matter, it is remarkably neutral. Valentinian ^(talk) 18:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Many Muslim editors who could have worked on this article have been blocked. Unfortunately the evidence for this claim has been deleted. Raphael1 14:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Reinstate. The article presents the issue with no apparent bias, and could even be promoted to FA. —Rob (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Reinstate I found no bias. Views from all sides was re-presented. I personally would not have the image of the cartoons at the top due to offense it causes, but there was a poll regarding this overwhelmingly voting in favour of the current position, so I cannot object.--Konstable 03:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think this delisting demonstrates the need to develop a more formal policy to list/delist articles rather than 1-user decisions.--Konstable 03:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Very strong stay failed The cartoons article is perhaps the clearest example of wikipedia's tendency to self-select the ideas of an unrepresentative cultural minority and portray them as encyclopedic. It is not only not a Good Article, as it stand it is a Very Bad Article, and enormously harmful to wikipedia's reputation as neutral and unbiased. I recognise that many of the editors of the article believe that they have presented the information appropriately and can't see the problem with the article because of their own inherent biases. The fact that some of those editors have been trying to change the rules of GA selection purely in order to game this piece of provocative propaganda to prominence should provide ample evidence of the degree to which their lack of self-reflection has poisoned their sense of propriety. And that's why there's a veto on GA status. — JEREMY

Hey, if you acclamate yourself to the poison in small amounts, its not half bad, don't knock the poison! -____- Homestarmy 03:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Wikipedia not even cover the event at all? If you're saying that Wikipedia intentionally selects the 'bad parts' of a religion and exposes it to the world, I assure you that Islam is not alone in this regard (Eric Rudolph, History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) and that neither of those two subjects amounts to a "self-selected idea made encyclopedic". They happened. They're happening. Ignorance is not a solution. I will not claim unbias in my own edits, but I will say that an effort has been made not to intentionally introduce bias into this particular article. —Rob (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy, whatever happened, the event should be covered. The offensive images were placed there under a very strong (I think it was a 10:1 vote) concensus and I don't think it is right to ignore that. The article does not say that it was right for those cartoons to be published, it uses them to illustrate the issue that it is talking about. (In the same way that Islamic media did also by the way). And since you decide to overule what everyone else here thinks, I think you should tell us why exactly. What in this article are you opposed to?--Konstable 07:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course the events should be properly covered; they have not been. The article is badly constructed and so riddled with bias and apologist weaseling it's hard to know where to begin — so let's start there.

• "twelve editorial cartoons [...] were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten [...] which they said they were doing as part of a debate" — Grammatical junk.
• "Critics of the cartoons [...] argue that they are blasphemous" — What, all of them? And why no mention of critics' suggestions that they were "Childish. Irresponsible. Hate speech. A provocation just for the sake of provocation. A PR stunt."?
• "Supporters of the cartoons claim they illustrate an important issue" — Again, this kind of uncited generalisation demonstrates the inherent bias in this article.
• "Several death threats and reward offers for killing those responsible for the cartoons have been made, resulting in the cartoonists going into hiding." — What, all of them?
• "both in Danish and Arabic versions." — Hey, let's redundantly link "Danish", but who wants to link to Arabic, after all?
• Note the "Publication of the Drawings" is followed immediately by "Jyllands-Posten response", without the apparently inconvenient requirement for an intervening discussion of the Muslim reaction, which would have made some sense of the section titles.
• "It concluded:" — What concluded? The Muslim ambassadors?
• "The ambassadors maintained that they had never asked for Jyllands-Posten to be prosecuted" — No cite. And did they maintain this in chorus?
• No valid English sentence begins "That while the right to freedom of speech must be exercised".
• "A group of Danish imams, dissatisfied with the reaction of the Danish Government and Jyllands-Posten" — This construction implies motives to the imams without so much as a cite.
• In the bloated and unwieldy "dossier" section (what is it about {{Main}} that's so difficult? You worked it our fine for the "Economic costs" section) Hirsi Ali's interview which so offended the imams is not described. Instead, it is immediately excused by the statement "who had just received the Freedom Prize 'for her work to further freedom of speech and the rights of women' from the Danish Liberal Party represented by Anders Fogh Rasmussen."
• The article only gets around to mentioning the names of (some of) the imams in the "Danish Imams under investigation" section; apparently they only merit identification once they're being linked to terrorism.
• "It also contains misinformation such as:" — This is blatant bias, particularly as no argument is presented to refute the statement it condemns.
• "The inclusion in the dossier of the cartoons from Weekendavisen was perhaps not due as much to willful misinformation as possibly a misunderstanding." — Nuff said.
• "Contemporary majority Sunni Islam" — What is the "Contemporary" meant to imply? That there was a time when Sunni Islam was the minority?
• "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced a Holocaust Conference, supported by the OIC, to uncover what he called the "myth" used to justify the creation of Israel. Ahmadinejad started voicing doubts about the veracity of the holocaust at the same OIC conference in Mecca that served to spread the Akkari-Laban dossier to leaders of the Muslim world." — Fatuous OR.
• Of the 18 "Comparable references", all but 3 seem to be entirely OR (ie. they are uncited).
• At least some of the few references I've bothered to check are mislabelled (eg. ref #86).

