Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

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 reviewing (add new articles above the top review 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:GA/R for review and possible delisting of its Good Article status. Include [[WP:GA/R|Good Article Review]] in the section heading.

Ottoman Empire

I believe that this article no longer meets the GA criteria. I have not delisted the article because I wanted to get some outside opinions on the article. Similar POVs have been expressed on the article's talk page. The article needs review for a lack of citations, WP:NPOV, and overall clarity of the prose. I hope this helps to improve the article as a whole Timhud 00:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

1 (New York City Subway service)

Article was failed as a GA twice this year, but I believe that the article is now in a mature stage to become a GA now, seeing as all the problems have been addressed, e.g. proseline and adequate numbers of outside references. If anyone has any suggestions on how to improve the article further before a nomination should take place, let me know. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 13:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this review supposed to be contesting the previous fail? GA/R's are sort of supposed to be trying to contest a decision that someone feels isn't valid.... Homestarmy 20:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

E. E. Cummings

Article was passed as a GA in 2005, but appears to have since dropped in quality. It has no infobox, only two images (one of which is pretty poor, and the other a non-free image that seems to have an inadequate fair use rationale), poor organization, a very short introduction that needs expansion, and does not have enough references for an biographical article of its size. Raime 12:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delist, How could a writer and poet this famous possibly have an article this short? I'm no English teacher, so I can't be sure what's missing, but what I am sure of is something big certainly is, this person is far too famous to have an article this short. The Life and Marraiges sections are also compleatly unreferenced from the looks of it. Look at Ernest Hemingway for comparison in length. Homestarmy 16:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Seton Hall University

Article was just passed as a GA, apparently by an inexperienced reviewer. There are significant issues with it, according to the good article criteria. Dr. Cash 19:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• delist - lead needs to be expanded, additional references needed especially in the history section, athletics needs to be expanded, student life section could be expanded to include other topics besides greek life, incorporate the trivia section into the body of the article. does an HBO website referencing the fictional character tony soprano have much/enough credibility? LurkingInChicago 20:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Mother Teresa

This article is far from stable, and it reads like hagiography in places, possibly due to a campaign outside Wikipedia. Criticism of Teresa, previously well documented, has been trimmed to a minimum (and frequently disappears completely) and mention of it has been frequently removed from the introduction. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delist. It seems that most of the editors of this article either have absolutely no understanding of WP:NPOV or are willfully ignoring and/or abusing it. When I looked, there were only two paragraphs of criticism, both of which are muted, ambivalent and poorly sourced. Ironically, one of these paragraphs states that the Vatican "pored over a great deal of documentation of published and unpublished criticisms against her life and work." So, where is this criticism, and what does it say? In addition, the lead is poor, and there is a copyright violation of Time Magazine (the article in the given issue is not discussed in the text, so this is not fair use). Geometry guy 11:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This article should not be delisted. There has been an ongoing attempt by a small but vocal group of editors to insert a criticism section, which has been nothing but a list of personal attacks against the subject with little if any references. A review of the history of the article and talk page makes that quite clear. Appropriately, these edits have been removed, with appropriate criticisms integrated into the body of the article. This is consistent with WP: criticism. Unfortunately, this is an all-too-common phenomenon with most articles on religious topics. However, the article has been well-maintained, remains properly balanced, and regularly monitored. If there is a source or two that needs to be corrected or added, editors are free to do so, as with any article of GA-status or otherwise. --Anietor 13:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that recently some editors have been adding unsourced and biassed critical material. However, the solution to this is not to remove it or dilute it into other places, but to write yourself robust well-sourced critical commentary: go on the offensive rather than be defensive. One person's bias is another's point of view, and WP:NPOV does not mean that "point of view" should be eliminated; it means that all significant points of view should be represented and attributed.

  I would also note that, contrary to some comments on the talk page, WP:Criticism is an essay, not a policy or guideline (it merely reflects some opinions of its authors). A criticism section need not be a "magnet for trolls"; it can be a way to contain and/or discourage them, because badly sourced personal attacks stand no chance against well sourced critical commentary. I am not saying a criticism section is necessary, only a possibility. It may be better, for example to have a couple of subsections of other sections devoted to specific criticisms, rather than lump them together.

