Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Wikipedia:Good articles is an unbureaucratic system to arrive at a quick consensus set of good articles: everyone can nominate good articles, and everyone has veto power. However, sometimes editors disagree whether an article reaches the good article criteria. This page is for dealing with such disputes.

If you believe an article should be delisted If you find an article listed as good that does not actually satisfy the good article criteria, then you can delist it: Check the good article criteria to see which criteria it fails to meet. If the problem is easy to resolve, it might be better to be bold and fix it yourself. If you can't fix it, remove the {{GA}} tag on the article's talk page and put in {{subst:DelistedGAbecause|reason}} (at the bottom of the page) or {{DelistedGA}} (at the top). Do not use {{FailedGA}}. Remember to explain what the problem is and what needs to be improved to meet the criteria. Remove the article from the list at Wikipedia:Good articles. If you find an article that you suspect should be delisted, but aren't certain, then you can ask other editors to review the situation by adding the article to the list below.

If you believe an article should be listed If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, it's best not to just take the article back to the nominations page straight away. Read why the article was judged to fail the criteria: there should be an explanatory note on its talk page. If you can fix the article to address those concerns, and satisfy the good article criteria, you can just renominate it: there is no minimum time limit between nominations! However, if you believe that the explanation given was unreasonable, and that the article does fulfil all the requirements, then you can ask other editors to review it by adding it the list below. A brief discussion should be sufficient to establish consensus on whether the criteria are met.

Articles needing reviewing (add new articles at the top)

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)

Kalmar Union

Added as a Good Article December 17, 2005 by user:Llywrch.

This topic could be described from many different nationalistic POVs, so a reference would IMO be necessary, which the article completely lacks.

Fred-Chess 15:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No refs, delist. Homestarmy 17:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

There's an ongoing dispute here (as well as in other Rand-related articles) over whether or not this article is POV. Constant work is being done to fix this, but much is left to be done. Very little is said of literary critique or philosophic critique, which is POV (Rand and her followers were opposed to both, though both do exist). Also, the less flattering details of Rand's affair with Branden are left out (again, more POV). -- LGagnon 15:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I see several suspicious discussions on the talk page about anti-objectivist content being deleted which is "Well referenced", can you please provide an example or 2 or perhaps diffs showing the dispute? I only ask because there doesn't appear to be any specific claims on the talk page with references at the moment. Homestarmy 16:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That content was in an article called "Ayn Rand cult" (a supplimental article to the Rand one), which was deleted for having a POV name but did not contain POV info at the time it was deleted. At that time, it had been changed to a well-sourced article, but was deleted anyways on the basis of previous objections to the previous status of the article and its name. Info from it could have been moved to the Rand article, but the article was deleted before that could be done. Thus, I can't give you the diffs because those were deleted along with the article. -- LGagnon 20:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

But did you ever try to insert the content into the actual Ayn Rand article at some point? Homestarmy 17:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Scotland

I edited this article twice to correct what I believe to be a serious factual inaccuracy, with clear reasons for doing so set out on the talk page. Both times my corrections were edited out, by the author I assume. No explanation was given, so again I have to assume this was for reasons of personal vanity. I corrected this same error elsewhere in Wikipedia pieces on Scotland, again with a full explanation on the talk page, with no problem. I really do not want to make too much of this, but I find this pettiness immensely irritating. Overall, I have to say, the whole piece is superficial and badly written, and have no idea why it is considered to be a 'good' article, or what your criteria are for passing such a judgement. I suspect this same author is responsible for the appallingly bad History of Scotland. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, and as a specialist in Scottish history I am surprised by the immense number of quite silly errors I have come across, and the very poor quality of much of the writing. Do you not subject your entries to some form of peer review; or do you just launch the ship, so to speak, and hope for the best?. Rcpaterson 22:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Józef Piłsudski

Virtual hagiography of a controversial early twentieth century dictator. Fails to address legitimacy or consequences of his invasion of the Soviet Union, fails to mention brutal autocracy put in place, fails to mention severe consequences to Poland of his disastrous foreign policy (including nearly eliminating Poland's hard-fought independence), fails to mention his continuous fight to subvert democracy and makes only passing mention of his military coups. The article calls him, among other things, "a benevolent dictator," and "the most brilliant of Polish military leaders," which is both POV and factually incorrect (as many if not most military historians would argue that he was an incompetent strategist). The article has apparently been hijacked by a small group of Polish nationalists, and the Good Article tag should be suspended until NPOV is restored.

