Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:GA/R)
Jump to: navigation, search
Main Discussion Nominations Reassessment GA Cup Instructions Criteria Report Help Desk
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
Good article reassessment

Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process primarily used to determine whether an article that is listed as good article (GA) still merits its good article status according to the good article criteria, and to delist it if not. There are two types of reassessment: individual reassessment and community reassessment. An individual reassessment is discussed on the article talk page and concluded by a single user in much the same way as a review of a good article nomination. Community reassessments are listed for discussion on this page and are concluded according to consensus. Where possible, editors should conduct an individual reassessment, while community reassessment should be used if delisting is likely to be controversial. Community reassessments can also be used to challenge a previous delisting or a fail during a good article nomination. This is not a peer review process; for that use Wikipedia:Peer review. The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not.

Before attempting to have any article delisted through reassessment, take these steps:

  1. Fix any simple problems yourself. Do not waste minutes explaining or justifying a problem that you could fix in seconds. GAR is not a forum to shame editors over easily fixed problems.
  2. Tag serious problems that you cannot fix with appropriate template messages, if the templates will help other editors find the problems. Do not tag bomb the article.
  3. Make sure that the problems you see in the article are covered by the actual good article criteria. Many problems, including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with the Manual of Style are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for delisting.
  4. Notify major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects. Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.

A list of all open GA reassessment nominees may be found at Category:Good article reassessment nominees.

Articles needing possible reassessment

Occasionally, rather than initiating either individual or community reassessment, an editor will merely tag the article as possibly needing reassessment. These tagged articles are listed on this page and each needs the attention of an editor to decide if reassessment is required. To tag an article, {{GAR request}} is placed at the top of the article talk page.

Individual reassessment

When to use this process

  • Use the individual reassessment process when you find an article listed as a good article that you don't believe satisfies the good article criteria and:
    • You would like to receive input from a community of editors who watch the article talk page
    • You believe the decision to continue listing the article or to delist it should be yours, at the conclusion of a good article reassessment discussion (unless you believe a decision made by you is likely to be controversial, then opt for community reassessment instead)
  • Use the individual reassessment process if:
    • You are confident in your ability to assess the article
    • You are not a major contributor to the article
    • You know the article has not been delisted before
    • You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war
    • You are logged in (unless you are not a registered user, then you may try asking another editor to reassess the article)

Note

  • Individual reassessments do not appear below on the good article reassessment page; those are all community reassessments.

How to use this process

  • The instructions for individual reassessment are:
  1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
  2. Follow the first bold link in the template to create an individual reassessment page (while the second bold link creates a community reassessment page). The individual reassessment page for this article is created as a subpage of the article talk page.
  3. Leave an assessment on this page detailing your reasons for bringing the article to good article reassessment. List the problems you found with the article in comparison to the good article criteria. Save the page.
  4. From the article talk page, transclude the individual assessment page as follows: Create a new section named "Individual reassessment" and paste in
    {{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}}. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
  5. Notify major contributing editors, relevant WikiProjects for the article, and, if recently GA reviewed, the nominator and the reviewer. The {{GARMessage}} template can be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
  6. Wait for other editors to respond.
  7. During the reassessment discussion, you must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria. When the reassessment discussion has concluded, you may close it.
  8. To close the discussion, edit the individual reassessment page of the article. State the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments.
  9. The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
    • If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this, delete the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page and update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page.
    • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this, remove the article from the relevant list at good articles, remove the {{good article}} template from the article page, remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page, update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (see example), and restore any project assessment values on the article talk page (check history to see what they were).


Good article reassessment

Community reassessment

When to use this process

  • Use the community reassessment process when you find an article listed as a good article that you don't believe satisfies the good article criteria and:
    • You would like to receive input from a community of editors who watch the good article reassessment page
    • You believe the decision to continue listing the article or to delist it should be the result of consensus, at the conclusion of a good article reassessment discussion (unless you believe a decision made by you is not likely to be controversial, then opt for individual reassessment instead)
  • Use the community reassessment process if:
    • You are not confident in your ability to assess the article
    • You are a major contributor to the article
    • You disagree with an earlier delist decision
    • You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war
    • You are logged in (unless you are not a registered user, then you may try asking another editor to reassess the article)
    • You disagree with a fail at Wikipedia:Good article nominations (however, it is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for this; it is usually simpler to renominate it)