  Religious articles are notoriously problematic, I agree. I think it is partly because of the tension between truth (subject to interpretation and point of view) and knowledge (subject to verifiability from reliable secondary sources). My suggestion for this article would be to imagine it is not a religious article at all: first and foremost, it is a biography. Geometry guy 18:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, just a note, looking at the past 14 days, the article does not appear very unstable.[1]. Homestarmy 17:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, per Anietor. Unfortunately, some editors have attempted to add improper material, such as Penn & Teller's Bullshit - Holier than Thou. There was also a controversy a couple of months ago over a critical article which misrepresented the findings from a Lancet article. while the article could benefit from additional critical material, it's not in such poor state as to merit delisting. I also agree with Homestarmy's comment -- this is a stable article. Protection has been to ward off vandals, not due to edit wars.Majoreditor 17:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I had a look at the Lancet article. I think it is worth referring to it, mentioning both its supportive comments and its more critical ones (perhaps an example of each?). Geometry guy 18:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Great idea. Majoreditor 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
      • You're making my point. Whatever the merits of the present article, it's not ready for GA status. There are too many issues to resolve first, and the role of criticism is perhaps the biggest. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 21:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
        • A respectful interaction between 2 editors about one citation hardly seems like too many issues. Articles in Wikipedia are never "finished", and are always evolving. When an article reaches GA status, it doesn't mean there can't be any further disagreements or discussion about its content. The cordial exchange between Geometry guy and Majoreditor presents a fine example of respectful and open discussion among editors who may disagree, but are willing to reach consensus on an article's content. Let's stop creating paper tigers here.--Anietor 23:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Bioinformatics

This article lacks references and is very jargonish. Anyone else agree? Tarret 14:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• comment - the article DOES have 16 references listed in the reference section, but could be substantially improved through the use of footnotes. as for jargon, the article could use a serious "dumbing down" of the content in order to increase readability for nontechnical users. for example, in the sentence promoter analysis involves the elucidation and study of sequence motifs in the genomic region surrounding the coding region of a gene, the terms elucidation, sequence motifs, and genomic region should be explained or wikilinked. on a different topic, the presence of multiple redlinks is rare in GAs. LurkingInChicago 19:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delist, definently does not satisfy WP:SCG, a mandatory requirement of the GA criteria. If it was just one or two minor sections without citation I might let it slide, but of course, there isn't a single internal citation at all. Homestarmy 02:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. This article is weak for many reasons, including jargon, a poor lead, and inadequate sourcing of the material. However, I would note that it is an article on a major field written in summary style: this means that some of the material is actually sourced via subarticles. I would also suggest that redlinks can be expected (and are useful) in such an article because Wikipedia is still far from complete in its coverage of major scientific fields such as this. Geometry guy 11:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. This article assumes too much on the part of the readers, does not use a proper reference format, includes huge internal and external link farms (which although useful, should be incorporated into the text as references or wikilinks) and has a huge number of redlinks. How this is a GA is a mystery to me. I would strongly suggest an introductory fork as evolution, general relativity, quantum mechanics and other technical science articles have done called Introduction to bioinformatics.--Filll 13:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There isn't really a mystery here: it is a GA because it was made a GA some time ago, when standards were less exacting. Geometry guy 18:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II

This article is blatantly copied from copyrighted material in places, contains an unnecessary trivia section and a endless list further reading entries. Also the "Honors" section and "External links" section require a cleanup. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delist Has numerous copyright violations. Tarret 14:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• delist - copyright violations, inclusion of trivia section, honors section should be in paragraph form rather than single line items. LurkingInChicago 19:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - Apparant copyvio (proof?), and a LOT of unsourced statements ({{fact}}). Giggy _U^CP 01:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Please provide information about copyright violations. There is only one tagged in the article: this does show a copyright violation, but it is not immediately clear whether it is of Wikipedia or by Wikipedia. Where are the other numerous copyright violations in the article, and which sources have been plagiarized? Thanks. Geometry guy 11:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Beer pong

I ran across this article while participating in the GA sorting project. In trying to determine which version of the page was the one that actually recieved the GA promotion, it was not clear to me that this article actually ever got a real review for GA. Maybe I am missing something. ike9898 16:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Analysis. User:SilkTork, who had not previously edited the article, made some minor edits in May last year. Then, in a space of a few minutes, he added {{GAnominee}} to the article (!), commented on the talk page, and added the article to GAN.

A few days later, User:Briancua, who had also not previously edited the article, removed the article from GAN, removed the nomination tag from the article, and added {{GA}} to the talk page. This was briefly disputed, but User:Briancua claimed that procedure had been followed, apart from the template placement. The article was subsequently added (semi-automatically?) to the GA list.

It is possible that User:SilkTork meant the nomination to be a review, but that seems unlikely. However, although procedures were botched, it seems that both of these independent editors thought it met the good article criteria at the time.