If all this is true, then it probably fails both broadness/compleatness of coverage and NPOV, and should be delisted immedietly. Homestarmy 02:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Perl

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. This is why the current Mediation Cabal entry is probably the only way that we're going to be able to resolve this; restore the Perl article to the Good Article state and status that it was in pre-Barry-; and move on. PS: I know I've probably done a half dozen things wrong in this whole process. It's hard to deal with someone as prolific (in terms of edit rate, anyway) as -Barry- while trying to figure out all of the policy changes that have happened in the year since I had a dispute that warranted outside help. This is why I've never asked for admin status. -Harmil 04:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, its time to move back to the pre--Barry- state of the page and move on. The edits by -Barry- injected POV into the page and revisions were made to move the Perl entry back towards the way is before -Barry-'s POV was added. Steve p 12:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been in mediation here and it's no longer simply a matter of me against that handful of editors. The editors are at odds with the mediator too. If Perl can remain listed as a "good article" then the good article criteria page is apparently ignored and the good article lists are misleading. There needs to be some kind of enforcement by administrators or some other entity, or there should be no good article list at all. -Barry- 13:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

-Barry-, please don't leave out the fact that the editor has also objected to items you had added. Steve p 15:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean the mediator. That's true. He didn't like my table, which wasn't even in the article because I'd reached an agreement that it not be included long before the mediator got involved. Not that I ever believed it shouldn't be included, but it was no longer an issue until someone tried holding it against me in the mediation.

He also didn't want me mentioning some reasons for the decrease in popularity of Perl (for which he allowed some evidence) being bad (harder to find programmers, etc.) Maybe I made it sound like overall it's harder to find Perl programmers, but I intended to limit my statement to the effect of decreased popularity, and I didn't intend to make it sound like it's absolutly certain that Perl's popularity has decreased. Anyway, I didn't argue the point. -Barry- 16:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see also, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Barry- and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-23 Perl for more information on this ongoing dispute. -Harmil 18:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

MacBook

The lead section of this article is four sentences and its GA nomination was rejected on the grounds that the lead was too long. I note that in order to become a featured article, the lead of an article is often requested to be expanded beyond this length, so it cannot under any circumstances be a rejection criterion for GA (which, remember, is the road to FA). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This article looks fine to me. Homestarmy 14:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Lead looks like a perfect length to me. Worldtraveller 14:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't offer much insight beyond that of Apple's webpage and at times reads like a sales pamphlet. More discussion on critical reception and product performance would benefit the article. For these reasons, I am unconvinced that this article should become a good article. Cedars 14:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust

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)

Mount Merapi, Central Java

Just doesn't seem to have enough at all about the place. Tourism there, living conditions, attractions, etc.. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 05:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• This is a volcano, not a town, just to let you know, the article looks good and doesn't need that info. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

This article seems much more like a thesis on evolution than an encyclopedia entry. The main points of the theory are introduced and immediately after each, "counter-evidence" or "refutation" is presented. Perhaps a "Criticiism" section would be appropriate as to present both sides of the argument, but the attacking manner in which the current article is written is NOT appropriate. The article does not explain the theory from an unbiased, objective perspective.

On a personal note (though, most would disagree with me), it would be best NOT to have an "Intelligent Design" article at all; most people do not know enough about what it is, or have too many misconceptions about it to write on it with any authority. But then again, that's one of the drawbacks you get with a Wiki. I believe the best step would be to invite some experts on the theory to contribute to the article, but I highly doubt this would be probable.

I would fix it myself, but the problem is prominent throughout the WHOLE article, and I simply do not have the time. User:71.112.233.237 19:54, 15 May 2006

I should have to disagree with Anonymous here. The article does not in any way read like a thesis on evolution, although it does by necessity compare and contrast ID and evolution at certain points. This critical (Socratic sense) style is necessitated by ID's antipodal position regarding the genesis, if you will, of certain structures labeled by adherents of ID as being irreducibly complex and/or exhibiting specified complexity.

In addition, as ID has clearly failed to meet a number of scientific criteria (parsimony, falsifiability, dynamism, progressivism, correctability (absent semantic and syntactical shifts in definitions) and provisionality), and yet presents itself as a science, the point-counterpoint style of the article is further merited.