How to use this process

  • The instructions for community reassessment are:
  1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
  2. Follow the second bold link in the template to create a community reassessment page (while the first bold link creates an individual reassessment page). The community reassessment page for this article is created as a subpage of the good article reassessment page.
  3. Leave an assessment on this page detailing your reasons for bringing the article to good article reassessment. List the problems you found with the article in comparison to the good article criteria. Save the page. A bot will add the assessment to the GA reassessment page.
  4. From the article talk page, transclude the community assessment page as follows: Create a new section named "Community reassessment" and paste in
    {{WP:Good article reassessment/ArticleName/n}}. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
  5. Notify major contributing editors, relevant WikiProjects for the article, and, if recently GA reviewed, the nominator and the reviewer. The {{GARMessage}} template can be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
  6. Wait for other editors to respond.
  7. During the reassessment discussion, consensus must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria. When the reassessment discussion has concluded, any uninvolved editor may close it (if needed, a request may be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure).
  8. To close the discussion, edit the community reassessment page of the article and locate {{GAR/current}}. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page and will add it to the current archive.
  9. The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
    • If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this, delete the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page and update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page.
    • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this, remove the article from the relevant list at good articles, remove the {{good article}} template from the article page, remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page, update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (see example), and restore any project assessment values on the article talk page (check history to see what they were). A bot will remove and archive the assessment from the GA reassessment page.

← (All archives) Replacement filing cabinet.svg Good article reassessment (update archive number) (Current archive: 60) →

Articles needing possible reassessment[edit]

The Good articles listed below would benefit from the attention of reviewers as to whether they need to be reassessed. In cases where they do, please open an individual or community reassessment and remove {{GAR request}} from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, simply delete the template from the article talk page.

The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a featured article candidate, please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed. To add an article to this list, add {{GAR request}} to the article talk page.

See also

Articles listed for community reassessment[edit]

SpaceX reusable launch system development program[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

Greetings! I came across this page recently, and it looks like the article could use some work to get back to meeting the GA criteria. Specifically, there are sections that are completely uncited, a section that using bulleted entries when it could be prose (not following MoS), and it does not seem very neutral (calling a section routine procedure after one reflown booster?).

I would correct all these myself, but it looks like a very large project and I am honestly not interested in putting that level of effort in. I can contribute in reviewing and doing some of the changes required however. Kees08 (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. We can work to add citations, there are plenty of good sources available. Regarding "routine procedure", we are talking about the first-stage landings, which have indeed become standard and routine. You are correct to note that relaunching boosters is not routine yet, but the article does not say that. — JFG talk 19:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good, let's at least get some citations in that section and maybe clarify it a little. Both SpaceX and other citations would be good, in an effort to level out the POV. I can go through the whole article and pick out specific things, but I think you generally know what needs improved, so if you want you can just ping me when the major issues are addressed and I can go through it in detail after that. Whatever works for me. Kees08 (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

YouTube[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

This was sitting in the backlog following a GAR request template placement. It was awaiting reassessment when an IP vandalized the template. After the reversion, AnomieBot placed it fresh in the list. As a result, I am starting an immediate reassessment of the article, but since this is such an important article, I have opened it as a community reassessment because I would not like to do this alone. I will not let an IP delay an article's reassessment like that, that's not fair. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 12:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I get that this is a hugely important article, but is it truly necessary that the article need be 188,000 bytes long? Holy crap. There must be some irrelevant content in here. I smell a serious criterion 3B violation here. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 12:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The readable text in the article actually isn't that long. It looks larger than it is because the "Comparison of YouTube media encoding options" and "Countries with YouTube Localization" have been hidden and make the HTML look larger. If these are taken out, it removes around 60,000 bytes. The article is not of excessive length when read through without the tables. The readable text in the article is around 115,000 bytes, which isn't hugely excessive per WP:SIZERULE. There are Featured Articles at 150k or more.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh? Is there any other issue you see here? dannymusiceditor Speak up! 19:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not overly concerned about the length of the actual text as explained above, but will have a detailed read through of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with this Good article reassessment, as YouTube has good quality and readable text in the article. I think that YouTube should stay as GA. Jamesjpk (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree. I began this reassessment because it was listed under the ones possibly needing reassessment, and was unfairly delayed. The number of bytes was at first concerning, so I wanted to check with the community. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 15:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I vote Keep. I think that this article still meets good article criteria. It provides broad, balanced scope and is very well cited.StoryKai (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delist unless issues below are fixed: though much of the article is very, very good, I believe there are significant issues relevant to GA criteria 1, 2 and 3. I've only skim-read much of the article so I'm sure there are many more small problems with the article that should be fixed, but fundamentally I think the biggest problems are with due weight and out of date or poorly sourced information. But the article doesn't seem that far off GA so I will reconsider my !vote if significant improvements are made. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 20:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Full review by Bilorv