The question is, does it meet them now? My initial assessment is no: without more sources, several parts of the article appear to be original research. Geometry guy 20:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delist Very poorly cited. Atropos 22:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delist, much of the article has no internal citation, and the American section has an OR tag. With so much of the article not referenced, I can't be sure what else would need to be fixed, since of course, if the article became referenced, much of the content would likely change. Homestarmy 01:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Lack of inline citations, and original research tag needs to be addressed. Many of the sections could also be expanded, as some are only single sentences. --Nehrams2020 16:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. Hilarious, but unencyclopedic. I particularly enjoyed the section on shot technique, and the "exponential" skill curve. Inadequately sourced, this reads like a "How to play beer pong" manual. "The rules should be agreed beforehand" - indeed, but I couldn't even find a clear explanation of the order of play. Geometry guy 17:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment What do I need to do to get it back on the review? --AW 13:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if this is much help, but here is my suggestion: imagine you are living fifty years from now and that Beer pong is no longer popular. Someone mentions it in conversation and you don't know what they are talking about. They laugh that you have not heard of the drinking game that was hugely popular in the late twentieth and early twenty first century. You go to Wikipedia (let us assume it still exists :) for well-sourced neutral information on the phenomenon. Write the article you would expect to find. Geometry guy 18:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • If you really think you can bring this article up to standards, we can place fact tags at every point where a citation is needed, but I am letting you know now, it's going to look like a nuclear fact bomb exploded on that article and threw fact tag shrapnel everywhere. Lara♥Love 19:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - It hurts me to recommend that, because this article is really quite good, but it does not meet the standards in regards to citation. Personally, I think the article is GA based on the images alone! Ha. Okay, not really, but I thought this article was great. Boys... so funny. Anyway, there is an abundance of original research. That's about the only major issue I found. Minor things: There needs to be a consistency in the capitalization of "Beer pong". Is it "Beer Pong", "Beer pong", or "beer pong"? And if it's "beer pong", then shouldn't "Beirut" be "beirut"? I was going to fix this, but I'm not sure how it should be. Also, references need to be consistently formatted. This is something I will probably correct myself. Lara♥Love 19:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Hold on While there sure is a terrible lack of source, I think I could find a few if given a little time. Can someone have a look at Ray of light and tell me if I'm free to go?--SidiLemine 11:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Update Considering the nature of the article, would a student newspaper from a canadia university be considered a reliable source?--SidiLemine 12:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Route 40

Most of the references, other than those to route40.net, are to roadgeek "fansites", such as "Colorado Highways", "Illinois Highway Page", and "Maryland @ AAroads.com". The description is far from adequate; it should be greatly expanded and split into sub-articles like has been done for several states. There are some errors; for instance US 40 no longer passes through downtown Indianapolis, instead going around on I-465. The history is somewhat disjoint, placing some 1920 auto trails under "early roads" and then jumping back to the 19th century National Road. --NE2 08:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delist sources aren't reliable, has a little original research. (→O - RLY?) 16:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delist, indeed, route40.net appears to be just a well-put together personal website from what I can tell. I see no evidence at all that it is a reliable source. Homestarmy 23:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Route40.net may be reliable, given that the media has used the author as a reference: [2] I'm not sure if it's enough; we'd be on better ground by finding newspaper articles and similar references. --NE2 20:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Frank Brusca's resume may help here. In particular, his work has been discussed several times in the media, and he has published in at least one refereed journal (Journal of the Milestone Society). Geometry guy 18:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I am inclined to look favorably on Route40.net, because it has a decent bibliography. Using this, I was able to find a major printed source (well, two sources really) and add it to the article within a matter of minutes. If regular editors have the time to find this source (or any other sources listed in the bibliography) in a library or bookshop and read it, I'm sure the article could be saved from delisting. Geometry guy 20:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. The article is a bit unstable. Also, it lacks reliable references per the good article criteria. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 20:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• delist - weak references, history section needs improvement, needs another copy edit. addition of references from newspapers, state highway administrations, and referenced information on nearby sites of interest (nrhp, landmarks, parks) would help immensely. LurkingInChicago 18:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As the primary writer of the article, I would like to second that Route40.net has all the hallmarks of reliability, mainly that it has a fairly extensive bibliography; and is quite well researched itself. The article does have some citations, mostly secondary, to some sources of questionable reliability, but none of these are on key points. The two major sources are a reliable road atlas software (at least as reliable as any print atlas) and the aforementioned Route40.net, which as Geometryguy has noted, is itself bibliographized. Also, as Lurking has noted, many of the landmarks ARE cited to state park websites or the like. For ANYONE who believes that the any facts in the article are not to be believed, please list the said statements from the article that need more reliable citing, and I will find it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Then why is the copyright at the bottom of the page listed in only one person's name? Why doesn't the article cite the things that the website cites directly? Homestarmy 03:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    • If I read a book, you know words and thingys on paper, and said book has a bibliography, then I don't site the works in that book's bibliography... I cite the book I used, as that is the proper way to cite references. Also, when I look at the copyright notice in a book, it is copyright to one person's name. Why should the fact that the words and thingys appear on your computer screen make it any different than a book? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Because the person making the words and thingys appear on my screen appears to just be a hobbyist, with no real credentials in this area, who might not be reliably interpreting the information he cites correctly. As I understand it, that's one of many reasons why the Reliable Sources policy advises against personal websites by people who have no apparent credentials or notability. Homestarmy 03:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. Delist it then... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think you should give up so easily, Jayron: Brusca has both credentials and notability, as his resume (linked above) shows. Not enough for a controversial topic, but for an article on a road, what more can you ask? A PhD in Road Science from the University of the Peripheral? Geometry guy 18:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Except that he's right on one thing: As a personal website, it does not appear to have undergone the rigorous review one would expect of a source. Yes, the site has a bibliography. Yes, the site has won awards and itself been used as a reference by reliable publications. However, he has made up his mind that this article should be delisted prima fascia and shows no sign that he can be convinced otherwise. I disagree for personal reasons (I wrote most of the article) but I cannot in good heart disagree with his premise. As well researched as the site is, and as well creditialed as the author is, and as well commended as the site has been in as many publications as it has been, it lacks the one fundemental hallmark of reliablity that would be needed to convince Homestarmy that it is reliable: Editorial oversight. Any source with zero editorial oversight cannot be reliable... I can't debate that... I want this to be a good article. I believe it to be one. But though I believe it to meet all the requirements of WIAGA (I find the site reliable; in the sense that I can see no places where the claims Brusca makes are controversial or debated) my opinion on the matter is unimportant. The source has no editorial oversight, it is self-published, and so is unreliable. Homestarmy is right, and only personal pride would cause me to reach any other conclusion. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, for books, "editorial oversight", which seems to be held in high esteem, often amounts to little more than copyediting, or worse, "how can we make this more marketable". Critical opinion and commentary is much more important. As you point out, this source has been subject to scrutiny, and its claims have not been challenged. This makes it reliable. Geometry guy 18:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not able to read the article right now, but in scanning over it and the references, I don't see any major issues. It seems sufficiently referenced to me. I mean, it's a highway. I can't imagine there being too much controversy or material to be challenged. It seemed that possibly "US 40" was used a bit too much. Almost every sentence, but, again, I haven't actually read it yet. It's been along day. I'll look at it again tomorrow and make my recommendation then. LaraLove 05:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Just to answer to Homestarmy, I believe that the most important point against personal sites at WP:RS is that there needs to be some kind of peer review of the source. Without it, there's just no telling what's going on in anyone's mind while they write, independantly of their ability (not even talking about lying on one's competences). That's why I was in favor of the Chrysler Sunbeam site, while I'm not so sure about this one.--SidiLemine 18:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    • But if a personal site has been scrutinized and used by independent sources, then this objection goes away. Geometry guy 18:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Super Princess Peach