One also wonders to whom, precisely, Anon is referring when he sugguests that it would be of some benefit to "invite some experts on the theory to contribute to the article". The "experts" on the "theory", a term to be used loosely given the abovementioned scientific anomalies of ID, would be Behe, Dembski and Johnson, all of whom a represented in the article with both quotes and links to their various pages, as well as lesser-known members of DI. As all of those mentioned have their own fora for further expounding on the merits of ID as they see them, and as these fora are linked via the article in a standard encyclopedic modality, I would hold that such a suggestion is absent merit. •Jim62sch• 09:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks an article shouldn't exist shouldn't be suggesting a rewrite of it. Keep this labeled as a good article.--Urthogie 12:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is widely recognized, both within the wikipedia community and outside, as a credible, well-sourced and neutral article. No small feat considering the number and sort of partisans and cranks the topic attracts. The ID article was recently cited an example of a "good article, maybe even an excellent article" on a NPR radio show with Jimbo. Jim62sch explains the structure article being necessitated by the nature of the topic rather well. Keep labeled as a Good Article. FeloniousMonk 15:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The above have pointed out the controversial nature of the subject, and I do understand this quite clearly. I still do not believe that this warrants the "point-counterpoint style" in which the article is written; I do not see many other Wikipedia articles written in this manner.

The article overemphasizes the "faults", if you will, of ID rather than simply telling the reader what it is (which should be the primary purpose of the article). The current article makes it seem as if its primary purpose is to tell the reader everything that is "wrong" about ID. Grouping criticisms into a "Criticism/Controversy" section and being much more brief about them would do a better job of presenting the topic from an objective and unbiased perspective, and if I'm not mistaken, this is the approach most Wikipedia articles take. The style in which the article is written is biased in that it almost immediately gives the reader a negative impression about the topic.

And about the article's acclaim outside of Wikipedia: Those supporting it are mostly (if not all) Evolution supporters, aren't they? Are you sure that this is an unbiased approach to the article? 71.112.233.237 23:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No, neither NPR nor Jimbo can reasonably be called "evolution supporters."

You're mistaken, many other articles share the same structure as the ID article. I can list some here should you doubt it. That structure is fully compliant with both policy and guideline. The ID article was carefully crafted by many editors on both sides of the topic with an eye toward WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:CITE. It is now one of wikipedia's most well-supported articles, with over 75 cites.

Your concern over the article is misplaced. It's understandable considering your newness to the project. It would be better were you to become more familiar with the project and it's policies and conventions before proclaiming what is and isn't a Good Article by wikipedia's standards. For example, the style guide on Article structures which can imply a view states just the opposite what you propose: "Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact - the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate. ... Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other." The position in favor of folding criticisms into the article's body is a deep-seated principle here. The project's founder, Jimbo Wales, states fundamental reasons here for avoiding separate criticism sections: "it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." [2] FeloniousMonk 02:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, its completely reasonable to point out flaws in "intelligent" design, a system which claims to be verifiably true.--Urthogie 13:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Neil Young

Although the first half of the article is acceptable, the later half is has turned into a fanzine, with frequent but rather poorly written updates of what Neil plans to do next. Sometimes fascinating stuff but clearly not appropriate to a good article. I would say everything from the Back to country roots section on down should be rewritten in a factual manner that does not provide free advertising for almost anyone who ever shook hands with Neil. I would delist it myself, but I invested a lot of time rewriting the entire article as well as protecting it from vandals. Unfortuanately, however, I have reached the point where it is time to walk away, so I have listed it here. Spventi 21:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Statistics

Largely consists of lists of people and disciplines, few of which are explained even briefly in the text. The explanations seem adequate, where they appear, but the "Criticism" section, e.g., needs to be much larger. --zenohockey 00:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, much that is important about statistics is missing from the article. For instance, Bayesian methods don't get a mention. Also contains only one image. --Avenue 04:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this article sucks, only one image, few links, and no useful information, it's a disgrace to Wikipedia to neglect such an important topic which is even worth a portal!--Lord Snoeckx 19:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please keep things cool people, let us not go around with terms like that. By doing so you are insulting both the editors to the article and the person that passed it, without actually discussing the issue at hand - the article. If you read the GA guidelines, you'll see that images aren't required so that can't be used against. "Few links"? You mean it isn't a link farm or it doesn't link to other articles? We should discuss the context and quality of this article. Play on, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 14:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Iran-Iraq War

Is not historicly accurate, it seems to over emphisise the Iranian side of the war, as well as shows no impartiality.

