Jump to content

User:VeblenBot/C/GAR/58

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fullmetal Alchemist

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: not listed Pyrotec (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I am bringing this up for community reassessment since I believe the recent individual reassessment by User:Adam Cuerden was largely in error, seen at Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist/GA2. Specifically, his arguments eventually boiled down to how the article was structured instead of applying the GA criteria to the content in the article itself. Furthermore, his suggestions for restructuring would not be without controversy, as has been the subject of much debate recently with article families such as Ghost in the Shell and Neon Genesis Evangelion, but that's beside the point. Adam appeared to be intentionally finding fault with the article so that he could eventually delist it, which goes against the general spirit of GAR which is meant to help editors improve an article back to GA-level, so this is also one of my arguments for a flawed review.

I do not believe the article warranted a delisting, because in its current form, it largely exhibits qualities and structure that have been apart of WP:ANIME for many years now, something which had been decided by consensus and then written into WP:MOS-AM. Specifically, the project has featured articles such as School Rumble and Tokyo Mew Mew which share the same general structure of Fullmetal Alchemist, so I do not believe Adam's issues with how the article is structured should be taken into account when applying the GA criteria. Not that the article didn't have some other, relatively minor issues in comparison, but those could have been fixed if Adam gave editors the time needed instead of a speedy delisting. Adam did bring up some concerns about how the article needs a general copyedit, and there was also a little bit having to do with sourcing (there is at least one {{cn}} template in the article, and some other concerns with a few sources), but his assessment in regards to criterion 3 is largely in opposition to how WP:ANIME has treated articles in the past, like in the two featured articles I linked above.

So does the article have some problems? Sure, it probably does, but they are relatively minor issues that could easily have been worked on and therefore had its GA status retained instead of having a near-pointless delisting almost entirely based on the structure of the article. If there was going to be a discussion about the structure of the article and how to organize its information, then GAR is clearly not the place to do so.--十八 21:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is a copy-paste from that assessment as to why I failed it. Given it's broken down by the GA criteria, I don't think that's a fair assessment at all. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


Further, WP:MOS-AM has never received community approval, and goes against actually approved guidelines and policy, including ones directly linked from WP:WIAGA. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
If WP:WIAGA says (as it does in criterion 1) that the material must follow WP:LEAD, and WP:LEAD says, as it does, that "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" - then the article must do that to pass criterion 1. This is not something that can be overridden by a Wikiproject.
If WP:WIAGA says (as it does in Criterion 3) that the article must follow Summary Style, then it needs to follow that to pass GA. The Anime Wikiproject can't overturn that.
These are written into the GA criteria. The Anime Wikiproject's suggestions are not. End. Of. Story. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
There is nothing in MOS-AM that goes against WP:LEAD. Indeed, Wikipedia:MOS-AM#Lead actually echos the sentiment of WP:LEAD and links to it at the end of said section. Furthermore, MOS-AM notes in WP:MOS-AM#Content point one regarding the use of WP:SS in an article, which (again) echos what is written at WP:SS and gives a link to said guideline at the end of the sentence.
If MOS-AM is taken more as a style guide of anime/manga articles, then there's nothing specifically at issue with it that goes against any specific guideline or policy. Just saying it does doesn't mean it's true. That MOS was largely decided by consensus by WP:ANIME over the years, and since it almost entirely deals with how anime/manga articles are structured, its kind of a moot point. If the MOS was so against established guidelines, then how, pray tell, did School Rumble pass as an FA a few years ago?--十八 21:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
You're avoiding the main point: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" - This article doesn't do that in the slightest, because it focuses so much on the manga, when over half the article is on other adaptations.
Please respond to the actual points raised about the article. Further, I note that even you don't claim the article currently passes the GA criteria, you yourself mention the need for a copyedit and citation needed tags, so I don't see how you could possibly expect this article to be restored to GA status. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The lead, as it is now, introduces the topic as a manga, gives a brief synopsis, touches on the fact that there were various adaptations, and goes into its reception. So to say the lead doesn't reflect the body of the article doesn't really make sense to me. The lead of an article of this size is only meant to be 3 or 4 paragraphs at most per WP:LEAD. There simply isn't enough room to add in a much more detailed description of the adaptations beyond writing a separate paragraph for it.
The spirit of a GAR is not to force a delist; it is to bring up issues with the article and give editors the necessary time to improve the article, the latter of which I do not believe was done. Since your review was largely based on the article's structure, and I believe this to be a flawed argument as I have explained above, then the rest of the article's issues are relatively minor and could easily be fixed, including the issue with the lead, copyediting, and any sourcing concerns. This re-reassessment is to determine the validity of your claims related to the article's structure and if that can be applied to the GA criteria or not. The other concerns are minor in comparison.--十八 21:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think any neutral observer would consider this "A concise version of the article" that "briefly summarize[s] the most important points". Whilst the anime is at least mentioned in the lead, the points about it covered are mere trivialities - a dry listing of distribution and production companies. Further, it contains factual errors - Bones produced the second anime series, but co-produced the first one; the lead states instead that they produced both. But even besides the factual error, this can hardly be considered the "most important points".
Further, look at the actual content. "its dub were distributed in other regions by Madman Entertainment, Revelation Films, or Manga Entertainment" - ignoring the grammatical error, this is uncited in the rest of the article - a Criterion 2 violation. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
And this is why I closed it. The more you look at and check this article, the more problems spring out. The closer you look, the more problems you'll fine. We haven't even touched on the citations to Amazon.jp, or Amazon.fr, or the other issues, and, frankly, I find it rather poor form that you are picking up one point you think is easy to attack me over, whilst ignoring the many, many other issues I raised. As said before, even you agree that it doesn't stand up to GA as it is, but nothing has been done to fix the citations (Criterion 2), nothing has been done to copyedit the article (Criterion 1), and that's before we get to the structural problems, the lead problems, and all the rest. It's simply bad faith to open a reassessment when no work has been done to fix the problems you agree are problems with the article. Further, you're arguing a strawman of my points. I have said repeatedly that, if the lead was rewritten to explicitly be about the franchise, and the body text was reorganised a bit so that, for example, the anime and Light novels material was positioned together, it could be a decent article, whilst still putting everything together. But the lead presents it explicitly as being on the manga, and for an article supposedly on the manga, it lacks focus.
You could either spin the anime and other adaptations out to focus on the manga, or you could attempt to make the article put information on the manga together, information on the anime together, information on the light novels together, etc, rewrite the lead to begin "The Fullmetal Alchemist franchise began as a manga, and has been adapted to..." and have what you actually seem to want, an article covering everything about Fullmetal Alchemist. But, as it stands, you're merely misleading the readers. Since I doubt anyone is actually bothering to read my comments before responding, mention if you've read this sentence. I think you'd have a far easier time taking the first of the two options, but the second is possible, if you're actually willing to put the work in.
I do wish you'd actually read the detailed analysis of what I see as the problems, and respond to it, point by point. Long story short, even without the structural issues, this would clearly fail GA. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The nature of anime and manga does not lend itself well to creating separate articles for each media type because of the large overlap that exists between the source material and its adaptations. The difference in the first anime's plot would not be sufficient enough reason to split all of the anime information into its own article, especially when it would result in an underdeveloped article. This is why, in lieu of having a separate and quite unnecessary "franchise" article for most series, the media information that would appear in such an article is simply merged into a single, main article that focuses on the original material, and also provides information related to its adaptations, and any production and reception information for the series. This is why the topic is introduced as a manga and not a franchise: because the series would be nothing if not for the manga. There is nothing about this structure that goes against Wikipedia policies or guidelines, and you seem to be the only one voicing concerns about it. And there is nothing against merging a franchise article's general structure into another article if the information can be adequately provided in a single article.
Furthermore, it's pretty confusing when you first say "whilst GA may not look at the overall structure of groups of articles" and then later on say "It fails to use appropriate spinoff articles". So which is it? Judge this article's content for what's on the page, not what articles link to it.
And then you mention criterion 3a and bring up "critical analysis" and "discussion of themes". Well, going by WP:WIAGA, it states that the GA criteria "allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail" and does not necessarily require the "comprehensiveness" for FAs. Setting aside the fact that some of the analysis for the series is already in the current reception section, there may not be reliable sources readily available for a more detailed analysis and/or discussion of themes, but while these things may be required for an FA, it certainly is not required for a GA. The fact of the matter is, the article merely needs to "address the main aspects of the topic", which I believe the article already does: it discusses the plot, production, media types and reception. Again, comprehensiveness is not a requirement for GA.
And I've already addressed some of what you said about the copyedit and referencing, and I still think they're minor issues that could easily be fixed if actually given the time to address them. Amazon.com and its variants have been used to reference release dates in the past in a variety of articles, and has been brought up at WP:RS/N a number of times, but when no other source can be found, it is used as a last resort.--十八 00:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


Okay, let's try this a different way, since this seems to keep coming back to the same points, when the other ones not being discussed are surely enough to fail GA over. Here is a list of all, or at least most, of the major points I think this article fails, feel free to comment after each point, in fact, I would prefer you did, since I cannot see how this does not fail if even a few of these points remain. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

  • A. WP:LEAD - linked to from Criterion 1, says that the lead should be a "concise version of the article" that "briefly summarize[s] the most important points". Whilst the anime is at least mentioned in the lead, the points about it covered are mere trivialities - a dry listing of distribution and production companies. This cannot be considered a summary of the most important points. [WIAGA 1] Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • A-1 Further, it contains factual errors - Bones produced the second anime series, but co-produced the first one; the lead states instead that they produced both. [WIAGA 2] Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • A-2 Noone would ever expect that this was the only article on Wikipedia where the first anime's reception was covered, since the anime is not mentioned until the second paragraph. That's poor writing. [WIAGA 1] Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • B Trying to follow any thread in this article is made very difficult due to poor structure. For example, discussion of the animé takes place over four different sections ("Differences in the first anime adaptation", "Production", "Anime series", "Anime reception". [WIAGA 1] Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • B2Particularly in "Anime reception", this article does a terrible job specifying which animé is being discussed. [WIAGA 1] Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • C It's just not very well-written. Impenetratble sentences like "As the plot continued, however, she felt some characters were maturing and decided to change some scenes, resulting in some sketches of the faces of the characters being improvised." or weird sentence structures such as "as commented by Viz to avoid references to Christianity." abound. I think one of these was fixed, but they're just examples. A complete copyedit is necessary. [WIAGA 1] Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • D It has several citation needed tags; in addition to the ones already there, there were bits in the lead and infobox that don't appear to be cited. [WIAGA 2] Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • E Several references are to the various branches of Amazon.com, and one is to this page on About.com, which is, at the very least, a dubious source. [WIAGA 2] Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • F The plot summary section seems dubious from the view of original research, since it makes statements about the anime following the manga up to a certain point, then diverging, which seems like it should need a citation. [WIAGA 2] Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • G If this is meant to be an overview article, it fails to present itself as such. The lead fails to set up the structure of the article, so, while main points may be there, they aren't particularly accessible by users. [WIAGA 1, 3a] Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • H Summary style is linked to from WIAGA 3b, and thus forms part of WIAGA. This article goes about a strange variant of Summary Style that usesspinoffs that are extremely specific lists, meaning most of the content that would, in a normal article move to a subarticle have nowhere to go. [WIAGA 3b (Summary style)] Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • H-2: A list of episodes of the anime is not a substitute for an article on the anime when it means you have to leave lengthy reception section on the anime, amongst others, standing completely inappropriately in the manga article. A sane spinoff would let you move most of the anime discussion to the article on the anime, giving a good, tight overview article on the manga. [WIAGA 3b (Summary style)] Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I: You could either spin the anime and other adaptations out to focus on the manga, or you could attempt to make the article put information on the manga together, information on the anime together, information on the light novels together, etc, rewrite the lead to begin "The Fullmetal Alchemist franchise began as a manga, and has been adapted to..." and have what you actually seem to want, an article covering everything about Fullmetal Alchemist. But, as it stands, you're merely misleading the readers. I think you'd have a far easier time taking the first of the two options, but the second is possible, if you're actually willing to put the work in. [WIAGA 3] Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • J: The more you look at and check this article, the more problems spring out; as such, it's unlikely this could be fixed in any reasonable timeframe. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • K: You yourself agree this fails WIAGA 1 and 2. Is there any point having this discussion before these are fixed? Even if the structural points are ignored, it has [citation needed] tags, and needs a full copyedit, so it doesn't matter if you agree with me on the structural issues or not, this cannot be restored to GA status, making this argument pointless. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Pyrotec

[edit]

This seems to be a "simple argument" over whether a "failure" result at a GAN/GAR was justified. In such cases, there are two choices one is to open a community reasssessment (which was done here); the other is to fix the problems and renominate at WP:GAN.

Adam Cuerden is right the article this morning has {{citation needed}} flags, but looking at the article's history they were added in 5th September 2013 and they seem to have been added by Adam Cuerden. I've had a quick look at the lead and for a start I believe that it lacks neutrality, it reads more like a "sales pitch", for instance: ".... has enjoyed exceptional sales of 50 million volumes sold as of 2010" (its now 2013 so that is somewhat out of date); and "Reviewers from several media conglomerations had positive comments on the series and it remains an all-time favourite amongst Western and Japanese readers." (all-time favourite is hyperbole, the word "popular" could be used its more neutral). The article as it reads today is non-compliant, perhaps only marginally, but I doubt there is any case for overturning the last GAN Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist/GA2 as being flawed (the article appears to be non-compliant).