Major issues

The article contains a lot of statistics and examples that are probably out of date. For instance, "YouTube's revenues in 2007 were noted as "not material" in a regulatory filing." (under "Revenue"), "In 2010, it was reported that nearly a third of the videos with advertisements were uploaded without permission of the copyright holders" (under "Revenue to Copyright Holders") and "the White House's official YouTube channel being the seventh top news organization producer on YouTube in 2012" (under "Social impact"). Now obviously in the Company history section or when discussing past events, facts like these are appropriate but old information used to support facts presented in the present tense (e.g. "Google does not provide detailed figures for YouTube's running costs") should probably be removed or replaced and there are probably others.

Why is there no section on prominent YouTubers, or explaining the types of content YouTube has in it? The "Social impact" section has quite a few very minor examples of things like a presidential debate using questions from a YouTube video or the YouTube Symphony Orchestra, but unless I missed it when skim-reading, there is no real mention of what the majority of content on YouTube actually is – e.g. categories like amateur musicians, home videos, people recording themselves playing video games, informative channels like MinutePhysics – or some notable examples (with a "Main article: List of YouTubers" link). I think this violates WP:UNDUE.

Minor issues

  • The lead's "Available content includes ..." sentence seems to mention things not covered later in the article e.g. "short and documentary films". This violates MOS:LEAD.
  • No source for current headquarters being in San Bruno, California (mentioned in lead and infobox), and not mentioned in Company history section.
  • Current CEO not source / mentioned outside infobox.
  • Programming languages are mentioned in infobox but JavaScript is not sourced and what makes this source that it uses Python reliable? But more basic than that, surely the language YouTube was written in should be mentioned somewhere in the body of the article, with more information related to both the original development and current maintenance of the site.
  • In the "Uploading" subsection, the "12 hours in length" and "normally through a mobile phone" facts are not mentioned in the given source.
  • The section "Comparison of YouTube media encoding options" does not seem reliably source; two of the sources are tagged and the only fact the other sources seem to verify is that YouTube uses 1080p (just one datum among four detailed tables).
  • "Countries with YouTube Localization" seems to have some dates which are unsourced or unknown (marked as "?").
  • In "Social impact", "YouTube channels launched by The Ellen DeGeneres Show and The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon became two of the most subscribed." seems unsourced and I'm very confused by what it means. List of most subscribed users on YouTube has those channels at 18th and 43rd, respectively. Perhaps they are supposedly the two most subscribed channels in the context of production companies, but this seems like OR without a source.
  • "Assuming pre-roll advertisements on half of videos, a YouTube partner would earn 0.5 X $7.60 X 55% = $2.09 per 1000 views in 2013." (under "Partnership with video creators") seems like OR based on the $7.60 figure mentioned in the reference following.
  • "NSA Prism program" section seems completely out of place – could it be expanded (what was its role in PRISM? What reactions were there when it was made public that YouTube were involved in it?)? Should it be merged into another section?
  • "April Fools" section is LISTCRUFT and given too much weight. Could possibly warrant a paragraph somewhere in the article with a couple of examples, but currently giving it a full section is too much.

I've also made a few edits to fix some other minor issues I found; if no-one else fixes the problems above or objects, I will also try to fix some of the issues I've listed here where I can. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 20:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)



Plasma (physics)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending
  • Plasma (physics) should be demoted of WP:GA status as the article has several {{citation needed}} tags. Some of the sections of the article such as "Degree of ionization", "Plasma potential", "Mathematical descriptions" are completely unreferenced. This means the article should be delisted as a good article as it does not meet criteria #2b as the article does not seem to meet "all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;" with some unreferenced sections.-KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 23:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I initially added the GA reassessment tag mainly due to lack of sources. In addition to the above, the section common plasmas is very hard to source even a posteriori. The research section was taken from a questionable website [plasmas.com] (the link has since been removed). The quality of this (early-days GA) article has fallen below the GA standards we uphold nowadays. Yinweichen (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Matt Striker[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

This article is written like an autobiography. It is an extensive document with heaps of redundant, irrelevant, repeated information. Many of the sources are unreliable and biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorrybutnope (talkcontribs)