I wrote this article and helped it get promoted to GA status. Now, however, I have severe doubts that this features the broad coverage necessary (3a). Lead is probably too short, don't know how it could be expanded (1b). 2/3 of the article describes the game in great detail (hopefully not too much), 1/3 of it is reception, based only on three web reviews and one TV review. It lacks a development section, a reasoning for why Nintendo decided to make a girl game, etc. A quick web search couldn't find any dev information. I'm sure readers are asking, "Why, Nintendo?" just like they were asking, "Why, Stellar Stone?" when reading how bad Big Rigs was. And the reviewer for that article said no because I couldn't source any reliable dev info on that article, either. I think the same should be applied to SPP. hbdragon88 22:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delist due to lack of development information and lead that doesn't meet WP:LEAD. -Malkinann 12:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - Images lack fair use rationales (Quick-fail criteria), the lead is weak, wikification is off, and it's terribly under-referenced. LaraLove 16:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - For all of the reasons listed above, AND the fact that it contains a blatant falsehood in the first paragraph; Princess Peach was a playable character in Super Mario Bros. 2; indeed you could play the entire game as Princess Peach (actually done it myself). She is also a playable character in NUMEROUS Mario spinoffs; like the Racing Games, Mario World games, etc. etc. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this game is the only game in which Princess Peach is a protagonist as opposed to a plot device? Anyway, I've tagged the images in the article as lacking detailed fair use rationales as laid out in the non-free content criteria policy. -Malkinann 12:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delist. The article is beyond rescue for now, but the images are not. Fair use rationales should be straightforward here, since this article is about the product illustrated in the images and contains critical commentary. Geometry guy 17:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I've now added rationale templates. It was completely trivial to do: please, everyone, help to deal with the current "fair use" circus by adding rationales instead of speedy deletion tags. Thanks, Geometry guy 19:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel uncomfortable specifically declaring something to be legal under another country's laws. If you wish to discuss this further with me, you can ask me on my talk page. -Malkinann 13:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't intended as a personal remark; sorry if it came across that way. Adding a fair use rationale is not about declaring something to be legal: if it were, I wouldn't do it either. It is about providing information, required by Wikipedia policy, that makes it easier to determine whether use of an image is legal or not. The rationale involves essentially no subjective information, and no declaration. Geometry guy 10:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Nordic theory

Would be political correct (hypocritical) statements on race diverge attention from the real issue of racism, what Nordicism/Nordic theory really is. I noticed some serious POV pushing that does not belong to a good article, besides it does not comply to three out of six (50%) fundamental requirements listed at WP:WIAGA. The issue has been raised here: Talk:Nordic theory#This is NOT a good article:
- It is NOT broad in its coverage. It does not address the major aspects of the topic, in particular the nature of racism, racism in relation to suprematism, the political impact of suprematism on fascism and the political influence of nordicism on fascistic fringe politics. Moreover, the article does not stay focussed on nordicism and diverges on racial issues - even in WP:LEAD.
- It is NOT neutral: the article represents viewpoints of its own and without regard to other viewpoints as represented in 21st century WP:RS. Those viewpoints concern physical concepts of race, denial of racism (according to modern definition being culturally defined) to be relevant to Nordicism, and denial of Nordicism to be influential on fascism.
- It is NOT stable: contributions are reverted continuously, discussions are ignored, arguments defiled ad hominem.
Rokus01 21:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