It is going to take some time to work out whether the last review was flawed, but I suspect that this community reassessment may well result in no action being taken, it's probably unlikely to result in a relisting at GA-level. At best, its going to result in a list of more "problems" that need to be addressed. There have been cases were a reviewer has added {{citation needed}} during the review and then used the present of these flags as a reason for failing the article. All that happened in those cases, was that the reviewer got criticised. The articles had to be "fixed" and renominated at GAN.

There are arguments above over whether the lead is compliant with WP:Lead and/or a WikiProject Lead guidance document. WikiProject guidelinks don't over-ride Good Article requirements, but they can be taken into account in deciding whether the scope of the article is "right". So, trying to argue that the lead is compliant with a WikiProject Lead guidance document is irrelevant.

So, think about what is the main aim of this reassessment, is it "reviewer bashing" or gaining GA-status, perhaps its a bit of both? As, I stated above, I doubt that this community reassessment will result in a "listing" verdict, but it is likely to result in suggestions of how that article can be improved so that its more likely to get through GAN at its next nomination. Pyrotec (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, there was a citation needed tag from before and to after the end of when I did my review; this was fixed during this community review, but while discussing things for the community review, I think yesterday morning. In the middle of this review, and I believe before the original citation needed was fixed,, I found the additional citation issues.
I apologise for any confusion over this point. Articles can easily represent a moving target, and it can be difficult to keep your aim focused precisely. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
That's OK. If there is a genuine desire to progress this "suggestion" that your review was flawed, then I will re-review the article as it existed on 3rd September 2013. Its a lot of effort and I don't think my results, i.e. that article is non-compliant with WP:WIAGA, will be different from yours, but I may well come up with different "problems the need fixing". However, the reviewer has a choice of three options: "list" (in this case "Keep"), "don't list" (in this case "delist") or put the review "on hold and await corrective action". Since I've not reviewed it I can't pre-judge whether I'd choose a "hold" in preference to a "delist". I suspect that it would not be a straight "Keep", since there appear to be problems that need fixing. Pyrotec (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with some of the comments here, while the adjectives used are similar to those used to sell a product, the works are indeed very prominent and iconic, dropping the adjectives wouldn't hurt at all though. As someone who knows the original material the problem is more basic for the GA criteria. The plot of the manga and not of the anime, movies or novels. The section for the first anime is fine, but the wording is weak and it is lacking in some major aspects that could be handled better. The last line "The story concludes in the film adaption Conqueror of Shamballa." does nothing for me as a reader. Production is lacking and missing Brotherhood and is unbalanced with manga production. The media section is what I expect for a topic overview of the page, while I'd prefer less release info in place of a better summary it is not too pressing if a detailed page exists. As it stands there is no such page. Some of the music issues have chronology issues that make it confusing, i.e. "The music for Fullmetal Alchemist was composed and arranged by Michiru Oshima, who won the 5th Tokyo Anime Award in the category "Best Music" for Fullmetal Alchemist the Movie: Conqueror of Shamballa." This leads you to believe the movie was first and the music for the anime was made after. Zero plot or story summaries for the video games, which have their own pages, an oversight here because it only consists of five titles. Reception is the problem, it divides the manga and the anime and novels, but it should give the full picture of the reception of the whole work including the general response to the games. The way it is broken up would be perfect for individual pages and they give the feeling of being tacked on and providing no feeling of the "whole". Also missing would be the themes found within the work and the cultural impact. While not important for every individual work, I'd expect this as a topic overview at the minimum. Yes, some of it is in the production section, but it needs to be dedicated in my eyes. Cultural impact is a big one, with Super Comic City having 1,100 doujin circles doing Full Metal Alchemist. Avoiding such material violates the broad criteria. Even in terms of pure content, the article is woefully inadequete. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the production is that author and the staff barely released material about the creation of the series. If I were to find more I would gladly add it but I can't do anything if it's all in Japanese. Also, I haven't been able to find anything about Super Comic City and I'm also not sure whether the few things I found are reliable.Tintor2 (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Just because you can't find sources in English means that an article can be of GA status; Wikipedia GAs need to be both broad in coverage to cover what is known and I already have several books with go in deep detail about this. Another glaring oversight is the OVAs... but I'd be willing to overlook some small things because only FA is comprehensive. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Wait, you know books about Super Comic City and FMA? So could you give me a hand with that because I don't possess anything about it.Tintor2 (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Easy source.[1] As for more I can give you online on this, none. The doujin matter is more Japanese centric and I got additional materials in books. I just spent some time fixing Persona 4 to renom it, but I still need the books for FMA and maybe some Japanese ones to really fix this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Progress

[edit]

This needs to be closed as failing or promoting to GA still. It seems to have really boiled down to structure preference. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't the reason it was opened for. And I don't think that this can be repromoted to GA without a full GA-style review to make sure it actually passes the issues it failed before. And there's a lot of dodgy sourcing still. For example, take citation 86, http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/detailview.html?KEY=SVWC-1034 - this is used to talk about how the CD includes "several of the background sounds used during key points in the main series and the first opening and ending theme songs" - I don't think a mere track listing can possibly source that; that's interpretation of what the songs are. The objection I have is that every time I spend a minute looking at this, I find a fairly major problem. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm now closing the community reassessment with a "not listed" outcome. There was no overwhelming evidence produced here that the original review was "flawed", so the status quo is to be maintained. The last review, WP:GAN, produced a "not listed" outcome and I'm keeping the current status of "not listed". I would suggest that the way forward is to improve the article and renominate it at WP:GAN, preferably in view of the outcome this GAR after undergoing a WP:PR first. I wish the article well. Pyrotec (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hope Solo

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Listed the initial GA nomination resulted in a fail due to the lack of discussion of Solo's sex symbol status. Consensus was formed here that the material mentioned in the "Magazines" section of the article is sufficient, especially considering that sex is not key to Solo's notability. Adabow (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article was failed based on a single subjective criteria (aka condition per WP:RGA) that is unsupported by any Wikipedia guideline. See "In popular culture" section of GA review for full detail. I am requesting that the article be re-assessed for Good article status. See WP:WIAGA for criteria and WP:RGA for guidelines. Hmlarson (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I am the reviewer of the article and encouraged this GAR. In my failing statement I named WP:WIAGA 3a as my reason for failing so this is actually a challenge to WIAGA 3a rather than RGA as stated above. I named no personal criteria, but rather WIAGA 3a. I named this because, like it or not, Ms. Solo is a "sex symbol". The vast majority of sex symbol articles on WP have an enumeration of listings in which they were recognized for their appearance. This is a very sexist thing to many and may offend some. However, all sex symbols that I looked at at WP:FA (Angelina Jolie, Preity Zinta and Kareena Kapoor Khan) listed or highlighted such lists. The only athlete/sex symbol at GA/FA that has both google image results with prominent nude/semi-nude results and numerous sex appeal list rankings is Lauren Jackson which actually omits such a list. However, former GA Maria Sharapova has such a list. Many other notable athlete/sex symbols like Jennie Finch have such a list. My fail is merely based on my opinion that the article can not be comprehensive without informing the reader of her listings on various sex appeal lists since we have identified several and the article omits them. This is a very small issue in the overall biographical summary, but still constitutes an easily rectifiable omission, IMO. As such I continue to Support my original close. The arguments are more detailed with more examples in the original close.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment this is a nice piece of work and needs not be diluted by an over-the-top obsession with the side issue that Solo may be considered subjectively as a "sex symbol". That's really incidental to her notability and is covered briefly already. The article does not fail WIAGA at all, it provides broad coverage without going into too much obsessive detail which seems to be what is being asked for here. So it should not have been failed on this singular issue. Please ensure the dab links are fixed... (Nike & Boys and Girls Club), and I'm happy to provide a more in-depth review. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

  • I've gotten the dab links handled. Courcelles 13:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Cool, I've made a couple of MoS changes, overall happy, time to promote the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Promote - The material Tony's fixated upon would be toxic to the article. "In April 2012 Solo took 41st place in The 50 Hottest Tomboys in Sports, a picture blog compiled by Amber Lee, hosted at Bleacher Report."[2] Really? A whole paragraph of this would be out of place and frankly awful. In fact, it could perhaps lay claim to being the worst paragraph in Wikipedia history. I thought the review took a bizarre turn when Tony typed reams of stuff about other female athletes he obviously rates as 'lookers'. The consensus there was that it's all purely subjective and a clear imposition of personal criteria. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

These were women secondary sources rated as "lookers", who all had content in their articles clarifying this public opinion. They were not my personal looker ratings as suggested. I never said a whole paragraph. I think Solo has about two sentences worth of recognition that could go along with her Body Issue stuff.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it's clear the consensus is that the topic has been adequately covered. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Two sentences? You dredged up loads of these trashy, search-engine-optimised photo blogs and demanded they be "adequately summarised"! Then you departed on a rambling stream of consciousness sojourn around selected other individuals. If all this is over two sentences, why bother? Can't you just write the sentences yourself and we can all move on? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promote. I think the "sex symbol" topic in question is handled adequately and tastefully as is, especially for GA standards. If the sole issue is the inclusion of rankings, I'll note that the Sharapova example's are buried in her Endorsements section, which uses publications of a vastly different league than those suggested for Hope's article. It would be undue weight to add much more than what has been said. Also on undue weight, please consider the time wasted on all of our parts by not coming to compromise on this small grievance days ago—let's let ties go to expediency. czar ♔ 13:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
    • The content that is included is tasteful. The content that is omitted could be handled as tastefully. In regards to not coming to a compromise, no one has proposed one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
All in all, this is more of a content dispute, better fit for a talk page discussion, and not something that precludes passing on GACR 3a, no? The compromise is that the article mentions the topic and that delving deeper can (optionally) happen after the GAN passes. czar ♔ 17:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
My hope in this GAR is in fact that "the article mentions the topic" and I have no problem with a GAN pass if it does. I have not done a full review of the topic, but found some material. How would you propose that the article mention the topic?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Direct quote from Hope Solo, from the article: “I'm an athlete—that's all I am. If a sex symbol is now a top female athlete, I think that's pretty amazing and it shows how far our country has come from the stick-thin models, from what you see in most magazines.” I believe it is adequately addressed by the subject herself; why will the article make her what she says she is not. It is a good article. Harvardton (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Her saying she is just an athlete reminds me of Basketball Hall of Famer Charles Barkley saying "I am not a role model".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
      • I think your position is clear here Tony, time to step away and allow others to discuss your approach at this GA without fear of your badgering responses I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
        • My position is not that she is like Charles Barkley, it is that 9 out of 10 sex symbol articles on WP include sex appeal list rankings. Why not Solo?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
          • Other stuff exists. And what makes the other stuff, most of it fancruft, and fourteen-year-old bikini obsessives correct? You're on your own with this odd crusade, that much is clear. To withhold a GA on the basis of your own clear personal requirements with no underwriting in WIAGA (broad coverage, not too focused on a single detail.... ) somewhat undermines your position on Wikipedia I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Hope Solo is a professional athlete with good looks. By wearing make-up, and appearing in a few modelling photo-shoots does not make her a symbol of anything else. People find her attractive does not make her a sex-symbol. The article has not omitted anything significant about her, and the article about her is the subject of discussion not some other individual. The omission is about some other article on the internet, not about her. Harvardton (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm involved in this article up to my eyeballs, but I think this is ready to pass as a GA. It covers the issues TonyTheTiger was concerned about at the review stage adequately, and since the GAN Hmlarson and myself have taken care of what referencing issues existed when this was nominated. Courcelles 20:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pedra da Gávea

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. Khazar2 (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Closer comment: Since there's clear consensus that there are serious errors here, and the article's original nominator agrees this should be delisted, there's no reason to let this turn into a pile-on. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This has recently been brought up at ANI, where several users have contested whether it should of been promoted to GA. User:AfadsBad, who appears to have outside knowledge on this subject area, has written a blog post summarizing the issues xe sees in the article. Personally, I would not of promoted this as a GA, but it is probably worth a community discussion on the issue. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