I don't mind working a bit and improving this article. Its quality has definitely decreased throughout the years. I've already done a little cleanup. I'll work a bit more on it in the next few days. In the meantime, please list any specific concerns for me to address. Nikki311 01:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I've fixed the issues initially brought up. As previously mentioned, I'll be happy to address additional concerns. Nikki311 23:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


Star Wars[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending
To my dismay I am nominating this article for reassessment. Sourcing is the main concern. As can be seen huge amount of sourcing is needed. Other sourcing problems includes lots of primary and fan sources. There is also chart spam over proposed text and other maintenance tags such as "too long" . Also looks as if leads from sub-articles are just pasted here......lots to fix. --Moxy (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree- This article has obviously grown a lot since 2008 when it was named a good article. Movies have come out since then and a lot of attention was drawn to the series. It's grown too fast to the point where it was not all quality work. Plus there are too many sub-sections. Why are all the movies described in detail when each has its own substantial article? And since there are multiple maintenance tags, I do not believe it should remain a good article. El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Agree-The thing is that this article focuses solely in the film franchise, instead of focusing on Star Wars as the multi-media franchise it is. The only solution is that this article should be renamed into Star Wars (franchise) and the films should be split into an article called Star Wars (film series) to receive the focus they deserve, and allow the other media (animated series, video-games, comics, novels) to be properly described in the franchise article. We would keep the film tables at the top of the Star Wars (franchise) article and an additional super brief additional paragraph (or two paragraphs maximum) about the films plot overview, but split most of the info regarding the films and their developments into the new article Star Wars (film series), we could also merge the whole sequel trilogy article there instead of as stands right now, having two articles saying the same things about the sequel trilogy in different words, and also explain there the Holiday Special and the Ewoks films as non-canon Star Wars Legends films. I think that's the way it should be solved but no-one listens to my split suggestion, despite how the article here is the one of a film series, instead of the one of a multi-media franchise, the split would also make easier to keep both articles in good status, since both having less information is easier to manage. The article for the The Simpsons (franchise) of how the final Star Wars (franchise) article should look albeit, the SW franchise would have more tables for the media.Rosvel92 (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92
The suggestion to split the article hasn't gained any consensus, in part because this article is the franchise article and the films having more coverage makes sense per WP:DUE. They're the seminal, most high profile, most influential pieces of the franchise, the part of the franchise that most are familiar with. Yes, it's a multimedia franchise, but to pretend that the other pieces of media carry the same weight as the films is silly. A solution is to reorganize the article, expand reception to cover more than the films. I personally believe that paring down on individual film plots. I'm the past, I proposed to merge the individual film sections into larger trilogy sections, perhaps pare down on film specific development information and leave that for the film articles to streamline the structure—but that also has not gained consensus, per SUMMARYSTYLE, so I doubt it will be wise to implement. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Agree. Rosvel92 - I agree with everything you said except the film tables. I think they too should be merged, with a much smaller film table replacing them that merely lists the basics on each film. TenTonParasol - The films are certainly the centerpiece, which is why they should indeed be given the most weight. BUT they should not be given the ungodly amount of coverage that they currently receive in the article. A good franchise article is that for the Star Trek franchise; there is a main page which goes through the films, tv series, EU etc., but each of these links to an article covering them in more detail. I believe this style should be applied to the Star Wars franchise as well. Wilburycobbler (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Title U.S. release date Director
Saga
A New Hope May 25, 1977 George Lucas
The Empire Strikes Back May 21, 1980 Irvin Kershner
Return of the Jedi May 25, 1983 Richard Marquand
The Phantom Menace May 19, 1999 George Lucas
Attack of the Clones May 16, 2002
Revenge of the Sith May 19, 2005
The Force Awakens December 18, 2015 JJ Abrams
The Last Jedi December 15, 2017 Rian Johnson
IX May 24, 2019 Colin Trevorrow
Title U.S. release date Director
Other
The Clone Wars August 15, 2008 Dave Filoni
Rogue One December 16, 2016 Gareth Edwards
Untitled Han Solo film May 25, 2018 Ron Howard
I think we're in agreement that some things needs to be pared out of the films—like specific film development. But we're disagreeing about the methods. I don't think a split is the way to do that. I personally believe you just figure out what's necessary for an overview and leave it here, send the rest to be covered at the individual film articles. I personally agree the level of detail is too much, and should be covered in more summary, but there is no consensus on how much is too much. Even my own proposal, which simply involves cutting things out without a split, has been considered to be insufficient wrt the level of detail.~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Additionally, I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing with the table example. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
The only films table, I meant keeping on the franchise article was the one at the top. The tables of cast, crew, reception, oscars, etc, should be solely on the Star Wars films article (which would mostly be just most of the films section as it stands right now). The Franchise article would be the films table a small overview, and the in other media section merged with the Star Wars expanded universe (but ditching the in other media subtitle)Rosvel92 (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92
I was referring to the table Wilburycobbler constructed above. I was going to start a separate section about it, but Moxy mentioned there are too many tables. I think the Oscar table should definitely be converted to prose. And I feel like the RT and MC table should go entirely, and that section be turned into a prose summary of reception of the franchise. I think I formerly proposed that the crew table be merged with the first table if possible, seeing as they duplicate information. This would reduce the number of tables from six to three (trilogies, standlone films, box office totals). ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I've merged all applicable content into the Star Wars (film series) template. The Star Wars article is now much more succinct and to the pointWilburycobbler (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I've reverted it because there's no consensus! ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
This thing is like the US health care bill, in that there will never be a consensus on exactly what should be in or out, so I merged all applicable content to the film series article. At the end of the day our only consensus can be between either cutting the crap out, or retaining a bloated article, and we have clearly chose the former. So I decided to be bold. Wilburycobbler (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
We've barely had a discussion on it. We could always agree on what information to pare out exactly without splitting it into another article. We've agreed the article is bloated, but we haven't agreed on how to deal with it. There's more than two options. And since I felt the bold move wasn't a good one, I reverted it.~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
A franchise article is supposed to be an overview, not an in-depth analysis. As it is, the article contains waaay too much information about each film in the form of both prose and infoboxes. And it shouldn't even be covering individual films in the first place! That's what the film series articles are for! Again, see Star Trek. Wilburycobbler (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
And I've said I agree. I just don't think splitting the content off into "Star Wars (film series)" is the way to do it. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't we add the split discussion suggestion at the top of the films topic and at the top of the article? Since I suppose, now is clearly been discussed? Rosvel92 (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