The whole shemozzle is rounded out with a liberal smattering of misspellings (eg. "Mgazine", Jylland-Posten"/"Jyllands Posten"/"Jullands-Posten", and the non-standard "Muhammed" and "Shariah"), homophonic word substitutions (eg. "diffusion" for "defusing"), miscapitalisations (eg. "explained his intent further In the" and "danish"), introduced redundancies (eg. "We urge you [recipient of the letter or dossier] to - [...] - to give us"), missing spaces, redundant wikilinking, enough hokey original research ("They were more likely parodies on the pompousness of Jylland-Posten's [sic] cartoons than cartoons of the prophet in their own right,") to justify a National Enquirer article, misquotations like "the number of Muslims expanding like mosquitoes" (that would be "is expanding"), a link to the "Bad Democracy Award for March 2006" slipped in as an "online petition" and the unmissed opportunity to include yet more depictions of Muhammad by irrelevantly including the cover of the Kåre Bluitgen book and a 14th century Persian illustration, as well as a "gotcha" link to the entire Wikicommons archive. And this is even without getting started on the cartoons themselves.

This is a badly constructed, poorly edited article, which is the subject of constant, ongoing controversy. In no sense can it possibly be deemed "good". But the real reason this article has been bad for wikipedia is the editors who have come to the project as a result of its publication thinking that it is an example of a how to write for wikipedia, and now spill over into the rest of the encyclopedia trailing fundamentalism and intolerance like the Good Ol' Boys on tour. They are what's really rotten in this particular state. — JEREMY 11:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Reinstate Acknowledging the deeply-held beliefs expressed by Raphael1 and Jeremygbyrne, this is a very good article by secular standards, and I think those are the standards we need to apply.Timothy Usher 03:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Reinstate This is ridiculous, with the vote of one user ( User:Raphael1 ) this article is held back from it's rightful classification. Netscott 16:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Stay failed While I don't think this article should have been removed so soon after being promoted, I do believe that at this point it should definatley remain failed. There is bias riddled throughout the article (just look at the pieces that Jeremy has taken the time to pick out). These complaints of bias are not religiously based, there is definatley secular bias in the article. This should not set as a precendent for future good article promotions.--SomeStranger^(t|c) 17:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Reinstate on the basis of incorrect delisting. Pretty self-explanatory. Various other circumstances have caused me to reexamine my standards for GA, this probably passes anyways. More importantly, this goes against the decision of another editor too soon after the descision in improper form.--SomeStranger^(t) 19:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Reinstate - except that it needs some light copy-editing (which I will do), this article has long met the criteria and seems to be opposed by a small but vocal minority on ideological grounds. Metamagician3000 08:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Reinstate - Personal beliefs non-withstanding, I believe this article is well-written, covers all the angles that one could have regarding the controversy, and comprehensively describes the direct results of this event. [User JaKaL! apparently forgot to sign]

Oops. That was a typo. I did intend to sign it. JaKaL! 15:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Reinstate - it should have never have been delisted in the first place. Sure it needs a little copyediting but the content is solid, encyclopedic and kept in a very neutral POV (pretty impressive given the topic). The article has been worked on by countless users, has more than 100 references and grew so large that several other articles had to be split out of it. In short: it has good potential to become a FA and clearly lives up to the standards of other GAs. If a veto right exists it should be scrapped asap. The discussion above speaks for itself. Valentinian ^(talk) 12:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Reinstate - This article is a splendid example of a controversial subject presented in an fair, informative and objective way. That some of the articles opponents declare it to be "provocative propaganda" only goes to show their skewed view of the subject - The article states the facts and the facts only (and in great detail, for an encyclopedia), and as far as I can tell nowhere does it try to "push" any opinion on anybody. The.valiant.paladin 13:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please consider this about Wikipedia before continuing this discussion. Gnangarra 02:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Reinstate, well, I give my vote to this nice article that doesn't promote any side in the heated debate. I think it meets all the criteria too. Lincher 16:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Reinstate, as we seem to be voting for some reason. Seems to meet all of the criteria of a GA. Well layed out, informative, well referenced, mostly good quality prose. - Peripitus (Talk) 08:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

this article has been Reinstated as GA Gnangarra 09:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Err, not quite yet, it seems one editor disagrees. Homestarmy 12:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Kandinsky

- the following excerpt is questionable if not ridiculous. The reference was brought to my attention by an article in the Guardian (http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1802426,00.html)

"In this context, it is only slightly less than astounding that a red profile image of Vladimir Lenin appears in the top center of Composition IV at least six years before his visible presence in Russia; and a blue frontal image of Adolph Hitler appears in the lower left of the 1912 improvisation for Composition VI titled Deluge I--nine years before Hitler is named Fuhrer of the German Nazi Party."