  • I concur with AfadsBad's assessment. At the time of this article's promotion it contained several glaring grammatical and spelling errors, the geology content appears to be nonsense, and the content of its sections is poorly structured. It should not have been promoted. — Scott • talk 08:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Would you agree that this adequately sums up the state of the article? John lilburne (talk) 08:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
HA! Yes! — Scott • talk 15:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Revoke its status now. It's an embarrassment of incompetence. Discussion is not necessary since the review was only done by one editor so surely one editor can revoke the claimed "good article" status. jps (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist. It seems there's some drama over this article which I'm blissfully unaware of. Nor, in the interests of avoiding a prejudicial opinion, have I looked at whatever blog post this spawned. But I can say that this article is far, far short of the quality standards expected by even GA. The geology content is unacceptably loose with terminology ("Morro"? This is a granite dome.), and at times factually wrong, misrepresenting what the sources actually say about the geology (especially regarding how dikes work and what does the intruding). And the referencing is far from ideal: summitpost.org doesn't strike me as a reliable source (but even there, it doesn't say what the article implies it does). This is a very well-studied feature; better sourcing should not be a challenge. Also, while GA isn't FA, this is not at all comprehensive (a discussion of climbing is warranted, at a minimum). Frankly, the volume of text dedicated to the Phoenician inscription in comparison to the paragraph and a half for everything else is a textbook example of undue weight. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
At the time of the GA listing, the article "Morro", upon which this article drew, had been tagged as unreferenced for four whole years. That was hardly surprising, because upon investigating, I found it to be one of those curious imaginary topics that form from time to time on Wikipedia as a result of compounded ignorance. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morro. — Scott • talk 15:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist. Ouch... Yeah, I'm the editor that nominated this, and I focused most of my time on the "inscription", and added what I thought was correct info regarding geology. Thanks to the "Bad Science" article, I believe I've fixed/removed all the bad info, but that doesn't make this a GA. Sorry for wasting everyone's time.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
    In my defense, I will say that AfadsBad was a little cataclysmic with some of his comments, but nonetheless, I have listened to him. Morro has been changed to "granite dome" per source given; the redundant phrase "igneous granite" has been removed (same with gneiss; I was trying to draw a difference between the two rocks, since one is igneous and the other is meta-sedimentary... aren't we supposed to write like the people reading are ignorant of the subject); the "introducing"/"intruded" fiasco has been fixed (that was just my bad... I read the source wrong); clarified, removed, and added sources point to what form of erosion (and counter to his point, source [8] refers to the face, which is the north side of the mountain, ergo, it's the "northern side"); and the section has been retitled to "Geology and ecology". Again, I will say, some of the blog's comments were a little spiteful ("A mountain is a stone outcropping? Poetic", his insistence that this is a WikiCup nomination), but he did provide some good points. I have tried to fixed all that I could. However, seeing as how the geology section is tiny on an article about a mountain, I can understand that this shouldn't really be a GA; I was basing most of the article around the "inscription" (I'm an anthropology and classics major, not a geologist)--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Lady Gaga

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept as GA; nominator provides no tangible examples of complaint, no votes to delist. Khazar2 (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This article reads as promotional material and as an advertisement, and appears to only show the subject matter in a biased positive light and needs correcting to be a more balanced and unbiased article.

erehrmannErehrmann (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

If you cannot point out by facts and cannot follow rules at WP:GAR, then cut it out. On a good faith, read the rules and then raise a GAR. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Association for the Study of Ethnicity and Nationalism

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted per unanimous consensus. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This article appears to be completely lacking in any form of independent references whatsoever. I am requesting a community reassessment of its GA status because it is not clear to me whether this is a valid reason for it being delisted as a GA. However, such a lack of independent references would certainly lead to it being declined at Articles for Creation or similar processes, and it seems irrational for it to retain GA status in such a condition. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I agree that this article should be delisted: the only non-ASEN source is the Blackwell Publishing one—now Wiley—which gives the only information about the organization that isn't by the organization itself. This is an article made almost entirely from a primary source that isn't very broad in its scope nor with adequate depth. I'm dubious as to whether it would even qualify beyond a C-class article today. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist. I don't see any way to salvage this as a GA, to say the least. This article has no truly independent sources. The only source that's not explicitly from ASEN itself is the information page of Nations and Nationalism at Wiley (formerly Blackwell). However, they are the publishers of that journal on behalf of ASEN; there's a degree of difference there, but it's certainly not independent coverage as generally considered. I'm really struggling to find appropriate replacement references. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Baichung Bhutia

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: delisted C679 12:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Same reason as Sunil Chhetri. There just seems to be a few things wrong here and before I dive into it I would love the opinion of the community. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

  • How can it be a good article without the stats table?The article has become outdated.More should be included in the managerial career.In club career before Bury heading a separate heading Early stints should be there.In the infobox why it is written "East Bengal Club"?its simply East Bengal.In International career what about his last match against Bayern Munich?A lot of improvements to be made.RRD13 (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • This article fails the B-class criteria, in particular B2, "The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies." This problem exists at the United Sikkim section and in the East Bengal (IV) section, including phrases such as "but the case between Mohun Bagan and Bhutia is set to continue until a final verdict is reached" (dating to 2009). Also MOS:PARAGRAPHS should be followed, single-sentence paragraphs are not desirable; there are numerous examples of these in the current article. Also agree with User:Royroydeb's comments above. The article has not been edited since 26 September, despite 10 days having elapsed to address concerns raised above, and consequently I am delisting it with immediate effect. C679 12:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Can a guy miss something on his watchlist? I literally did not know that Roy made a comment and thought that no one bothered commenting. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Salt

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Keep as GA. WP:RETAIN is not a GA criterion in itself, and a two-day edit war consisting of spelling changes cannot be read as a long-term stability concern. As pointed out, per the GAR instructions, this shouldn't have been brought here in the first place; the issue was quickly resolved on the article's talk page. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring due to WP:RETAIN. VMS Mosaic (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring on an article means that the article is not stable, so it by definition does not meet WP:GACR. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The stability is requiered at the moment of the GA review, not when the article is already a GA. Also WP:GAR states that "Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate, wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment." © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 01:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Any instability in this article is at least in part due to the actions of VMS Mosaic. To contribute to the instability and then to use instability as a reason for reassessing the article's status seems wrong to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

"Use this process if you find an article listed as a good article which does not satisfy the good article criteria." What part of that is hard to understand? This is a GA article which is undergoing edit warring with multiple editors other than myself. Cwmhiraeth, as an editor involved in creating this mess, I see your comment as being wrong to me. In fact I see a cabal of GA editors changing the spelling of an article per their non-neutral personal preference as being wrong to me. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Withdraw reassessment nomination. This nomination is both inappropriate and in bad faith. After Cwmhiraeth rewrote the article to bring it up to GA status in an exhaustive nomination, VMS Mosaic objected to the fact that she used UK English (of all things), and has been edit-warring with a number of people to put the article into American English. That's the entirety of the instability he is complaining about. Instability is not a valid reason for GA review, and this nomination is nothing but a POINT-y tantrum. – Quadell (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
One other editor made recent changes toward US English, but decided to back off in order to avoid getting tangled up in the dispute. One editor even tried to have my WP:GAR speedily deleted (which was a total misuse of speedy delete) in order to silence me. Fortunately, someone (I need to thank whoever it was) overruled the speedy delete. The issue is that I'm the first non-stub editor of the article who claims to have made the spelling consistent per WP:ENGVAR six years ago, and who has watched it ever since. Due to ill health I didn't see the spelling change (in direct violation of WP:RETAIN) until two weeks after it occurred. The unfortunate part (beyond my being sick) is that a cabal of GA editors believe they have the power to change article spellings at will without any possibility of decent. GA editors started this completely meaningless mess and now refuse to clean up the mess they knowingly and willfully created. Given that this was started by the GA process, it should be resolved through it, so this is a perfectly valid request per WP:GAR. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, multiple GA editors/administrators have shown bad WP:FAITH. Just to list a few: an invalid speedy delete request, bold faced lies about the spelling variants in several edits, admitting to willfully ignoring parts of WP:ENGVAR, claims that because the article is "international" it should use UK spelling, claims that this is nothing but a tantrum on my part (yes, I do take my neutral role as a specialist in WP:ENGVAR edits seriously given that I make many thousands of them), false claims that I am trying to change a long established UK spelling (even though the article has been US spelling for six years), ....
If didn't need a health break, there is a lot more bad WP:FAITH I could list, but my ability to edit has ended for tonight. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Close, per Quadell. This is more like a vendetta rather than a real assessment. WP:GACR is for articles listed at WP:GAN not WP:GA. WP:FACR has a less ambiguous explanation what "stable" mean and where it applies: "it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process", emphasis in the last sentence "except in response to the featured article process". It is not fair that because VMS has been disputing something in the article, the article is delisted because of this. If I edit-war at the WP:TFA, Bob Feller, I have the right to WP:FAR it? Of course not. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 23:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

As the discussion has been started here, I think that it can be continued here. This GAR could be one of the features of a dispute over language varation, but I am not entirely certain. If this is a dispute, then the tie breaker rules would apply. The guidelines are prescriptive when there is a dispute about language localisation. If there is a dispute here, then the guidelines can be applied, and I think that the most relevant issue would be WP:RETAIN and in particular; "When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default. If no English variety was used consistently, the tie is broken by the first post-stub contributor to introduce text written in a particular English variety." I have looked at the early use of language in the first 18 months, I am of the general impression that both UK and USA English are used to the extent that localisation is confusing; although my impression is that UK English predominates. The user who created the Salt article went on to made a number of edits. The creator's user page says that he or she lives in Slovenia and that he or she is not a native speaker of English and it seems that he or she used a mixture of UK and USA spellings, which clouded the issue of language localisation. Snowman (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The "Salt" article as it was when it was created at 11:51, 14 March 2005 had 6 level-2 sections and a prose size of 3969 Bytes or 670 words. It was not tagged with a stub template and it has the general appearance of a Start article. On its day of creation the article did not a have a stub template added, so it was not classified as a stub and never has been. I am going to examine each edit from article creation to find the tie breaker using UK and USA digital spell checkers separately with backup using the on-line Oxford English Dictionary, including both its USA and world dictionaries (I have access to the full OED site via my password). Anyone is welcome to check the spellings and I welcome double checking of my analysis. Note that sometimes pages containe both the UK and the USA versions of a word (ie aluminium and aluminum). Aluminium and aluminium may not be localising words because the default on chemical related pages is aluminium on the Wiki; however, the article appears to be a food article rather than a chemical article. I am listing the edits one by one from the time of article creation on 14 March 2005: Snowman (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It is actually quite difficult tracing this and using various spelling dictionaries on each page and diff, but anyone can double check. I hope I have put the links and diffs correctly; but if not, then reviewers can follow the edits for themselves. "Payed" is not UK English, but I am not sure if it is USA English or not. Does the use of the UK "practise" rather than the USA "practice" swing the tie breaker to UK English? Is there already a consensus or should the tie breaker apply? Any comments? Snowman (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

What Kind of Day Has It Been

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delist. Valid issues raised by nominator and Masem have not been addressed. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe this article meets the GA criteria. Concerns were raised on the talk page back in 2009, but nobody has fixed them.

  1. The article uses some problematic sources - TV.com and IMDB, and what makes this reliable? Or this?
  2. The article contains a few unsourced statements.
  3. There are no critical reviews to be found in the Reception section. I think those are pretty much required for an episode article.
  4. The two images fail WP:NFCC#8.

In closure, this article just doesn't meet the GA criteria. We have a lot of very high-quality episode articles on Wikipedia, but this isn't one of them at the moment. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I note I had looked at this article as part of a GA sweeps thing in 2008, where there were a lot of looser reqs for GA as their are now. I agree the images now fail with newer standards. TV.com is fine as long as it is one of the listed site editors, and the imdb parts can be replaced with actual news about the nominations. (But this points that the references are not formatted for today's requirements). If the episode was nominated for an award it like has critical reception out there to support that, but that does need to be found; though I do note that there's no really a requirement for an episode to have reception as secondary sources can come from other means to make the episode notable. I do agree now it fails GA and would take some work to get back there. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Turkish people