All of these points have been responded to on the talk page, though frankly it's difficult to respond to peculiar statements like "would be political correct (hypocritical) statements on race diverge attention from the real issue of racism". I really don't know what that means. I am not the only editor who has difficulty making sense of what Rokus is trying to say, or who, when they can, sees a clear POV in his edits [3]. I do not believe this is a good faith nomination, since it arises from Rokus' preoccupation with protecting his pet article Nordic race from being merged. However, constructive comments would be very welcome. On Rokus's specific points:

1. The article is very broad in its coverage, since it discusses the history and influence of Nordicism. However, it is, of course, necessary to remain on topic.
2. Nordicism was not influential on Fascism, which was a political philosophy invented by an Italian! This was discussed thoroughly when Rokus raised the issue on the Fascism talk page. It was influential on Nazism - a fact which is well covered in the article.
3. The article is entirely stable and has been for a long time. It has recently suffered from vandalism from a banned neo-Nazi editor, but the only other "instability" has been created by Rokus himself. Paul B 11:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - To call this article stable is laughable. More than two dozen reverts all in a row in one day is far from stable. And that was just one day in a list of MANY days of reverts. It appears that anything added or changed in the article is reverted, whether it be referenced or not. Discussions that should take place on the talk page instead take place in the edit summaries of revert wars. Edit summaries that are also extremely disrespectful and rude. Overall inappropriate whether directed at anons, registered users, or bots (all three of which have occurred). The article was protected for a time but nothing changed. Considering all the edits by those disputing the content, there are obviously issues with the POV of the article. Issues that are being ignored... or, rather, anyone with a different perspective, interpretation, or belief is slapped in the face for making changes to the article that reflect their views. Coupled with the fact that the article is tagged for additional references, and the current references are not correctly formatted, I feel this article fails to meet GA standards. LaraLove 15:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This brings up an issue. If I understand well, it means that in order to delist an article, one would only need to get into a revert war, get everyone heated, troll a bit under a few IPs, and then declare the article unstable. Is that it? I think the "stable" part of WIAGA is intended at the time when it runs for GA. Would you delist an article trying to change from GA to FA because it's not stable anymore? --SidiLemine 15:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • SidiLemine's point is crucial. The reverts have all been discussed. If you look at the history of the article before Rokus' appearence you can see how stable it has been. I hardly think that vandalism by a banned neo-Nazi editor, editing under an IP counts as "instability". The tag is very recent. Formatting can easily be addressed.Paul B 15:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I wasn't really speaking specifically about this article, as the formatting issues are still here and should be adressed. Furthermore, your intention to merge this article with another one clearly compromises the article stability, and if the merge goes through, the resulting article will have to be resubmitted to GAC anyway. But the question is still very important to me: what is the limit of unstability that warrants delisting?--SidiLemine 16:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
        • The merger was proposed by another editor. I'm not opposed to it. There does not, however, seem to be consensus in favour of it. No formatting issues were raised when the article was submitted to GA, nor have any formatting issues part of the debate on Talk. We can only respond to what people raise. Even the editor who added the tag requesting more references has not added any citation-needed tags, so it's difficult to know what s/he thinks needs to be referenced. There's no point scattering references about for the sake of it in order to appear more scholarly. Paul B 20:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (←) SidiLemine, I suggest to extract the answer to your issue from the very comprehensive stance of LaraLove: "different perspective, interpretation, or belief is slapped in the face for making changes to the article that reflect their views." Vandalism is not at issue here, just the mere observation that stability will never be achieved as long as different sourced viewpoints are vehemently rejected. An encyclopedic approach should give due attention to competing scholarly views in order to achieve neutrality, balance and stability. The counter argument above, calling Nazism essentially distinct from Fascism, is a clear example of a selective perspective at the cost of reliable sources contradicting this point of view, and as such is subject to never ending disagreements and opposition - thus to perpetual instability. Rokus01 22:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • There has been no instability until you came along. I repeat that your view about fascism was rejected by every single editor on the Fascism Talk page, and yet you continue to insist that you alone are right. The above comment is a false syllogism (Nazis are Fascists, Nazis are obsessed by race; therefore all Fascists are obsessed by race) In logic this is known as fallacy of the Illicit minor (All A are B. All A are C. Therefore, all C are B). Paul B 10:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Rather than extract the portion noted by Rokus, take into account all of my recommendation. I did not say "Delist per instability". The revert wars and inappropriate edit summaries are not limited to Rokus and his or whoever's alleged sockpuppets. Other registered user and even a bot were subject to this behavior. The article is also tagged (I can go through and add fact tags where, if at all, necessary) for additional references, and all references need to be consistently and correctly formatted. Since the POV and ref template are disputed, I'll thoroughly look over all of it (after some sleep -- it's 4am) and make my own determination on the matter. In the mean time, possibly start formatting the references. Regards, LaraLove 07:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I guess I see the point. I just wanted to make sure that the main reason for delisting was POV, formatting, and possibly references, or to better understand the mechanisms associated with delisting for instability. Thanks for taking the time to explain. --SidiLemine 12:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ray of Light

Right after I added an {{unreferencedsect}}, I saw on the talk page it was a GA. It was passed in June 2006, so I'm guessing that was before the requirement for references was raised. The article is largely underreferenced.