It seems to have references, can you point out specific innacuracies? Homestarmy 02:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Satan

The following information is wildly inaccurate:

 In Paradise Lost, Satan is the protagonist and is seen as an ambitious underdog rebelling   against Heaven for a democracy. He becomes less sympathetic in the second half as the snake that tempts Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Firstly, it is debatable whether Satan can be described 'the protagonist' although he is certainly a very important character. But the biggest mistake here is the word 'democracy'. In Paradise Lost, Satan is not rebelling for a democracy at all, it is his 'pride and ambition' and his refusal to recognise that he was created by God that prompts his rebellion. He wants to be equal to God. Certainly, he lets other fallen angels speak in the Council in which they decide how best to proceed from the fall. But it is very far from a democracy; most of the other fallen angels wait outside and Satan follows his own preconceived plan of corrupting Man. Also, it is arguable whether he is less sympathetic as a snake because of these lines in Book IX ll.455-470

Such pleasure took the Serpent to behold This flowery plat, the sweet recess of Eve Thus early, thus alone: Her heavenly form Angelick, but more soft, and feminine, Her graceful innocence, her every air Of gesture, or least action, overawed His malice, and with rapine sweet bereaved His fierceness of the fierce intent it brought: That space the Evil-one abstracted stood From his own evil, and for the time remained Stupidly good; of enmity disarmed, Of guile, of hate, of envy, of revenge: But the hot Hell that always in him burns, Though in mid Heaven, soon ended his delight, And tortures him now more, the more he sees Of pleasure, not for him ordained:...

Ubuntu (Linux distribution)

I failed this on the basis that as an ordinary encyclopedic reader (and OS X/Windows user), I didn't really pick up on many concepts in the article. See my rationale. There is some dispute about this, so I need one or two more editors to look at it. —Rob (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've looked over this article before and I've taken a second glance after noticing the failed GA on the talk. Reviewing the guidelines for what GA is, I don't see on the talk how this has been infringed upon and I'm baffled as to how this article doesn't warrent a GA tag. I strongly recomend this article as GA canidate. -Zero^Talk 18:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've looked over the revisions, and they definitely help the article. I still wish there was a bit more detail on why Ubuntu needed to be split off from Debian. But I'm starting to think what I was looking for may be something looked for in a FA candidate, not a GA candidate. In any event I'll revert the decision. —Rob (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Killian documents

This article was tagged with {{GA}} which gratified me as I had just finished a rewrite for various reasons. I wanted to find out more about how an article gets named "Good" so I went to Wikipedia:Good articles but I couldn't find the articles's nomination or promotion in the page history. I do think it's a good article but I believe the only fair thing to do is list it here and ask for review. Thatcher131 04:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

User:KI put the GA tag on here. It was not nominated, or discussed. Moreover, a nomination tag was never placed on the Talk page, as required. Speedy removed accordingly. Lister has apparently done this before. As a long time editor of that page, I'd also dispute whether it's really a good article anyway. Derex 04:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Derex, it could be a lot better article, if you would stop calling the other editors there idiots, like you did to me here. Merecat 23:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Procopius

Uhh where to begin, no lead per WP:LEAD, only refrences is some futher reading, writing is rather bad on the article, not good Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a lead - rather too short, but it's there. "Procopius (in Greek Προκόπιος, c. 500 - c. 565) was a prominent Byzantine scholar of the family Procopius. He is commonly held to be the last major ancient historian" is a pretty good summary of Procopius in two sentences. I don't understand "writing is rather bad on the article" (I presume you are trying to say that the quality of writing is deficient, but it is certainly one of the better-written articles I have seen on Wikipedia, perhaps because it was based on a Nupedia article: it is written in the style of E.B. though, rather than the blander style that predominates here, and includes phrases like "we know" which would probably be frowned upon by the MoS). The lack of a references section strikes me as unacceptable. The article dates back to the very earliest days of Wikipedia, before the use of a "references" section became standard. It is likely that the "further reading" section actually contains the references used to write this article. Unfortunately, we're unlikely to ever know. There's also no way that the claims in the article could be easily sourced to a particular referece work. So, while I disagree that this fails WP:LEAD and this is surprisingly well-written material, the lack of references probably snuffs this one out, unfortunately.TheGrappler 12:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Delist - referencing not adequate by contemporary Wikipedia standards. Metamagician3000 08:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Prince George, Duke of Kent