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted per consensus and the neutrality warning banner the article has carried since September, indicating serious instability. Khazar2 (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)}
  • The article was promoted to GA status without a single reviewer comment or modification. Just like *that*. This is highly dubious, I have never seen an article be promoted to GA in this fashion.
  • For many sources ([3] [4], and many others), no page numbers are provided. When this is brought up in the talkpage, it is met with belligerence, contempt, and hostility [5].
  • The article is plagued by a very persistent and ubiquitous Anatolianist/indigenist POV. Sources are misquoted/misused to push the POV that the modern Turkish people are the direct, lineal descendants of the heterogeneous collection of peoples known as the Ancient Anatolians. Unreliable sources such as Antonio Arnaiz-Villena are used throughout. The same info is repeated over and over for effect (e.g. the lede, then the history section, then the genetics section, for good measure). The editor responsible for this POV pushing is extremely belligerent, arrogant, incivil, and obdurate, it is impossible to reach an agreement with him in the talkpage. He only makes tactical withdrawals to return later with full force. This has been going on for several weeks and shows no sign of abating.
    • The "Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups" claim uses as a source the controversial work of Antonio Arnaiz-Villena which has been the recipient of severe criticism by the academic community [6].
    • Of the sources used to claim "Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups" in the lede, only the Yardumian source explicitly does so. The others do not. Roseer et al. only states that Turks "are between the Armenians and Greeks", Cinnioglu et al. only state that "The variety of Turkish haplotypes is witness to Turkey being both an important source and recipient of gene flow." Wells et al. state that "This finding is consistent with a model in which the Turkic languages, originating in the Altai-Sayan region of Central Asia and northwestern Mongolia (31), were imposed on the Caucasian and Anatolian peoples with relatively little genetic admixture—another possible example of elite dominance-driven linguistic replacement. ", but in this context it means all the inhabitants of Anatolia (Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, in addition to Ancient Anatolians, not the ancient Anatolians per se. To infer that"Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups" using these sources is source manipulation on a major scale.
    • The genetic impact of the settlement of millions of Balkan Muslims and Caucasus Muslims is ignored, we are led to believe that modern Turks are the direct lineal descendants of the Bronze Age populations, even though the statement most strongly supported by the literature is simply that "The genetic composition of Anatolia is extraordinarily varied and complex" (e.g. Cinnioglu et al.).
  • Population number inflation in the infobox. Sources are misquoted/misused, for example regarding the number of Turkish people in North Africa (Egypt, Tunisia , Algeria). For other countries, (USA, Australia), reliable sources such as national censi are relegated to a footnote or removed entirely, replaced by wild overestimates from Turkish newspapers and advocacy groups. Athenean (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The use of non-neutral words like "However" and "Furthermore" is widespread throughout the article when demographics or genetics are concerned.
  • Several other users have asked for a GA reassessment [7]. Athenean (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The controversy regarding genetics has been going on for weeks now, and shows no sign of abating. The article has been subject to edit-warring for well over the past month, a POV tag has been in place for quite some time now, in summary the article fails both the "neutrality" and "stability" criteria. Athenean (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Cinnioglu et al. also talk about Bronze Age Population, which supports the statement. Arnaiz-Villena et al. also supported the statement, which you randomly took out,[8] even though it is a peer reviewed journal article that has not been retracted. And controversy about Arnaiz-Villena was not relevant to any of the statements in this article. And even tho Arnaiz-Villena is the principal author in the first study in question, there are like 10 more other authors. Yardumian et al. is a review study and includes numerous studies. Other studies like Rosser et al. and Wells et al. are being cited in conjunction with other sources, since they say Turkic people did not replace locals. Cavann (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
"Locals" means anyone who was inhabiting Anatolia prior to the Turkic conquest. This includes Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, Arabs, Laz, Assyrians. You can't take a statement to the effect of "The conquering Turkic tribes did not replace the local population" to mean "Modern Turks are descended from ancient Anatolians". As far as I can tell, the only source that explicitly backs that claim is Yardumian, which, even though a review, has been cited only once. As far as Arnaiz-Villena, I hope that the case is closed following the result of your post to RSN. Athenean (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment: It is quite weird that Athenean are calling these sources [9] (e.g., Arnaiz-Villena et al., Yardumian et al.) [10] ( "Turks: nationality", Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East) "unreliable." Genetics section talks about ancestry in greater detail. Prehistory section is about relevant historic info, such as Hittites etc. The part of it in question is only one paragraph.[11] One sentence, 'Various genetic studies suggested that these indigenous populations form the basis of modern Turkish population today,[76][68] with the "genetic continuity of Anatolia’s Iron Age populations into the Seljuk, Mamluk and Ottoman eras."[68]:18', is there to explain relevance, about why we are talking about Ancient Anatolians, etc. I had looked at various GA ethnicity articles, and kinda emulated British people (e.g., British_people#Ancestral_roots) before I improved Turkish people article.
Frankly, this looks likes an abuse of GA reassessment process. Besides his various personal attacks against me here, Athenean is bringing this assessment during an edit war.Cavann (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Stability and Neutrality are key elements of a GA. Currently this article has neither. There has been a POV template there for a while now, and you have been edit-warring ad behaving in WP:OWN fashion for several weeks now. Athenean (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
You have got to be joking. This looks like a personal attack page ("The editor responsible for this POV pushing is extremely belligerent, arrogant, incivil, and obdurate, it is impossible to reach an agreement with him in the talkpage. He only makes tactical withdrawals to return later with full force. This has been going on for several weeks and shows no sign of abating.") in addition to moving a content dispute here, rather than any serious attempt to improve Wikipedia. I will ignore the discussion here until neutral third party editors get involved. Cavann (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I welcome that this review request may bring neutral editors to Turkish people article, so they can have a look at the issues and sources. However, your reassessment request is still appropriate, as you filed it during edit warring [12], even though you were warned in the article talk page that "Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate." [13] Cavann (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Per reassessment criteria this is appropriate since "If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered.". Actually per talkpage discussion the article was never close to stability the last 3 months.Alexikoua (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I knew this was coming. The article has a lot of problems that must be sorted out before being accepted as a GA status article. The nominator and the reviewer made almost no note of this. The Talk Page highlights much of these problems in addition to Athenean's concerns outlined here. First and foremost, claims from sources written by controversial academics who have rarely been referred to and are almost unheard of in today's academia were used to make bold and controversial claims. These claims and sources are already being examined by the WP:RS community so I am not going to lay them out here. Continuous edit-warring and problematic edits have severely tarnished this articles stance as being a GA article. If the article needs reassessment, I believe all editors involved with the concerns raised in the talk page of the article to reach a consensus or to somehow involve non-involved editors/admins to help them do so. We can't have this going on forever. As for my opinion, I support a reassessment of the article as a GA. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Without commenting on the article in and of itself, I should note that many diffs from 2009 were plagiarism additions by User:thetruthonly. I'm not sure how much of his revisions remain in the article, since there has been a very large number of edits since, but they will have to be reviewed on google books for this to remain a GA. His diffs are here: (+6070)(+975)(+747)(+1322)(+1761)(+794)(+6800). Wizardman 18:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Only material in diff 794 remain (in architecture). I'll fix it once the article gets out of page protection.Cavann (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Went ahead and rewrote. It's unsourced unfortunately since I found an old clean revision, so that will have to be fixed once the article is unprotected. Thanks for looking them over. Wizardman 19:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It does look as though there are some real problems here. Looking back over how some of the sources and stats have been used raises some real questions for me, and the sources I'm able to easily check aren't backing up the cited claims being made. I'd support a reassessment. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Some issues are in dispute resolution Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Turkish_people. I would welcome a reassessment after this. Cavann (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Original research, as concluded above, and falsification of the given sources are noticeable, even from the lede. I've initially asked for full citations (quotes/pages), since I couldn't find where was that written in the references. No wonder, I can conclude with certainty now (after full citations have been provided) that the problematic issues are too obvious, so a delisting will be unavoidable, in case no major rewording and restructuring takes place soon.Alexikoua (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
There are multiple copyright violations concerning the status of images as pointed here [[14]]. This leaves me no doubt to ask for speedy delisting.Alexikoua (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - This article has serious issue with NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE because of undue weight given to some interpretations of the genetic researches. That is why it also does not meet (at least) fifth GA criteria because it is not stable due to ongoing dispute about this issue. Note: I am one of involved editors who expressed more than once my, I believe, valid concerns about this issues and supported my position with scholarly secondary sources clearly presented at article's talkpage. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - There's more copyright violations. A photograph from the main body of the article has recently been removed due to copyright violations (see here). Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
And? Where is the copyright violation now if that image has been deleted? The image used to have "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported" licence in Commons btw. Kevin (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violations were there when the GA review was conducted. This means that the review did not take into consideration the copyright status of photographs and texts along with other issues that have been aforementioned. That's why we are here for a reassessment. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • De-list - ASAP its clear a proper assessment was not done to begin with. Also clear that the article is not even close to stable. -- Moxy (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

2006 Lebanon War

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. Consensus is to delist for POV issues (criterion 4) as well as excessive length/detail (criterion 3b). Khazar2 (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

First part of the article is written from Israeli perspective, as the good guys defending against the bad Arabs who started the war. Amply and undue describing a border raid in the lead.Then 3 sections about Hezbollah actions. Then bogged down in details. Badly written POV article, much too long. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment - About 12% of the edits to the article in 2013 are by sockpuppets of banned and blocked editor AndresHerutJaim, who also happens to be a racist ultranationalist Israel supporter (you can google him). Sockpuppets have included Timiccby, LindaSakinto, 200.123.138.193, IranitGreenberg, Michael Zeev and Frentsin. They are the #1 contributor to the article this year, in terms of edit count, with almost twice as many edits as the next person. There seems little chance of significantly improving the article under these circumstances. Semi-protection is ineffective. Perhaps it needs full protection so that every change has to be worked out on the talk page before being implemented by an admin. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is way too long and confusing, and the timeline doesn't really give a good picture of the course of the war. Before rating this as a good article, we should 1) get rid of the timeline and replace it with a good summary of the war, and 2) remove huge loads of redundant information. Before serious improvements are done, this article should not be rated as a good article. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Images that convey sympathy towards Israel are way overrepresented. Likewise, the very few Israeli casualties were bizarrely listed first in the infobox, though over a thousand Lebanese civilians died. I changed the order, but this was reverted. Weirdly, Lebanese civilians are also lumped together with combatants, as if to obscure the actual number of civilians killed. It certainly does not come off as a neutral article. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with all the comments above. The article is very bad, full of irrelevant and incorrect stuff. The timeline section should removed. There is a separate article called Timeline of military operations in the 2006 Lebanon War where we can put the redundant stuff. We also need a new section on the ground war. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe this article has changed a lot since these comments, but I am not seeing any POV issues with the use of the images. Agree that the lead does go into a little bit too much detail on the first strike. The first four sentences in the second paragraph in the lead could be easily condensed. Not sure if that rises to delisting though. The main concern for me is focus. The timeline is way too detailed for an article of this nature and the table of Israeli casualties doesn't belong in that format. As an aside the non free images do not contain appropriate rationals for use in this article. AIRcorn (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Unless some significant improvements are made to the article, I think delisting is the best way to go with this. The page has changed massively since it was promoted more than six years ago (it's increased in size by over 100,000 bytes), and the quality doesn't seem to have been maintained. It needs a thorough review, especially of the use of references. The entire section on "psychological warfare" is attributed to one very unreliable source. Osiris (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Ethanol

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. There hasn't been any further comment here either way, but the problems the nominator points out are obvious and longstanding. I'd also add that the four-sentence lead seems much too short for such a lengthy article. Khazar2 (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This article was promoted way back in 2007, when standards were much more lenient. It is now comparatively short on references, and has at least 8 {{cn}}s. It should be fixable with a few more refs and some copyediting from somebody. Jamesx12345 18:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Murray Rothbard

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: No consensus. This is a tough close to make. Consensus in August clearly favored delisting if revisions weren't made. Since that time, though, massive revisions have indeed been made, making it unclear what if any comments apply to the new draft; only one editor returned to the discussion, !voting for keep. I'm therefore closing this as "no consensus" (by default, a keep). If reassessment of the new draft is needed, it seems logical for that to take place in a new GAR--and this time we'll keep an eye on it to make sure action is taken more promptly once a consensus is reached. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I was hesitant to request this, but the page has been tagged for over two months now with multiple content concerns. Talk page discussions about these do not appear to be progressing to any near-term resolution. As a result there are significant concerns about the article meeting GA criteria #2 (verifiability), #4 (neutrality) and #5 (stability). Maybe this reassessment will be the spur to get these issues taken care of, but if not, it should not continue to be portrayed as a "good article" if it doesn't meet the criteria. --RL0919 (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that the WP:GAR guideline directs us to try and bring a GA quality level back to the article. The point is not to remove GA status (though this must be done if it does not improve) but to improve it sufficiently. Binksternet (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this is my hope as well. I also wanted to let the disputes resolve themselves first, but they seem locked in. Maybe more eyes on the article will shake them loose. --RL0919 (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I would say the current defects of the article relate to the following GA criteria:

  • Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic;and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  • Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

    There's a lot more work to do on this article in order to present a fair and balanced description of Rothbard and his views. SPECIFICO talk 00:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

    Considering article probably was made a Good Article around 2007 discussion here anyway, it would be surprising if in these days of tougher standards on sourcing and NPOV that it still was considered good.
    The main edit warring, by the way, has been related to those who constantly have done problematic edits or made dubious statements which have to be discussed ad nauseam on the talk page and at noticeboards, wasting the time of those trying to do NPOV edits. A perfect example is this absurd posting claiming that because an (assumedly) books.google search link includes a term that the author thinks is prejudicial (like "murray rothbard" and economist!) that the returns from that search should not be used!!! Let's just outlaw using books.google entirely, if that is an issue. And, of course, even if there was such an absurd rule, one could always use such a search to find the material and then redo the search in the relevant book to make it more neutral on those occasions when it's relevant. (Like "Murray Rothbard" "king of the world" or whatever.) I've done it a number of times myself over the years. Hopefully we won't have to waste hours debating that point, holding up valid research. User:Carolmooredc 14:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    Update
    • Work is progressing on the biography, work that is expected to result in a much better article, one conforming to GA guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
      • RL0919, Binksternet, Carolmooredc, what's the status on this one? Has it been updated satisfactorily to close as keep? If not, what remains to be done? -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
        • I think the article has stabilized sufficiently to keep its GA status. Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

    Sunil Chhetri

    [edit]
    Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
    Result: Delisted. Article still has some unsourced statistics, as the nominator points out (failing criterion 2b). There also seem to be some issues with WP:LAYOUT (criterion 1b), such as the many short subsections and the unusual format for subheadings. Nomination has been open for several weeks with no action. Khazar2 (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC).

    First of all, I am still wondering how this page passed the first time, I revamped the page a bit a few months ago and the amount of unsourced information and mistakes in sentences and grammar were numerous. Personally, before going back into the article to get some more revamping done I would like to hear from the community on what they think I should do and how I can improve the article to get it to good-article status again. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

    @ArsenalFan700: can you clarify in what ways the current draft doesn't qualify for GA? It sounds like you've already checked/fixed it, and GAR really isn't a place to get general feedback. You might try Peer Review if you're interested in improving the article in a more general way. Thanks for taking this one on! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
    Perhaps a peer review would have been better for this. However, in terms of getting this article fixed, I only did it up to the International section. The rest is still the same with what I believe to be plenty of errors with unreferenced work. Anyway, I will start the PR and see where it goes. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
    Looking more closely at this one, I see your point; I misunderstood originally and thought you had cleaned up the issues already. Sorry about that. Thanks for your work to clean parts of this up, and to bring this to the community's attention. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

    Force

    [edit]
    Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
    Result: No consensus to delist. If some of these citations are inaccurate as RockMagnetist suggests, this is worrying and would probably be sufficient grounds for future delisting; I'd recommend that these citations be checked by editors familiar with the subject. But there still seems to be doubt here, discussion has stalled, and there's no consensus to delist. Khazar2 (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC).