• The Amazon.com review has no citation.Added one. --SidiLemine 18:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Only part of one paragraph in the Singles section is referenced, which has two one-sentence paragraphs.
• Most of the Chart performance section is unreferenced.
• The Charts section is completely unreferenced.sourced
• The Certification and sales section is referenced to JustZheng.com, a self-published source. added refs

17Drew 04:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I am in the process of finding sources for the charts and certifications. I will delete what I cannot source. Please advise if you know any source for international charts.--SidiLemine 18:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This site is the one I use for international refs. I saw that Drew uses it for many of his articles. I recommend looking through other band articles to see what websites they use if this one doesn't work out for you. LaraLove 14:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Alas, the history stops in 2005, and this is a 1998 album.... Anyway, now I'm more looking for global sales figures and certifications.--SidiLemine 15:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, so all there is left is the Singles section to source. If someone would be as kind as to place fact tags where needed, I'll take care of that. Anything else?--SidiLemine 17:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

New York Yankees

I have notified WP:MLB, WP:NYC, WP:NYY and all editors with a dozen edits who have made at least one edit in 2007 (Sportskido8, Win777, Silent Wind of Doom, Michael Greiner, Yankees76, Brad E. Williams, 24.193.99.118, Simon12, Wknight94, Rollosmokes, Antandrus, Soxrock, Jsh726, Baseball Bugs, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Howieanson, PassionoftheDamon, Dfmock, & Bole2).

Delist nomination After the article failed at WP:FAC twice and WP:GAC three times, it seems the article was promoted to GA without review.

07:04, 4 June 2007 GAC

16:43, 4 June 2007 FGAN

18:41, 4 June 2007 GAC

20:12, 4 June 2007 GA?

That aside the article is very substandard with respect to WP:WIAGA criteria 2b. There are very large sections that are uncited. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The most recent GA nomination is seen at Talk:New_York_Yankees#Another_GA-nom. The reviewer User:Kim Williams admitted that this was her GA review and confused the criteria with for FA articles. More info on the review can be found at User talk:Kim Williams#New_York_Yankees_GA and User talk:Sportskido8#New_York_Yankees_GA. The article was passed although procedure may have been messed up a bit. Michael Greiner 22:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Still seems substandard with respect to 2b.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I've not read the article yet, but just in quickly looking over it I noticed that
  • the references are not consistently formatted (some not at all) which is a 2a issue. Also, placement of some of the inline citations is off. They should come directly after the punctuation with no space before and no punctuation after.
  • emboldened terms need to be removed from the article. Embolding should be reserved for the title sentence. This is a 1b issue.
  • there is one stand-alone year randomly wikified in the lead. I don't like wikification of stand-alone years, but it's consistent through-out the article, so I'll only note the need for correction in the lead. This is also a 1b issue.
  • I look over it more later, but these issues need to be corrected. LaraLove 19:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delist and renominate at GAC - Upon looking over the above posted talk page discussion and the history of the article's talk page, the promotion of this article comes into question, as noted in the nomination. The discussion with the reviewer resulted in an agreement to have the article renominated at GAC for someone with more experience to hopefully review the article. Instead, the creator of WP:YANKEE, the Yankee's Wikiproject, promoted the article without review. Unless I'm misunderstanding this, I'll delist the article myself. Explanations, anyone? LaraLove 19:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The edit summary says Pupster21 passed the article. Looking away from the obvious conflict of interest and assuming good faith that he may have actually reviewed the article, I'm not sure exactly what happened. Of course, Pupster's edits lately have been sporadic at best (last edit June 16th) so contacting him won't be the easiest. --Michael Greiner 04:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That's why a review should be posted whether the article passes or fails. So that it is made known that the article was actually reviewed. The lack of a review coupled with the conflict of interest warrants delistment. Add in that the last review discussion ended in consensus between the reviewer and the custodian(s) to renominate, and it seems further justified to do so. Are there any sound objections? LaraLove 22:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess he kind of passed it without any review, although I was ready at the time to fix any comments. Worst case scenario I'll just take care of whatever needs to be done if this is relisted. Sportskido8 08:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If it is going to be relisted, it will need a sponsor. It sounds like it has one. Good luck. This is an important article and we hope to have the facts correctly cited.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• I agree: I suggest Lara delists and Sportskido8 renominates. TonyTheTiger would be an excellent reviewer! Geometry guy 21:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Chicken (game)