I think much of this article makes POV assertions as though they were fact: for example 'the [royal] family, who are famously philistine...'. Using the verb 'to be' (are) in this sentence instead of a conditional or some kind of hedge such as 'are often regarded as' is inappropriate for an encycopaedia. Other phrases such as 'Given George V's famously dull brain...' are not only too colloquial for an encyclopaedia but would be difficult to verify, frankly. I'm also not sure how reliable the single source from which all the articles assertions about the Duke's personal life is.Daviddariusbijan 22:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Casimir effect

Sorry, but I find the section on Vacuum Energy in this article to be quite opaque, despite the insistence by some writers to the contrary, and would suggest it needs to be amended before the article is considered finished.--Adambrowne666 09:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Gordon Brown

Gordon Brown - Should be reconsidered; IMO the point of view is not neutral, with numerous instances of either praise for Dr Brown or, on the other extreme, plain ridiculous passages, e.g.:

'"Prudence" became Brown's catchphrase in his early years, and he cultivated a dour and even miserly airobtaining thick callouses on his plamsw from rubbing them together and cackling with glee, though he is apparently known to friends and constituents as a good-humoured and even romantic man, these are generally seen fro what they are, un-adulterated brown nosing. '

and,

'Blair promised to give Brown complete control of economic policy in return for Brown not standing against him in the election, Him paying for the meal, not lkilling his dog and making sure those "photographs" disappear'

• If "Good article" standards had "humerous" in them, then by all means, this shouldn't be removed. Is it possible to somehow fix those sentences however? Homestarmy 01:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Article appears to have been fixed. Referencing quality isn't great and there are extensive inline links - it really needs to be converted into <cite> format. However, while far from FA, it is probably a "low end" GA for now. TheGrappler 16:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - just doesn't seem quite strong enough to me, especially in the standard of referencing. Metamagician3000 08:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The quality of non-inline referencing is actually very strong in this article: five biographies and one more general book on New Labour. "Bibliography" is equivalent to references, if you look at WP:CITE. The only problem is that references are not inline so the provenance of individual facts is unobtainable - not acceptable at FA, but it'll do for GA. TheGrappler 13:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a reasonable view, I guess, but it's the provenance of individual facts that I was referring to. I don't expect it to be at as high a standard as I would for FA, but I'm asking for more than I see here. Metamagician3000 13:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ramesses II

The lead section is really confusing and as per his life, it is really tough to know what happened in his early years, when he was a co-ruler with his father. Other basics informations are left out of his biography ... the prose is also really tough to follow. Lincher 20:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Japanese war crimes

Many of the atrocities reported under this article have not been charged as war crimes or happened under internal affairs by lawful cession of Korea and Taiwan. I cannot see how all this dubious composition or merely the title itself could warrant the tag unless those who nominate and ascent to it have ulterior motives, namely to apply undue stigma that is attached with 'criminal conduct' against the Japanese.

I know one other user who would appear sympathetic, if not subscribing with my view. Philip Baird Shearer who frequently reviews the Japanese war crimes article in discussion and a proactive editor of the Allied war crimes article to preserve the true definition and principle of war crimes as established by war tribunal case law,international treaties and ICJ judgments. He would also suggess his unsatisfaction of the former article in the Allied War Crimes discussion page:

It's obvious that a catasrophic loss of human lives like the A-bomb should be in here. It should be noted that German and Japan war crimes articles contain un-charged atrocities under the tutelage of war crimes. I wonder if the double standard should prevail any further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.211.80 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

His reply:

:This is an article on Allied war crimes, not Allied atricities. Which list of German war crimes are you referring to? I agree that the Japanese war crimes article needs a lot of work (you will find some of my comments on the talk page). I have spent a lot of time editing the List of war crimes putting in references and asking citations for those without references. Are you realy suggesting that this article should be degraded to to match the Japanese war crimes article. Would it not be better to alter the other articles to the same standard as this one? --Philip Baird Shearer 23:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)