Can we seriously believe the abstract form in paintings from 1911 and 1912 are Lenin and Hitler respectively? I thereby suggest the article be reviewed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdelutz (talk • contribs)

This is clearly rubbish. Even if it had referenses I don't believe silly things like this should be sited here (if you look at the paintings in question you'll see why). I am removing it straight away. Article looks messy, may still need delisting (especially since its editors missed such blatant nonsense as this). I will give it a review when I can.--Konstable 13:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Delist Ok. I have looked through it, and I didn't see any similar statements. But I would not pass the article as a GA myself. I will list my reasons below, if you have agree/disagree that this is enough to delist let me know.

• It is too long and if I were, say, after the biographical info about his life, it would be hard to find. It is mixed in with very long analysis of his art. Of course he is an artist, so that shouldn't be removed, but It probably should be branched out into other articles.
• Some bad formatting used in a couple of places. There is a list of definitions of the techniques he used that is not even a standard list! It is presented in several 1-line paragraphs with the defined word in bold.
• There are too many quotes - they cover more than a full screen! They need to be moved to Wikiquote.
• Most images are fair use without rationales. And the photo of the artist uses the deprecated {{PD}} tag and has no source (which is actually enough to get it deleted).
• Some other reasons that are not meant to count towards GA that annoyed me were: absolutely no inline citations (though there are some references at the bottom), there are quite a few images of his paintings on the page, but the ones that the article talks about most (for instance Composition IV) are not seen.

--Konstable 13:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Delist I agree with User:Konstable additionally there are six links Composition IV articles should only link once to a subject, yet they could link to Composition IV like so and it would be an improvement, Note I took this suggestion from the talk page of the article. Gnangarra 14:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have delisted article from GA and adjusted template on page Gnangarra 14:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Metropolis (film)

Although it is considered one of the most influential films of all time, the article is written as if the subject were the greatest thing of all mankind. I'm not saying the negative aspects must be pointed out; it's just that the article seems ridiculously POV. Ohyeahmormons 16:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Delist: It also seems to be undersourced, as there are only 3 references in the entire article.--P-Chan 16:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Notification of this discussion has been posted to article talk page. Article has been delisted Gnangarra 12:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

this discussion will be archived after 7 days if no further issues are raised Gnangarra 12:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Dallas, Texas

The Dallas article failed the following listed criteria of WP:WIAGA.

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;

(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);

(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style;

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

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;

(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;

3. It is broad in its coverage, addressing all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);.

This article has some "citation needed" tag throughout the article. I am not saying it lacks sources, but there are claims that need to have references. The lead section does not summarize the article at all. All there is in the lead section is how big Dallas and its metropolitan area are. Overall, lead section is does not have any breadth on Dallas and is too short for an article of its size. The article body is not "broad in its coverage". The government section is a stub and doesn't have anything about the city's politics. This section is incomplete. The economy section doesn't really say anything about the city's economy�it's past, present, and future. All there is in the economy section is what companies are located in Dallas and its metro area. The Copyeditor 04:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, the references criteria doesn't say perfect references, or that articles with citation needed tags will fail reference automatically. It just says references to the sources and have them be reliable, compleatness isn't necessarily a criteria or that. However, if the lead really fails the manual of style, then yes, it should be delisted, and the lack of broadness should also get it as well. Homestarmy 15:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If there are 'citation required' tags, that definitely means it fails the criteria because those facts are not verifiable. Worldtraveller 01:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion appears completed if there are no object I'll archive this discussion in 2 days Gnangarra 14:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Max Stuart

result:Delisted This article under went a very bold and agressive edit by an experienced editor while it was listed for PR. The edits were not the result of any suggestions from PR and occured witout discussion on the article talk page. These edits have added more information on his early life(1950's), apositive. The problem is they have also removed/reduced significant details on his more recent activities and achievements(1990's). There has been added an irrelevant image with questionable copyright, as well a definately copyrighted image with a fair use claim. Gnangarra 15:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)