There are five good (but not featured) articles within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Game theory: this one, Nash equilibrium, Best response, Evolutionary stable strategy, and Ultimatum game. None of them currently meet the criteria in my opinion. In particular, they are all less accessible than they could be, and have poor leads. It may be possible to handle the others without recourse to Good Article Review (i.e., I am willing to review them individually and delist them if necessary), but I think this one needs a wider input, since I'm not sure if it is easy to fix or not. Certainly the lead is inadequate, but I could probably fix that. However, what about the balance, coverage, citation and referencing? I suspect it is not up to GA standard, but is it easy to fix? Geometry guy 20:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've improved the formatting of the references, but my attempt to fix the lead failed badly. The article is still inaccessible, and the prose is not good. I guess that means I have to recommend delisting. Geometry guy 16:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - This article is in desperate need of a rewrite. Repetitive and over-written. The vocabulary of this article does not match the complexity of the topic. It's to the point that, at least in my case, not only does the article not draw the reader in, it distracts the reader leaving them disinterested. It's also not completely accurate. It reads as if it must be "played" on a bridge, which is not the case. Even the 12-line quote lacks mention of a bridge. One comparison after the other with variations sprinkled between. I can't finish it. LaraLove 19:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delist per LaraLove's reasoning, and due to lack of verification. LuciferMorgan 16:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delist This article is an example of where collaboration goes wrong, it seems. My sense from reading this article is that two or more different editors have added stuff. (kind of like reading the book of Genesis)... I can see that there is a Good Article in there. There is a bunch of well written, well referenced sections, but they are interspersed with some overly technical, unreferenced, and hard to read sections as well. Shame really. If we can strip this down to its basics, we might return it to GA status. As it is today, however, it has too much work to call it "Good"... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Freemasonry

The article was GA listed May 29, and on June 30, User:Meekrob delisted it without following procedure (he delisted it and then brought his concerns to the talk page). We agreed to discuss the issues, but apart from a few minor items we were able to resolve, Meekrob has not been active either in the discussion or on WP since July 1, so we're at a standstill as far as that goes. As the article was delisted outside procedure, can it be relisted and then re-reviewed if necessary so we actually have time to work on fixing any potential issues? MSJapan 20:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The delistment was not necessarily outside of procedure. I mean, it was, but it's a recommended procedure, not required. It is common practice for articles that clearly fail to meet the criteria, and conceivably lack potential to be quickly brought up to standards, to be boldly delisted. In these cases, an explanation of the delistment with supporting reasons should be left on the article talk page. With that said, I've not yet reviewed the article, so I don't know that it would fall under the fore-mentioned category of those which "clearly fail to meet the criteria". However, if it is determined that the article should not have been delisted, it will then regain its GA status... after consensus has been reached. I'll add my recommendation and supporting argument tomorrow as my forehead is about two minutes from slamming into my keyboard... I really need to stop editing until 3am. LaraLove^T/_C 06:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - reviewers might find it interesting to compare the version that was considered to be so good it was a GA, with the one Meekrob delisted. As far as I can tell, no changes in NPOV has taken place between the two. WegianWarrior 09:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As unfortunate as it is, it is not entirely uncommon for an article to achieve GA from one editor and lose GA within a matter of days when another editor sees it and realizes it should have never been passed at all. It is also worth noting that NPOV was brought up the day after the pass by Jayron who went through and detailed issues, and NPOV discussions have been steadily continuing since. With that said, I'll begin my review of the article now. LaraLove^T/_C 15:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - While there was no significant difference between the version that was passed for GA, and the version that Meekrob had issues with, I just want to note that the regular editors to the page have (since his delisting) made changes to address most of his concerns. While a few issues do remain to be discussed, I don't see them as affecting whether the article regains its GA status. Blueboar 13:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - While I don't want to sound self-justifying, the issues regarding NPOV are coming about because assumptions are being made about types of sources existing when they do not. Much of the material is not scholarly in the "university press" way, but much of it is peer-reviewed by the publishers of the Transactions for the society, while the NPOV issue seems to be "Masons wrote it". While Masonry is not a religion, it has a similar amount of internal documents and books, yet I see no one complaining about not using Jewish sources on the Catholic Church as POV, for the same reason as here being that they don't really exist, because it's not a matter of interest except on very specific issues. MSJapan 17:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  This has been explained several times on the talk page by Awadawit and Jayron32. The issue is not whether "Masons wrote it", but that Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. Material written by Masons is not necessarily excluded from the definition of a reliable secondary source, but some independence (e.g. peer review) is needed. Material written and produced by Masons can also be used as a primary source (for factual, uncontroversial information, or information that is backed up by secondary sources). Freemasonry is being treated no differently from Catholicism here: Jewish sources are not required for either (except where they relate to Judaism), but independent sources are required for both. Geometry guy 15:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Delist - I've got a review of the article with recommended changes in progress here. Changes aren't being made. I believe the article should be delisted, improved and renominated at GAC. LaraLove 18:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Just to clarify a misplaced modifier by LaraLove above. I did not pass the article, I made comments on it regarding the lack of independant sources. I was asked for my opinion on an ongoing debate; Awadewit requested that I comment and I did. I had no idea at the time this was even a GA, or that it had been delisted, or any timeline of said events; I merely was giving my personal opinion on the state of the article and improvements it needed. Hope that clears stuff up. However, after rereading the article as it stands now, and my comments on the talk page, I stand by my assessment on the talk page; the article lacks enough independant sources. Thus it cannot be said to be either neutral, broad, or reliable, and thus should be Delisted. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, my apologies. I worded it incorrectly. I was meaning it as you left comments the day after the review, not that the review was done by you. LaraLove 07:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse delist. I agree entirely with Jayron32 (both here and on the talk page) that this article is not neutral, broad or reliably sourced. If the talk page is anything to go by, there seems to be a misunderstanding or misinterpretation by regular editors of the core Wikipedia policies WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: verifiability, not truth, is the main criterion for inclusion. It is as much about knowledge and what is believed as about what is true. The word "reliable" in "reliable sources" needs to be interpreted with care: for example, reliable sources provide data about the lengths of coastlines, even though this data is essentially meaningless. Being incorrect and being unreliable can be very different things sometimes!