Regarding the table bloat, I've just converted the Academy Awards table into prose. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


The Fine Young Capitalists[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

The majority of the sources used when it was made a good article were of very poor quality (please see discussion on article talk page.) The notability of the subject is questionable - WP:BLP1E may apply. Mostly, it hard fails the verifiability requirement of being a good article, and without the information included that was previously sourced poorly, the article'd be tiny and could hardly be considered to meet the 'broad coverage' requirement of being a good article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I haven't followed this article for a while, but I see a talk page discussion on sources and content (and there is clear disagreement between editors), and a number of recent edits that haven't gained clear consensus on the talk page. I didn't have time to go through every edit, but I doubt that the current revision is any better than the version that passed GA. What is obvious is the number of sources removed from the article: this was without consensus as evident on the talk page. Something needs to be done to the article, and leaving it in its current state (with GA status stripped) is certainly not the best solution for readers. feminist 13:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

An article being "tiny" has never stopped an article from being high quality. If being tiny was grounds to remove an article from its current status then MissingNo. should be removed from Featured Article. The vagueness of the nominator's when it comes to the sourcing in general here is rather unprofessional as its lack of specifics prevents people from actually fixing the article to maintain its GA status. GamerPro64 14:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Presumably other "tiny" articles have better sourcing than this one did. I don't know if some things have changed in the last three years, but a distressing number of the sources here are/were not reliable.--Cúchullain t/c 16:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
how did this article pass GA in the first place? several nonRS: campusreform, gameranx, cinemablend, gamesnosh ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't explain why Daily Dot and GamePoltics were also removed. The ones you mentioned besides campusreform, which I know nothing about, are unreliable on here. GamerPro64 17:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Wow, again I have to ask how that passed GA originally, it's riddled with WP:CRYSTALBALL. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Suspect the article was incompletely or just not screened. Artw (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The GA assessement is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Fine_Young_Capitalists#GA_Review ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I would have to agree with PeterTheFourth there. Artw (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to get involved with this GAR, but as the (second) GAN reviewer, I take issue with the idea that the version on December 3, 2015 was "riddled with WP:CRYSTALBALL" and therefore I didn't review it properly. The bit in the article I promoted said that TFC responded to criticism by "by offering to sell" t-shirts. That's not the same thing as "sold". The wording means that it was just an offer, not that it actually got sold. --PresN 17:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
per wp:crystalball "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."
  1. The t-shirts didn't happen. Should not have been included.
  2. "Later, TFYC reported a resolution to its disagreement with Quinn, though founder Matthew Rappard later stated their agreement never went through" That's reporting on something that didn't happen.
  3. There was the part about SNless that I had to take out, because it didn't happen either.
Those are the crystalball problems.
-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
An interview (from a questionable RS, probably nonRS) was used to support these claims:
  1. "most would go to charity," a crystalball and unverifiable via the interview
  2. "TFYC reported a resolution" ignoring the crystalball part of it not having happened, this should not have been included because an interview from only one party can't be used to verify a resolution to an issue between two parties.
-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