    It doesn't read that easy. References are not setup properly with multiple sources in one reference that is cited over and over. This article needs to be rewritten entirely while viewing and fixing the sources for accuracy. The main problem is that there are multiple citations in one reference being used.Cky2250 (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

    Well, since the frequently cited reference is The Feynman Lectures on Physics, I think this is excusable. And there are plenty of other sources cited too. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
    It is not that the sources are bad but that format in which they are cited is. A lot has changed since 2008, so I believe a full view of the article should be done before it is given a good status again.Cky2250 (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I understand what things like "it doesn't read that easy" means. Specific recommendations can be dealt with. As for the claim that there is a problem citing "one reference", I don't think that's true in this case. The reference being cited is top-notch. There's no reason to cite any others as far as I can tell. If the claim is that the "format in which they are cited is [bad]," well, I'm not sure I know what the appropriate "format" being requested is. More clarity on what the problems are would help me understand the concerns. jps (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
    Agreed. A list of specific issues cross-referenced to the good article assessment criteria would be a big help. Note that WP:GAR (point 3) says explicitly that inconsistently formatted citations are not grounds for de-listing. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
    I don't think you are getting what I am saying. There are 2 books being referenced within the same "ref". Multiple times. They are separate books. That is one problem bad citation, it isn't the format it is that it is bad. Second thing is that equations and explanations do not read easily. How would something be rated good when it has incorrect information, and citation.Cky2250 (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
    I don't think I understand either. What's wrong with 2 books being referenced within the same ref? Secondly, what is incorrect and what don't you find easy to read? jps (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
    I think there is a problem with those references. First, twenty six statements are attributed to the same two pages in Kleppner and Kolenkow. I can't access the pages online, but – if those pages really support all of those statements, either they are remarkably dense pages or there is a lot of repetition in this article. The citation of Feynman has the opposite problem - no page numbers at all. I would say the citations don't satisfy WP:BURDEN: "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)." RockMagnetist (talk) 01:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
    This is a case where the {{rp}} template will really help. I have split the two citations and started to implement that. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
    I am starting to get the impression that these two books are frequently used in Hail Mary cites, where an editor seemed to hope the subject was discussed somewhere in these volumes, or at least that it would satisfy reviewers. I discuss an example in Talk:Force#Feynman didn't say that, but there are several other dubious cites. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
    I think improving the references of this article is an admirable goal, and I would encourage those who are concerned about the subject to do this. Most of the material in this article is so elementary that finding a source is about as difficult as putting the statement into google. jps (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Retain. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of work that can and should be done here. Reference formatting is inconsistent and in some places flatly incorrect. I'd like to see some of the explanatory notes pull out into a different section than the reference/bibliographic notes for readability. And, sure, there's some work to be done on the prose. This isn't a FA-level article, but this isn't FAC/FAR, and I can't see where anything has been claimed to fall short of the GA criteria here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
    @Squeamish Ossifrage: This GAR was closed last November - see the top of this section. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

    BGM-75 AICBM

    [edit]
    Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
    Result: Keep. This discussion is less focused than many GA reviews, debating "meta" questions as much or more than the individual article; I'm hesitant to summarize a discussion where almost no one talked in terms of keeping or delisting. It seems safe to say, however, that at a minimum there's no consensus to delist here, and the article is therefore kept. Khazar2 (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
    Opening comments and early discussion on 9 August 2013

    Considering good article criteria: Snowman (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

    • Criteria 1a. Some jargon is difficult to understand. I do not know what a hardened silo is and what difference 10 times hardening would make. I also do not know what a super-hardened silo is. "railroad-based deployment"; sounds vague and lacks detail; "penetration aids under development"; sounds vague to me. Snowman (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
      • This is why silos and penetration aids are linked - so that they can be explained. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Criteria 1b. The introduction is too short. Snowman (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Criteria 3b. I think that there is insufficient information in the article to make it a comprehensive topic. It the missing information is not available, then it probably is not possible to write a GA on this topic. I think that omissions may include: Snowman (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • The names of the people who proposed starting the project and why it was considered needed. Snowman (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • You've got to be kidding me. You want the names of the people who proposed the missile? Do you understand what you're asking for? Parsecboy (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Funding was not continued apparently, but the article does not say anything about funding estimations or the economic climate. The are no reasons given for cancelling the project. Snowman (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I think the project should be discussed with the political and economic climate of the time in the USA and relevant parts of the world. Snowman (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Apparently some work was done on the missile before is was cancelled and I think that it is a major omission that details of what was done and by who is not included. What firms were contracted and how much were they paid? Which parts were official secrets, if any? When will official secrets (if any) be divulged? Snowman (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • If there is no more information that can be added to this article at this juncture, then it is likely to be an article of limited subject matter that could only reach GA standard after more information is released. Snowman (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • (EC) No, no actual work was done on the missile before it was canceled. Please read the following line from the article; "...before any formal specifications for the ZBGM-75 could be developed or requests for proposals from industry issued..." And are you seriously asking for classified information? Parsecboy (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • The work was started in May 1966 and cancelled sometime in 1967. So what happened during this time? Were any informal or provisional specifications made? The worked on the silo, so they must have known appropriately how big it was going to be, at least. The article does not say anything about classified information - perhaps another omission. Of course, it is not possible to get secret information for Wiki articles, but sometimes after 30 years information is released by governments. Another omission is the dimensions of the silos. Snowman (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Do you know how classified material works? If it's classified, we cannot possibly know that it exists. Are you asking for us to speculate about the possibility of still-classified material that might someday be released?
    • In the UK certain things are released after 30 years and some after even more time. For example, we know that cabinet discussions will be published after 30 years. So where is all the costing information on the missle, and who suggested starting the project, and who worked on it? Snowman (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about missiles designed in the US, not the UK. Classified material in the United States is never automatically declassified, it has to be approved by the Department of Defense before it is released. Parsecboy (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I do not know how this is organised in the USA, but it seems plausible that classified material may be declassified by the Department of Defence. Anyway, when relevant information has been released in the USA, then it be used as a source for significant omissions in the article. Snowman (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I would have thought that it was fairly certain that a more complete article is possible when relevant information is unclassified. Snowman (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but we don't write articles about what you are fairly certain exists. Parsecboy (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Except we have no idea when - or even if - that information will ever be declassified. There's stuff from WW2 that's still classified and has no prospect of ever being unclassified because it's still relevant to modern security concerns. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • And no, they worked on the super-hardening technology for the Minuteman missiles, they did no actual work for the BGM-75. Parsecboy (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • "super-hardening technology" features in the article and it is just jargon to me, and I am puzzled between hardened silos and super-hardening. Snowman (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Then I humbly suggest you are out of your depth on this issue, and you might want to consider withdrawing this review. Parsecboy (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I think that Jargon should be reduced so that readers find the article easy to read and do not feel that the article is out of their depth. Snowman (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I think that many reviewers are aware of the difficulty of reading jargon in the en Wiki. Snowman (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • But we do not dumb it down when jargon-y terms are unavoidable due to the nature of the subject. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Criteria 3b. Possible omission: sizes of the structures discussed including the silos. Snowman (talk)
    • They were never designed. Therefore, there is no known size. Which should be obvious. Parsecboy (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • The article says that they were large. How large? Snowman (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I looked this article, because you implied that it was a very short GA on the WP Birds talk page. I am trying my best to be objective about the article, so it does not matter how I stumbled upon it. Snowman (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I do not know what the less charitable might think, but I think that speculating about it is not relevant here. I think that you were pointing to this article as an example of one that is outrageously short on the WP Birds talk page. Being an outlier I think that this article's GA status is likely to be doubted and I see this GAR as appropriate. Snowman (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • OK, I'll bite. So for the sake of argument, I'll agree that the GAR is appropriate. Have you realized yet that your objections are:
    • A.) completely unactionable
    • B.) entirely without support from the GA Criteria
    • C.) ridiculous
    • D.) all of the above
    • As I said below. Are you going to withdraw this farce of a GAR or am I going to go to ANI? Please confirm that you have read this question. Parsecboy (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Criteria 5. The article is inherently unstable, because of a large number of omissions. If information about the missile or the project to build the missile becomes available, then the article would need rewriting or huge expansions. Snowman (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Now you are making me question your knowledge of the Good Article criteria. #5 refers to the stability of the article, as in, whether there are on-going disputes or edit wars. Are you sure you know what you are doing? Parsecboy (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Er, yeah, that's not what criterion #5 means. At all. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • It seems common sense to me that any sort on article unsuitability would exclude GA status. My point is that an article may not be illegible for GA status because it is inherently unstable. This is described as "... article of limited subject matter or inherent instability" in Wikipedia:Featured topics where FAs and GAs can be collected together in a "book". Snowman (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Except that is not what #5 means, as it explicitly says "due to an edit war or content dispute". And calling the article "inherently unstable" because of "omissions" in this case is WP:CRYSTALBALLING. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • If "unstable" has that narrow definition in the GA criteria, then the large omission of private, secret, or un-publiced information that make the article inherently unstable would fail the article in criteria 3a. Snowman (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:WIAGA#cite_note-4. Are you honestly this unfamiliar with the GA Criteria? I'm starting to think you've long-since realized you were wrong to start this GAR, but are too proud to admit it, and so you have resorted to throwing everything you can think of, in the hopes that something will stick. Please learn what the criteria for a Good Article is and is not. Parsecboy (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • From your statement, it's obvious that you were unaware of the detail of criterion #5 - which strongly indicates you didn't bother to read the GAC before opening this GAR. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I feel that I am entirely justified in starting a GAR. I am seeing the article as an outsider and when I read the article I notice what is not there. I note that User Bushranger wrote parts of the article, so I would like to ask him if he would like to declare a conflict of interest or not. I see this as a non-GA short article with major omissions. I am not the only person to doubt this GA; see this comment on the articles talk page by User David.s.kats, where he asks "Can someone explain me, why this stub is a good article"? Snowman (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • David.s.kats also does not know what a stub is, so is he the best person to use as support for your argument?
    • And how exactly is the author of an article participating in its GA review a conflict of interest? Do you not know how Wikipedia works? What on Earth have you been doing for the past 8 years and 90,000 edits here? Parsecboy (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • That was almost three years ago, and once it was explained that the article is not a stub, notbody else has complained. As Parsecboy points out, there is no conflict of interest here, unless you're suggesting that I was somehow involved in the development of the weapon (which would be a good trick seeing as it was cancelled 13 years before I was born)? - The Bushranger One ping only 18:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I understand that User The Bushranger wrote parts of this article, and I wonder if that might have an influence on his contribution to this discussion. Snowman (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • You do realize that an author is expected to participate in any review of his or her work, don't you? Seriously. Answer this question: what on Earth have you been doing for the past eight years that you are this shockingly unfamiliar with basic practice on Wikipedia? Parsecboy (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)First, that doesn't, by any stretch of the imagination, fall under WP:COI as Wikipedia defines it. Secondly, if you raised valid concerns about the article, I might very well have agreed with them - but your behavior here, constantly indicating that you don't understand the GA criteria and following a "you say that isn't applicable - so I'll throw this at it hoping it sticks, instead", has regretfully shredded the good faith I had at the start of this discussion and had led me to the conclusion that you are determined to get it delisted, whatever it takes, and given the way it came about I can only conclude that that is because it's an attempt to avoid Réunion Parrot becoming a GA. Accordingly, I am washing my hands of this matter - due to the fact that I am no longer able to reach any conclusion other than that this GAR was created for WP:POINTy reasons, I will no longer participate in it. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • You may have noticed how some editors react to constructive criticism to articles they have created and worked on. Snowman (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Which is all well and good, except that your criticisms have been anything but constructive. Are you going to withdraw this farce of a GAR or am I going to take this to ANI? Parsecboy (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I do not think this article is a GA for the reasons that I have explained. I think that my comments have been constructive to the GA project and in keeping with a standard review that could lead to de-listing. This is a community GAR for the community to decide. Snowman (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I think the last paragraph could be rewritten for more clarity: "After the cancellation of the WS-120A, no further development of new ICBMs was to be done until 1972, when the M-X project, which became the LGM-118 Peacekeeper, was begun.[1] The Peacekeeper entered service in the mid-1980s, and served until 2005,[6] the Minuteman family of ICBMs outlasting both of its planned replacements in service.[7]" What does "no further development of new ICBMs was to be done until 1972" mean? Was further development prohibited by some bill or treaty? Or simply didn't happen? As for the last sentence, its meaning is clear but it is a run-on sentence. The 2nd sentence of the lead "Intended to replace the LGM-30 Minuteman as the Air Force's standard ICBM, funding for the program was not allocated and the project was cancelled in 1967." is also a run-on sentence. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
      • See how the last paragraph reads now.
      • As for why no further development, I haven't seen anything conclusive, but I'd wager that the demands of Vietnam (Rolling Thunder, particularly) diverted the Air Force's attention (and more importantly, budget). As far as I know, there were no treaties or laws passed in the period that prevented further development (SALT I wasn't signed until 1972, for instance). Parsecboy (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    • One of the web pages cited as reference itself cites a book by James N. Gibson: "Nuclear Weapons of the United States", Schiffer Publishing Ltd, 1996. Has anyone checked that out? Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't have any copies in my local library system, but I did check the snippet view for WS-120A, BGM-75, and AICBM and got nothing. Might still be there, but not that I can confirm without actually seeing the book. Maybe User:The Bushranger can get a copy. Parsecboy (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Well, as I've mentioned before, Podunkville Public Library tends to get lolno'd when it comes to interlibrary loan requests, but I'll see what I can do. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Also, a Google Books search [15] suggests quite a few books and magazines cover this topic, so perhaps the claim of having exhausted the sources is premature. This book in particular suggests a possible infighting/politicking reasons why the program was created. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
      • That seems to be a highly dubious claim, given that STRAT-X recommended both the Navy's ULSM and the Air Force's BGM-75/WS-120A. If McNamara authorized STRAT-X to kill the Air Force missile program, and it instead recommended it, that was a giant miscalculation, though, again, since the author doesn't seem to know the conclusions of STRAT-X (or at least does not mention them apart from those that affected the Navy).
      • Nevertheless, I have added a bit more to the article from a couple of books. Parsecboy (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
      • It's quite possible there's more in gBooks now than there was when I started the article, I'll take a look when I get a chance. One problem is that my muse is currently "off" when it comes to stuff that goes zoom and/or boom, but I'll get out the squeaky hammer and see what can be done about that. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    • The claim of unknown size is also dubious given "Initially the WS 120A had been sized (116 in. in diameter) to fit in the current Minuteman silos "and leave a little rattle space."" found in the above search (in Hearings, Reports and Prints of the House Committee on Appropriations - Volume 90, Parts 1-2 - Page 788). Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Also, it appears that 95% of the sources in GB cover this under the WS-120A designation rather than any of the other ones, so perhaps the article should be renamed as well. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Sounds fair to me. It does seem as though most sources refer to it by that designation.
    • And the AICBM moniker applied to the MX/Peacekeeper too [16] [17] [18] so that's probably not the best nomenclature to lead with in any case. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I saw it suggested somewhere (can't recall where exactly now) that MX/Peacekeeper was a re-started WS-120A, and so the shared designation was correct. Don't know if that's true though. Parsecboy (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
        • I checked out James N. Gibson's "Nuclear Weapons of the United States". He covers the WS-120A in a couple of paragraphs of in the introduction to the section on MX/Peacekeeper (p. 29). There isn't anything important there not already included in this article. Here's basically all of the coverage: "Even before development of the Minuteman III began, on 23 October 1963 Headquarters SAC issued a Qualitative Operational Requirement for a large payload ICBM. Two years later, on 13 July 1965, a second QOR was issued for a mobile ICBM. In April of 1966 development then began on Weapon System 120A: an advanced ICBM that used a mobile basing system or hardened silos. On 4 October 1967, development of the Advanced ICBM was blocked by Secretary of Defense McNamara. In its place was begun a program to develop a hard rock basing system for the Minuteman III. Research into a new ICBM did not begin again until 2 November 1971 when the Air Force submitted ROC report 16-71. [a quote from this report follows] As a result of this report, in February of 1972 initial development of the Peacekeeper began." Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Since the reason this was nominated here is that it is short[19], this issue should be specifically addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Length is not a Good Article criteria. There, that has been specifically addressed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
        • I agree, but Snowman seems to think otherwise. FunkMonk (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Snowman also doesn't know what the GA criteria are, so I think we can safely disregard his objection. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
            • Then this would be a good place to demonstrate it, because it is the sole reason he nominated the article. Rather that than wasting more time on submitting short articles in the future. FunkMonk (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
      If Snowman's sole justification for initiating this reassessment is the article's length then he was quite wrong to start it. The issue isn't length but completeness, and I have some reservations about that myself. But GA reviewers are supposed to review against the GA criteria, which do not include anything about length. Eric Corbett 13:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
      To start the community GAR, I listed where I thought the article was not compliant with good article criteria on 9 August 2013. You may wish to refer to my opening comments that listed remarks about the article with relevant GA criteria. Article length did not feature in my opening comments and I am aware that article length is not one of the GA criteria. I think that it is better to put my opening comments and all the early discussion of this GAR in a show/hide box at the top of this GAR than on the talk page, so I have moved the relevant text back to this page from the talk page, and the early text can now can be seen in a box above. The use of show/hide boxes is conventional in talk pages. The early edits are now re-united with relevant edit history. The early comments and discussion are now easy to access. Snowman (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Not that this is a strictly numbered GA criterion, but why is the article titled "BGM-75 AICBM" when the thing is never referred to as BGM-75 anywhere in the article text? I infer from the article that the "Z" is a temporary prefix, but it doesn't say as much straight out, and, more importantly, I gather that the Z was never actually taken off. Surely an article name should reflect the most common name used for the subject in the article itself? --GRuban (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
      • The naming convention for American missiles used by the military history wikiprojects (as far as I'm aware, anyway) is to, as a rule, leave off prefixes from the official designation - this would be the 'X' (prototype), 'Y' (pre-production), and 'Z' (planning) prefixes, as they're, well, prefixes and not part of the designation proper. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Then that needs to be prominently explained in the article. It's not reasonable to expect readers of an article to have to go look up the standards of a WikiProject that's at best mentioned on the article talk page. --GRuban (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    • As the primary contributor to the article STRAT-X, I find statements such as "The Department of Defense began the STRAT-X study on 1 November 1966 to evaluate a new ballistic missile proposal from the Air Force" and "Ultimately, the Navy won the STRAT-X competition" particularly interesting. STRAT-X was a study conducted to evaluate future weaps systems, not a competition to see who would be the guardian of the next generation of nuclear weapons delivery. The Air Force and Navy both benefitted immensely from the study. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
      • That's not how Friedman presents it, for instance. On p. 202: "On 1 November 1966, the OSD began a new strategic weapon study, STRAT-X, to evaluate the Air Force proposal for a new strategic missile..." And on p. 204: "This undersea long-range missile system (ULMS) won the STRAT-X competition, although the final 1967 final report also called for..." Parsecboy (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