Furthermore, neutral point of view is not achieved by trying to find out who is right, or more accurate, or more consistent in their views, but by presenting all significant points of view. Yet in this article, secondary sources are bypassed in favor of primary ones on the grounds such as "the primary sources are more accurate", "the other sources are distorted", "there is a systematic bias in the secondary sources" and so on. One person's bias, is another's point of view. The correct way to deal with this is to present the facts and points of view in the sources, then counter inaccurate or disputed claims using primary sources where appropriate (making it clear that it is Masons disputing them, of course). Ironically, this approach is likely to be much more effective at dispelling myths and anti-Masonic viewpoints. The key is to let the reader decide. No article will change the views of the vehemently anti-Masonic reader: write for curious readers instead. If they find an article backed up largely by Masonic sources and apparently dismissive of most other claims, they are more likely to become suspicious than educated. Let me give some examples.

• Some effort is made, even in the lead, to explain that Freemasonry is not secret society, because each Lodge publishes lists of members and proceedings. But it is widely viewed as a secret society, so the question is why? Have lists of members always been available? If not, when did this start, and was it in response to legislation or internal debate? How is this related to "declaration of Freemasonry membership" issues mentioned later in the article? I can see the distinction here, but the article does not explain it.
• The lead mentions disclosures and exposés, but they hardly get a mention in the article on the grounds that they are inaccurate. So what? I want to know what they said: this is encyclopedic information, and I, like many other readers, am curious. What is the current knowledge about the rituals and secrets of Masons? I trust there is no conflict of interest here between the obligation not to reveal secrets, and presenting what is believed about Freemasonry by non-Masons. But at the moment, all we get is a brief discussion of the more outrageous speculations, quite believably denied, and the assertion that the disclosures are inaccurate, the rituals change over time, and they vary from Lodge to Lodge. Again, so what? Some of the rituals that have been described probably have happened at some time in some places, and an article on Freemasonry doesn't come close to being broad if it doesn't discuss them.
• Criticism and opposition to Masonry are folded in together, and discussed using leading language, such as words to avoid. Legitimate concerns about cronyism and patronage, which have regularly appeared in mainstream media, are unsourced, then dismissed using straw man arguments and Masonic sources. And all this is in a section which also discusses conspiracy theories, totalitarian regimes, and anti-Semitism. Wikipedia deserves better. What about the relation, for example, with the requirement to declare Freemasonry membership in certain professions? Isn't this related to concerns about networking and patronage? Don't Masonic sources also talk about giving employment to other Masons? I am not saying the criticism is correct or well-founded - it may even be anti-Masonic - but it must be discussed neutrally. The article is a long way from being neutral when critical views are treated in the way that they currently are. Don't be defensive: let the reader decide!

I hope I have explained as clearly as possible why this article does not meet the criteria (including core Wikipedia policies). I also hope there is some will to change this, but it may need a shift in attitude or emphasis. I remain optimistic: the editors seem to be serious with high standards, and in many ways this is a very good article about Freemasonry - it is just not encyclopedic yet. Geometry guy 15:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse delist I, very unfortunately, passed this article. I apologize to all here—it was a lapse in judgment. I had thought that the issues regarding sources and POV could easily be cleared up when I first mentioned them. After I discovered that was not the case, I did not really know what to do. For all of the reasons regarding sources and POV that I have already stated on the article's talk page and for all of the excellent reasons outlined by Geometry guy above, I believe that this article does not meet the GA requirements. Awadewit | talk 10:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm currently working with the custodians of this article to bring it up to standards. Progress can be seen here. Lara♥Love 02:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I haven't seen any progress on addressing the concerns raised by Jayron32, Awadawit and myself, and the page which you linked does not address these issues either. Geometry guy 11:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)