    Randy Ruiz

    [edit]
    Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
    Result: Delisted. Article has not been updated, and contains some unreferenced information. Khazar2 (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
    Article contains much unreferenced content and is missing information on his recent career.. Has not been well cared for since original 2008 listing. Spanneraol (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

    True. This article is not currently at a GA standard. I may help some. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

    Shraddha Kapoor

    [edit]
    Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
    Result: Delisted. Reviewer was sockpuppet of nominator, no review was conducted. Khazar2 (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC).

    This article was just passed on its fourth try by a new reviewer who doesn't appear to have checked against the GA criteria, made any suggestions, or made any changes. I previously failed this article as a reviewer, recommending a thorough copyediting that was never done.

    Obvious copyediting problems remain:

    • "She consequently appeared " -- "subsequently" appears to be the intended word rather than "consequently"
    • " In 2013, she appeared in the romantic musical drama Aashiqui 2, which was declared a commercial success,[6][7] and established herself as a promising actress of Hindi Cinema, alongside her acting career, she participates in stage shows, and is a celebrity endorser for brands and products." -- comma splice, misplaced commas (also nonneutral in phrasing)
    • "Her maternal grand father, was a classical singer, and he was the second-cousin of Dinanath Mangeshkar, the father of singers, Lata Mangeshkar and Asha Bhosle. Despite, hailing from a mixed ethnic family, she said, her upbringing has been as a Maharashtrian, as she always stays close to her mother and maternal grand-parents" --misspellings, random commas
    • "which specialised a social cause for the empowerment of the girl child in rural India" -- word choice seems badly off here; I'm not completely sure what this is even saying
    • " That year, being the spokesperson of Wella, she supported a campaign by P&G professional's brand Wella Professionals [...] which aimed to inform that ammonia-free hair [colours] are not completely safe.″" --an end quotation mark without an opening quotation mark

    The copyediting problems could be fixed with minimal effort, but the bigger problem is that this simply hasn't received a review yet. I recommend that it be delisted until a review can be done against the GA criteria, and I'd suggest that the reviewer try to work through the Good Article Recruitment Centre for her next review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

    Ohio State Route 85

    [edit]
    Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
    Result: Clear consensus to keep. Khazar2 (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

    I've picked one of these State Route articles almost at random, because most of them seems to have a similar problem. In this example, the 'History' section is entirely cited to original research based on comparing old maps with one another. It is a synthesis of original documents to draw a conclusion which isn't given by a reliable expert source.

    I would also seriously question whether the interpretation of obscure Technical Services diagrams and mapping systems is transparent, or whether it requires interpretation and expert synthesis. Sionk (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

    Oppose review, move to immediately close. This is acceptable, and in fact, Interstate 196 passed FAC using the same citation technique. As I noted there, the technique was vetted several years ago at WT:No original research/Archive 39#Regarding maps being "primary sources" according to this policy. As such, the citations to historical maps to denote the historical changes to the subject highway have been regarded as an appropriate use of secondary sources. (MSHD/MDOT/etc maps may be first-party sources, but maps are secondary sources; the primary sources in this case would be the aerial photography, surveyors' notes or GIS data used to construct the maps in question. See the previous discussion and WP:Party and person).
    The SLDs do not require much interpretation to read milemarkers nor the locations. This review should be immediately closed. Imzadi 1979 → 01:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
    Interesting. Well, it would save me having to work out how to transclude this to the Talk page! Sionk (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
    Oppose as a WP:POINTy nomination, and per Imzadi1979. GAR is not the place to change consensus. --Rschen7754 01:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
    Oppose and close - Maps are not considered primary sources, the raw GIS data is. Maps, even if they are published by a DOT such as ODOT, are secondary sources. Also, it is not original research to cite a road map. Also, the straight-line diagrams are easy to interpret the mileage and intersections along the route. Dough4872 01:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Picking an article to demote "at random" is rather counterintuitive. This issue has been discussed numerous times, and consensus has always ruled that maps are acceptable sources, and information gleaned from them does not constitute OR. That said, the article became a GA less than a week ago, and there is nothing to suggest the review was fundamentally flawed. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
    Well, if the subject has reached consensus so be it. I quite understand that using a map to confirm that X is near Y is uncontroversial. I accept the point that maps are secondary sources. But comparing several maps and concluding that an event occurred at a certain date because it suddenly appeared on a map requires a level of assumption and synthesis. Thanks for the link to the discussion. Sionk (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
    Quote Anomie from the discussion five years ago: "It's not original synthesis to compare two maps and describe the differences (FWIW, the example at WP:SYN is more an example of poor writing, undue weight, and possibly POV pushing than actual original synthesis). While someone could make a legitimate complaint that there should be more interpretation or analysis as to why the changes were made (which would require non-primary sources, of course), I again see nothing wrong with sourcing as written. Anomie⚔ 15:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)" That editor also said

    I was going to post the same thing: if the map has a scale or other distance indicators, it's not WP:OR to use that to measure distances. In general it's not OR to state a fact that is plainly apparent to any generally educated reader of the source. That also means that if you have a map dated 1940 not showing a road and a map dated 1950 that does show it, and there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of either map, it's not OR or SYN to use those two maps to state "The road was constructed between 1940 and 1950".

    As for using Google Maps to source a route description, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it from a WP:OR standpoint. It may be poor style, uninteresting, undue weight, and/or travel guide material, but it's not OR. Anomie⚔ 23:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

    positions which were supported by the others in the discussion. In short, yours is a minority opinion that has not been supported by consensus nor by actual practice. GAR-ing a single article will not change that consensus saying this isn't synthesis. Imzadi 1979 → 18:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

    Infinite (Eminem album)

    [edit]
    Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
    Result: Delisted (clear consenus, no progress) – Quadell (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
    • While reading the article, I noticed that it uses a Sputnikmusic review written by WuChang, who is ranked as user at the review page. That's clearly not according to Wikipedia's sources to avoid.
    • The lead contains much unreferenced material. Ex: "Copies of the album are generally valued at $130–$200 due to the rarity and low production of the album. While Eminem's future albums would prove more successful, the rapper still gained some recognition for his debut effort." - This isn't sourced nowhere in the article, not to say it introduces new information in the intro; the introduction part should summarize the content of the entire article, not to present new information.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
    • What's up! When I first nominated this article, it was different; info such as the unreferenced lead content, was added by some (often IP, unregistered) users, in good faith; the Sputnikmusic review is my fault, I'm sorry for that. I'll get to it as soon as I can, thanks! --Khanassassin ☪ 20:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
    I believe that the critical and commercial sub-sections should be merged; one sentence isn't worthy enough to have a special heading. That's if no additional reviews are found in the meantime.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Delist - Per Вик Ретлхед, I found it very interesting when you nominated this, because I had just recently been curious how the article had ever been promoted to GA status. The article seems to fail criteria 3a, while it also has some issues with criteria 2 due to WP:OR and WP:V problems. STATic message me! 21:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

    Cinematic style of Abbas Kiarostami

    [edit]
    Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
    Result: no consensus. C679 14:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

    Recent changes [20] have removed all of the images from this article. As it's an article on a cinematographer and film director, I consider the inclusion of images to be an essential aspect of reaching GA – although I admit that this isn't my field.

    The images were removed by user:Werieth on the grounds that "files lacks critical commentary and fail WP:NFC" See also WP:NFCR#File:10ontenshot.jpg_in_10_on_Ten.2C_in_reference_to_Cinematic_style_of_Abbas_Kiarostami (and for that matter, WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Werieth_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_Blocked.29). Other editors may disagree with this (it looks to me as if they're discussed adequately, indeed rather more than most NFC images). Andy Dingley (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

    The filmography methods talks about using easily-conceptualized terms like dashboard cams, etc. that don't need non-free imagery to see. Not every director has visual element to their style that need to be shown via imagery (eg we can talk easily about John Woo films and his love to include doves in them, without actually showing a scene with a dove in it). There are some directors with very distinctive visual styles, ala Stanley Kubrick or Wes Anderson, where the visual elements are difficult to describe without imagery, but this is not true of all directors. I would argue that not including a free image of Abbas is a problem, but easily fixed. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Keep - Per WP:GACN, "Most GAs contain at least one image, but (unlike featured articles) they are not required to contain images." -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

    Ghost in the Shell (video game)

    [edit]
    Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
    Result: Consensus for fail was upheld DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

    This article was opened and failed within 3 hours by the reviewer, Niwi3. Despite requests for a hold instead of a fail, Niwi3 maintains his editorial decision to fail. I wish for a reassessment on the grounds that doing so would result in another lengthy waiting process and that the "serious issues" addressed were largely trivial in nature. Among the reviewers list of issues were the omission of the game genre in the lead prose, a single awkward sentence, an unlinked link and making T*HQ -> THQ. All the problems were easily fixed within less than an hour's worth of work and in the same 24 hour period and Niwi3 refuses to look at it. The efforts to fix this were a joint effort with @Lucia Black: and @Niemti: who came to the article to immediately address the raised issues. I ask that someone reassess it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

    Just at a quick glance I see the following issues:
    • Whole paragraphs are unsourced in the Gameplay section
    • The Reception section is very thin. Right now it also has a [reviewer], [score], [quote] format. GA's have commentary organized by topic, so criticisms on graphics, praises on story, etc are together, creating a better flow. Right now its flow is poor.
    • What justification is there to have MobyGames and GameStats in the external links? MobyGames is an unreliable source, so it should not be included at all. GameStats would be useful to have in the Reception section if it actually has any merit for inclusion.
    • Be careful of the cast list use per WP:GAMETRIVIA. If there's merit for its inclusion consider merging it with the Soundtrack section, renaming that section to Audio, then turning it into prose.
    • Citation #27, "The Best Manga And Anime-based Games", should be cited Game Informer, not GameInformer.com
    • The Related media section should be in prose, as lists are to be avoided where possible
    I don't know that it really should have been a quickfail, but I didn't bother to look at the before link listed above. However before I'd get behind an approval these things (at least) would need to be fixed, and that's just taking a quick glance. --Teancum (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

    The gameplay stuff is more like plot with the way I added it in, but I cited it to the game and the reviews themselves. After all, a game play breakdown is pretty simple to verify with the primary source (the game) though the reviews did highlight it as well. The reception is a bit thin, but covers every known outlet that reviewed it. I don't want to "bloat" it, but I'll ask Lucia to take a quick read through the section because I do not have some of those sources on hand. The other minor issues have been addressed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

    I modified some of the reception to flow better and based mainly on topic. i'll make it "slightly" more expanded. but its very difficult, as the reception is thin because theres not many reviews out there. These were the only ones i can find.Lucia Black (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
    [21] - Here are some sources. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
    Ref 2 and 3 dont bring anything new to what the article provides. i dont know how we can use them because they cover so little. i can attempt to use the first ref provided. but the rest can be used without question.Lucia Black (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
    Further reception can probably be found in reviews at the Reference Library. E.g.:
    And possibly via previews as well, e.g.:
    Let me know if you'd like copies and I'll see what I can come up with. If you leave a note at Mitaphane's talk page he might be able to help you out too. -Thibbs (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
    Those references are already used...and the ref Cnet review provided by Hippie is also a direct copy of the gamespot review.Lucia Black (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
    It looks like the August issue of GameFan wasn't used. Also there is more in the Reference Library. There's an EGM review for example that I don't see in the article. -Thibbs (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

    i know, i seen the august issue, theres not much information being provided in some previews that isn't already available. just because it was covered in multiple magazines, doesn't mean that all of them are useful. i will look into the EGM review though.Lucia Black (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

    All i ask is to do some analysing on the article before suggesting a huge list of sources we already used. help is welcomes, as long as you know about the subject enough so that we dont repeat into similar problems.Lucia Black (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

    OK I think for games of this era you may have to check paper sources if you want to beef up the reception section. I just found a review in EDGE magazine for example. As far as this game is concerned, I am probably not qualified. I really only know the anime/films so I'll back off. Good luck. -Thibbs (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
    If you have the magazines it would be great to provide whatever information is there, i only have the gamefan and a few magazine scans available and most are already provided, the previews dont really share all that much other than certain gameplay features.Lucia Black (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
    So per this comment I'm posting this review from EDGE. Sorry I missed the above post, Lucia Black. I have at least 2 other international reviews if you're interested in expanding the diversity of reviews beyond just the normal English-language sources. I don't want to suggest any articles that you've already reviewed and found to be unhelpful, though, so it might help if you could list the magazine scans you have that are not referenced in the article yet. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 05:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

    The IGN preview provides reception for the game before its release. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

    What information do u find review-like in such preview?Lucia Black (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
    Personally, i think there's significant amount of coverage in reception article to merit GA status. its not that small and it is well covered and well-sourced. Although i'm currently asking a few others editors who have access to other reviews, so that's pending. Overall, it's pretty good reception section for a seemingly one-hit wonder video game. it may be considered thin, but I've seen smaller reception or at least around the same range of size when it comes to GAs.Lucia Black (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

    I don't see any further issues, but I don't edit that much any more so I'll let someone else determine whether it passes. --Teancum (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

    I think Lucia Black's additional edits has resolved the issues. Over 120 edits have been made since my GA nomination and the "Making of Game" source has been included. The article is more comprehensive than ever before and serves as a complete overview of the the topic from development to its critical reception; going as far as to credit the cast (via magazine sources) when even the game itself failed to provide that distinction. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Uphold fail, suggest regular renomination - I hate to say it given the good work that's already gone into this one, but at a glance, I still see at least some copyediting problems like comma splices, which/that confusion, other comma misuse, odd repetitions like "The game had received mainly positive reviews for its graphics, animation, and music, including its unusual wall-climbing mechanics, including living up to the Ghost in the Shell namesake.", etc. For that reason at least, this one isn't ready to promote.
    I realize that these problems could be fixed with about 30 minutes of work on my part, but IMHO, that isn't really what GAR is for. Per the instructions, "it is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review; it is usually simpler to renominate it"; I understand the nominator's frustration at having a review closed, but I'm not sure there was any outstanding or complicated issue here that required us to do a team re-review. (I'd also add that Niwi's criticisms seemed to me legitimate, especially the incomplete lead and discussion of gameplay; we can dispute whether s/he closed too quickly, but I think there's no disputing that these are issues that should have been checked and fixed before nominating.)
    This seems like one of those GARs that is likely to drag on indefinitely and close as no consensus--it just takes too many reviewer hours for two or three or four of us to each do a full review and come to consensus. Personally I'd suggest closing and renominating for a regular second review. I do appreciate all the work you've done to improve this one, though, and I hope it makes it to GA soon! -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
    I dont think it should be closed. if its so close, why even re-nominate it? or does the amount of response seems to be too much?
    these edits would take upto less than an hour, so i feel like, its being ended for the sake of ending the current re-nomination.Lucia Black (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
    Saying that it's "so close" is a bit of a misreading of my comment--I said there were at least some mild copyediting problems here; having seen that, I didn't do a full review for the other criteria. If other editors feel this is a pass, I don't mind my more superficial look being discounted. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
    I did do some more copyediting. I'll print it out and give another look, but as a whole aside from one typo and two instances of Playstation not being PlayStation, I think the spelling is set. Grammar, I did notice some past tense errors and less than perfect prose so I'll try and clean it up some more. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks, Chris, much appreciated. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

    I said it was so close because we've addressed everything people have had issues. if the only issue you have is grammar, you can list them here, and we can fix them.Lucia Black (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

    I appreciate your work, but I have to say I'm a bit put off by your tone of entitlement. I have a lot of other projects going, and was already doing a favor by looking over this one at your request; I'm not going to do a full copyedit, too. I'm sorry I couldn't give this the enthusiastic endorsement we all wanted. I really would like to see it as a GA, and I hope it gets there soon. Opening two complaining threads at GAN as well as a community reassessment at GAR, though, really puts the burden on you to make sure it's actually GA quality first. When I looked earlier today, it didn't appear to me to be there. Others may well disagree, and as I said, I don't mind deferring to them if they do. Best of luck, -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
    @Khazar2:What tone of entitlement is there? Lets stick to the GAR. you said it yourself: the issues can be fixed, under a day, but the point is to list them here so we can fix it. That's all i'm asking. Unless you really do want to fail the renomination again, simply for reasons i don't understand. You dont need to bring up previous complaints in other threads, this isn't about me (WP:NPA), and i didn't nominate it in the first place. But since all issues have been met, except yours, you should at least provide what u have issues before suggesting failure.Lucia Black (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
    Lucia, have you ever looked at WP:BLUDGEON? We disagree about the obligations of someone posting a !vote at a reassessment, and that's okay, it happens. There's no need to post over and over again to rebuke my comment. If this article is the surefire pass you believe it to be, other editors will surely pass it. We disagree; c'est la vie. I've removed this from my watchlist, and while you're welcome to keep responding all you like, please don't ping me here again. All best, -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
    @Khazar2: (for the record, I'm only sending a ping for the sake of this article. Not to cause trouble)
    please stop dodging the issue at hand and assuming things. All I ask is that you provide the issues that you find in this article so that we may fix them. So far all you brought was that it had grammar issues. So I don't understand why you can't provide them here so that they can't be fixed. Its not like the problem with citations.
    Also note that GARs range from group to individual editors. So. It doesn't really have to be a vote. It can pass just by one editor deciding.
    Whether it passes or not, the issues should still be listed by the one claiming there is. Otherwise, I can't help but assume bad faith on the one who claims there are grammar issues, and chooses to avoid going in detail. Its like you don't want us to fix it. And if I'm wrong, it would be great to list the issues.Lucia Black (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Stale, uphold fail and submit for re-nomination: At this point, this GAR has pretty much gone by the wayside. No feedback since early December. I'd say it's time to just close this up with no significant consensus to change the status of the article, and have it submitted for re-nomination through the GAN process. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 18:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
      Agreed, a fresh consensus should be had here for a GAN. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

    Norton 360

    [edit]
    Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
    Result: Consensus for delisting DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 12:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

    The article contains recently added material that reads as a product advertisement. Examples include the entire "Version 21" section, which includes statements such as<

    "Norton 360 is the ultimate antivirus solution developed on SONAR technology, which is able to detect any threat, block it, and remove it, thanks to three out of five layers of shields: Threat Monitoring, Threat Removal, and Network Defense, the last one dealing with online threats before they can actually reach the user’s computer. Protection is also granted through analyzing the behavior of known menaces in such a way that staying safe from phishing activities is a child’s play."

    Fixing it is beyond my capabilities, but it is an egregious violation of neutrality etc.

    Thanks,

    Techguy95 (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

    • Delist this article has tags, unsourced sections, and prose written as mentioned above. It needs a significant copyedit to bring it up to scratch. Unfortunately, it appears the two lead contributors are no longer very active. --LT910001 (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Delist - I agree that a lot of the article is written like an advertisement: "It adds some new features to this popular all-in-one suite..." The unsourced sections is not an issue, because they don't contain statements that the GA criteria require citations for. The prose is clear, but biased.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    Frank Underwood (House of Cards)

    [edit]
    Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
    Result: Withdrawn reassessment. GA review has resumed with another reviewer. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

    Basically, I feel that the current version of the article meets WP:WIAGA at this time. In about 3 weeks there will be a lot more information on the internet about this show, since season 2 is about to be released, but as of today, the current version of this article constitutes a WP:GA for this subject. The reviewer took the fairly harsh action of failing this after my first attempt to respond to his concerns did not meet with his approval. However, I find his continued concerns beyond the intent of WIAGA. His current complaints mainly involve the propriety of the current version of the WP:LEAD, which is 1866 characters of an article that is 10376 characters of readable prose. At 17.98% of the length of the article, it might be a bit lengthy for the current development of the article. However, the current complaints are about the LEAD being underdeveloped in different respects. I disagree with each. The main issues are as follows (section by section):

    1. Underwood vs. Urquhart (claimed not to be in the lead): The LEAD currently says "He is the series protagonist and is a variation of Francis Urquhart, the main character from the British novel and television series House of Cards from which the American Netflix series is adapted." I leave the degree of variation to the main body for now.
    2. Background and description (not a concise summary and lead does not give due weight): LEAD currently states "Underwood is from Gaffney, South Carolina. He graduated from The Sentinel, a fictionalized version of The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina, and Harvard Law School. Much of Underwood's dialogue throughout the series is presented in a direct address to the audience, a narrative technique that breaks the fourth wall. The character speaks in a southern dialect." as well as discusses the antihero element in "He is one of the several 21st century antiheros..."
    3. Season 1 (not a concise summary and lead does not give due weight): "During season 1, he is a Democratic Majority Whip in the United States House of Representatives", In addition since this was all written based on season 1 "The character has been described as evil, conniving and even Machiavellian while receiving significant critical praise. The quest for and rise to power of this character is considered intriguing. He is one of the several 21st century antiheros that have thrived on television to much critical acclaim. Underwood is said to depict the ubiquitous vicious, powerful and corrupt politician." all describes season 1.
    4. Critical response (not a concise summary and lead does not give due weight): LEAD says "Spacey shared the distinction of being among the first three leading web television roles to be nominated for Primetime Emmy Awards when the 65th Primetime Emmy Awards were announced on July 18, 2013. Spacey's portrayal of Underwood is the only to earn a Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series nomination. The character has also been Golden Globe Award- and SAG Award-nominated."
    5. Section Season 2 needs to be fixed: This will be actionable in three weeks when there are reliable sources regarding season 2, but the article passes WIAGA based on the season 1 content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

    Kamal Haasan

    [edit]

    Result: Delist. Though it has no great quorum, and no lengthy discussions, the article has the problems pointed below that no longer make it a GA. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

    This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Kamal Haasan/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

    I have listed this article for GA reassessment bcoz it was badly damaged by edit wars, content deletion, info not up-to-date and too many dead links. i want it to therefore improve it. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

    So? Did you improve it? Please be specific on why do you think this article does not meet GA criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
    I found these statements unsourced:
    • "The late 1970s was a period that saw Haasan's continued collaboration with K. Balachander, who cast him in many of his social-themed films."
    • "Haasan has refrained from politics in spite several people from the film Industry taking the plunge in Politics."
    ...and many statements in the awards section. But will try to fix them. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

    Comment – Request to close this dumb review due to inactivity. —Vensatry (Ping) 16:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

    Then I hereby declare that the article be delisted from its GA status. Like u once said, the article is "not GA-worthy" due to having been "degraded a lot since it was last promoted" and there is no time to fix those errors. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
    Dharmadhyaksha, Vensa and I have agreed that the article has far been degraded from its GA status (the nominator and reviewer did not actually work well at the time I think), but Dwai has not yet responded. I say the article be delisted now itself... Or wait for a third editor's reply. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    With no active participation, this one clearly lacks consensus. —Vensatry (Ping) 13:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I have not read the article, so you can disregard my view. However, on a quick glance, the article seemed quite good. What specific GA criteria are you guys worried about?--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Delist – Sourcing is been a major concern throughout the article. Looks like a lot of sourced content was removed/changed since the last assessment. IMO, it fails to satisfy criterion 2(a), 2(b) and 3 (a). The 1970s which is supposed to be a turning point in the actor's career is summarised in just four small paras; Lead roles, 1970–1975 has just one ref and Late 1970s has just a single ref. to back up two paras. The subsequent sections have the same problem. —Vensatry (Ping) 05:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Support the delist - I also think that the now retired User:Universal Hero did not work well on the article and nominated it just like that, which a docile reviewer just blindly passed. His errors are also hard to correct. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Kailash, we are not here to discuss the quality of work, be it the contribution or reviews carried out by other users. It passed GAN four years ago and has suffered a lot in the form of vandals and POV pushers. So give your opinion based on the current status of the article. —Vensatry (Ping) 11:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

    Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad

    [edit]
    Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
    Result: Four weeks passed. No clear consensus. Consider an individual GAR next time. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

    The GA review conducted earlier this year was rather cursory and the user who conducted the review has now been blocked. This raises some suspicions. Though most of the content seems okay, the article seems to contain a fair amount of schoolcruft—student societies, notable alumni. Some of this stuff is unsourced which might suggest that GA criteria two is not being satisfied. In addition, a peek at the history suggests that it may no longer be stable: we have editors adding and removing content from the article, and one editor (User:Batram) arbitrarily reverting all their edits. See this revert. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

    Another vandal edit to the "Plagiarism" section. I've just removed the student societies section for excessive schoolcruft, a single para for all would do. I don't share your assessment of the "block" on the single user who reviewed this article for GA. I agree that the review itself was cursory. I suggest a careful review of the sources cited on this page is in order, and it needs rewrites for WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:C before it is reassessed.Unfitlouie (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

    We've Come for You All

    [edit]
    Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
    Result: Over four weeks and no consensus. Consider an individual GAR next time. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

    I seek community reassessment for this article because I've noticed minor issues with overusing quotations and close paraphrasing. I've gone through the article and corrected the majority of the prose, but I think it's better if another reviewer takes a close look at the article.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

    Enfield revolver

    [edit]
    Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
    Result: Consensus is for delisting DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

    Enfield revolver has possibly gone through a rough split deleting half of the sourcing on the bottom of the article. The article also contains only one section and is lacking the full detail required for GA status. --Molestash (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    Agree - it's no longer meeting GA standards. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

    Chris Cohen

    [edit]
    Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
    Result: Consensus is for delisting DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

    Here you can see that when this article became a GA, it then also did not fulfill the criteria. Currently the article is very underdetailed, nearly only 1 or 2 sentences describing each season of Nottingham Forest. The career statistics section is unreferenced in addition to some unreferenced sentences in the text. The article does not say anything about his style of play or personal life indicating it is not broad in coverage. So I am asking for a reassessment of this article. RRD13 (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    • Delist – this article was awarded GA with a sixteen word "review" in 2007, at which time it was only supported by Soccerbase, BBC and primary club sources. Anyway, the current article contains POV in the lead, OR in the first section, the prose is very sub-standard in the largest section, including being out of date and unreferenced, all of which point to this article being delisted. C679 21:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

    Mac Pro

    [edit]
    Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
    Result: No consensus for delisting. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

    I think this article is well below GA standards today. There are several unsourced passages and others are clearly outdated. (Things which are "obvious" to people who own a certain type of computer quickly become non-obvious and require sourcing as the years pass and the user base diminishes.) After the new 2013 Mac Pro was bolted into this page, it has be come very confusing, e.g. the Software and Add-on hardware sections almost certainty doesn't apply the new/2013 one "as is". If someone can muster satisfactory cleanup even in the "no consensus to split" situation, please do so. Otherwise I think this should be delisted as quickfail GAR, but given that there's no consensus about the state of the article, I've opened this as a community review... Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

    So you propose a quick fail before even seeing if anyone wants to do cleanup? Hmmm. If you don't mind, might you spend a few moments and make a detailed list of the problems? I would be happy to fix them all. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Also, this article has about zero content in the way of reception/reviews for the new (cylinder) series. And it's not like RS reviews are lacking for it... Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what an "RS review" is, is that "real something"? Again, it seems you have identified the problems you wish to see addressed, if you can list them, I offer my time to fix it. Or, perhaps, as the person most familiar with the problems, you might just take a stab at it yourself? The thought of delisting and then re-running GA is too much to contemplate. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Closing: It appears not one else could muster the time to weigh in here. In the meantime, at least some of the issues identified above have been addressed. It could still do with some reviews/reception, but that doesn't seem like a delist issue. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    Linda McCartney

    [edit]
    Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
    Result: Consensus is for delisting DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

    This article passed GA review nearly six years ago. The review itself is here and gives virtually no comments or explanations why it meets the GA criteria. The article in its current state had one unsourced quotation tagged {{cn}} (which I've removed), a number of unsourced claims (such as her appearance on Bread, which though I personally remember is not sufficient), and the "Discography" section is in the middle of the article when I would normally expect it to be at the end. There are a number of suspicious sources, such as a geocities link, wingspan.ru (which sounds like a fansite), revolverbook.co.uk and 10zenmonkeys.com. I don't think there's enough detail about her frozen foods business, which seems to have been pretty financially successful, or anything about the recent exhibitions of her photography (I saw one at Paul's Hyde Park gig in 2010). In short, I think the original review was insufficient and there's a substantial amount of work to get this up to the required standard. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

    • I'm inclined to agree that it never did meet GA standards and does not do so now. At a quick glance; the frozen foods business (which may be what she is chiefly remembered for now!) is mentioned once in the lead and then not mentioned again; there is tremulous (and inaccurate) use of names (we vary between Linda, McCartney and "the then-Linda Eastman") and I agree the sourcing is awful. It might be easier to delist this until it can be improved. --John (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Delist because if inappropriate review.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

    Anjem Choudary

    [edit]
    Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
    Result: No consensus. Closed due to drama. Recommendation: After the current drama is resolved this should be put up for GA reassessment. It has been 4 years since this was first assessed. There has been varying amount of drama since. A personal assessment will suffice after this drama has been resolved. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

    With the controversey on the talk page I think there is a legitimate question of whether or not this page still meets GA criteria. It's also currently up for review here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Anjem_Choudary Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

    Let's be clear. The "controversy" is from one rather inactive self-proclaimed "professional" writer who made changes to this article that verge on racism. He added an outrageous claim from the Daily Mail, quite possibly one of the least reliable sources available anywhere on the internet, and introduced material to the lede which does not exist elsewhere in the article. And as if that wasn't bad enough, he then went on a long, rather boring rant about liberal views polluting Wikipedia and how unfair it all is. I'll call a spade a spade - the person who initiated this argument is a closet racist seeking to label this article's subject as an extremist nutjob. There's no bias in this article, just a reporting of facts and views. Readers are free to form their own conclusions, without being made to read badly-written rubbish like "British born" and "extremist".
    But if excluding pejorative terminology like "British born" and "extremist" means this cannot be a good article then go right ahead and delist it. Parrot of Doom 09:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
    I don't think those are reasons to delist this. I did not put this here as a way to settle that dispute.Regardless of what happens in that situation I don't feel that would effect the GA status. This was listed 4 years ago. It has been thru a number of changes since. Numerous changes as well as revisions. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
    There is no controversy. Parrot has tried to keep Anjems article clean and adhering as tightly to the letter of Wikipedia biographical rules in order to avoid clear breaches of guidelines that would make it controversial.
    Whether it is a GA or not is irrelevant. De list it by all means, but at least deal with the real issue - the attempt to make a current GA a terrible article that relies upon tabloid hysteria by one specific editor. Koncorde (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
    I am offended by the condescending remarks to discredit me, but again, I'll take the high road and consider the source. This is a case of WP:OWN. Parrot of Doom has a history of bullying, and disenfranchising good editors, like Coretheapple who was kind enough to respond to my call for help in the beginning. A reassessment was long overdo, and I thank Serialjoepsycho for stepping up to the plate. Anjem Choudary may very well have been a GA if Choudary was actually the person portrayed in the article, but that isn't the case. It is a skewed representation as a result of omission, and I am not the only editor who has recognized POV issues. Anjem Choudary is negatively neutral and overly diffused to the point it comes across as a propagandized defense of a very controversial figure who has either co-founded or led radical Islamist organizations linked to terrorism. The sources I've presented are reliable sources, except to those who disagree with the information, or have something to hide. Atsme (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
    If you believe that the Daily Mail is a reliable source then I can only suggest that you are a fool. A racist fool. A racist fool who, like many others, doesn't understand the difference between stewardship and ownership. Parrot of Doom 19:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
    @Atsme:: Given that your only edits to article space since 2012 have been edit-warring this nonsense back into this article 4 times, and that the vast majority of the balance of your 53 total article space edits have been edit-warring spam links into articles about obscure fish using edit summaries written in ALL CAPS, I don't see why anyone should take your opinions on good article criteria or wikipedia policy seriously in any way.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
    alf laylah wa laylah What happened to me in the past was very much like the bullying that's going on now. I've learned there is an overabundance of WP:OWN bullies on WP, and it is very disruptive to editing. Atsme (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
    Right. It's your story. You tell it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I do not feel that the controversey or non controversey is any reason to deList this article. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
    I offer my apology to everyone here. As it says on WP:GAR this shouldn't be placved here during a content dispute. The apparent reason why can be seen clearly above. This GAR should be ended immeadiately unless anyone disagrees and we can do this on the basis of Good Article Criteria. A GAR is not a proposition that this should be Delisted. It's a question of if it should be delisted. If the answer is in the affirmative you still shouldn't delist it automatically. You fix it or you give others oppurtunity to fix it. So do we go forward or do we shut this?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
    Shut it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
    It needs to go forward, Serialjoepsycho. Anjem Choudary needs improvements in sentence structure, is lacking customary biographical information, and needs updating. It is not a good representation of a GA at this time. Atsme (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
    It doesn't need to go foraward. This isn't about some petty wiki squabble. It needs improvements yes. All GA articles need improvements. There is a rating above GA. The question is does it meet GA criteria. Not your criteria but GA criteria.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
    What it needs is MORE COW BELL!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

    This GAR is closedSerialjoepsycho (talk) 05:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

    Atlético Madrid

    [edit]
    Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
    Result: Delisted. C679 12:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC).

    Article was awarded GA in 2010. History section is very long with inbalance towards recent events, a separate article and condensation may be required. Rivalry and kit sections are largely unsourced despite making assumptions which would require a source. Affiliated clubs have no citations at all. Other than that, the article consists of lists, so ergo all prose sections are under GA standard. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

    • Delist per nom, sections such as affiliated clubs seem to be pure WP:OR, Template creep seems to be taking hold of this article too. There are various "citation needed" tags visible. It should also be noted that the prose is below GA standard, e.g. "Atlético fell out of the league title contention early", "hard-fought quarter-final tie", "the club floundered and the players put in disastrous performances", "Torres shocked the club", "Atlético also made a splash", etc. C679 07:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Consensus reached for delisting. '''tAD''' (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

    Philippines

    [edit]
    Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
    Result: Closed per comment by BlueMoonset below. The comment below essentially sums up why this is closed. Also, I don't think it needs to be deleted, but I'll leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines about this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Question - Is there any explanation for why this article is up at GAR? GamerPro64 15:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Answer: It shouldn't be. User:Theparties put a GAR template on the article for about an hour on March 11 before deleting/withdrawing it, and was blocked indefinitely as being a sock of a blocked user a couple of weeks later. I'm not sure what else needs to be done to expunge this GAR entirely, but I imagine it includes having this page deleted. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:VeblenBot/C/GAR/58&oldid=620028795"