All of those "events" were to take place in the past. The article correctly stated that they had been planned, but did not happen- i.e. that the plans were real, but did not move beyond plans. Crystalball is about future events, not past events that did not make it out of the planning stages. Had the article said "TFYC plans to release t-shirts", or "TFYC is going to release t-shirts", then you'd be correct in calling it crystalball, but it didn't. You are fundamentally misreading the guideline. Additionally, I'm not going to argue whether or not those sources are reliable, but to hold that for any agreement regarding multiple parties that you need sources from all the parties to include it is absolutely ridiculous. So, if a game developer gets a publishing deal with another company, we need statements from both companies? If there's a trade agreement between 15 countries, we'd better end the sentence with 15 citations? If a source is reliable, and a party claims that an agreement has been made, then at most you could insist on a wording that "X said they reached an agreement with Y" instead of "X made an agreement with Y", but even that is usually going to be pedantic; removing it altogether is just dumb. --PresN 14:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, I'd recommend just deleting/redirecting this article if this is the way it's going to be reviewed. This was a flash-in-the-pan piece of gamergate fluff that got some press for being controversial but never went anywhere. If we're going to hold it to the standard that a) anything they said about themselves or their plans in interviews doesn't count, and b) any reporting done by pro-am sources that didn't exist long enough to make it on VG/RS doesn't count, then frankly there's like 2 paragraphs left. Maybe less; does an indiegogo campaign made by TFYC count as a reliable source for even itself? I mean, TFYC isn't a reliable source, apparently, about their own plans and intentions, so all we can source is that a campaign supposedly by them existed, which probably isn't enough to support an article. --PresN 14:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "All of those "events" were to take place in the past." Per wp:crystalball: "Wikipedia does not predict the future", they should not have been included. Predictions that could be wrong should not be included. Looking back from 2017, it's clear that many of those predictions were wrong (or unverifiable); they should not have been included
  • "anything they said about themselves or their plans in interviews doesn't count" Actually, certain self claims are ok, but Wikipedia is all about what is verifiable, and controversial claims that aren't verified should not have been included. Self-report of controversial claims need secondary sources. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
  • uncontroversial: "We call ourselves TFYC. We claim to be radical feminist" - can put that in from an interview.
  • controversial: "We have settled a dispute with someone we were in conflict with." - cannot put that in without a secondary source
  • needs verification: "We donated $x dollars to charity." - in this case, given that TFYC got mixed in with GG, this is could be controversial, and as a fact, it is not verified though a self-claim.
  • "just deleting/redirecting this article" I deleted all the stuff that needed better sourcing (and reverted); there might still be an article left after that. But perhaps the decision on the RS to stew for at least a week. And then after that see what's left.
  • "flash-in-the-pan" seeing as TFYC have gone in active, maybe that is reason to merge it in the GGC article.
-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @ForbiddenRocky: There's a book that mentions TFYC that might be worth using in the article. Defining Identity and the Changing Scope of Culture in the Digital Age. GamerPro64 02:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@GamerPro64: Thanks. I'll look into it. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
OMG that's a lot to digest. I think a fair bit of that could be used, but I notice some problems but those can be dealt with, I think. But given how long I think it would take to integrate that source, and how weak some of the other sources are, I think removing the GA is the right thing to do for now. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Not an expert on this article, but perhaps we should just revert the article back to the reviewed version considering that there's little new information and the state of the page has steadily regressed since then? Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 10:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Satellizer: Many of the issues (incredibly poor vetting of sources, crystal ball stuff) were present in the reviewed version. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@Satellizer: The article should not have passed its last review. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyone know if an uninvolved editor needs to delist this as a GA? Or can I do it? -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


Mountain Railways of India[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

While the recent cleanup edits have removed several of the article's deficiencies, it is still not quite at GA.

Some of the issues:

It is mis-named, and badly misnamed. This is an article about the UN heritage sites, not about mountain railways in India. Simply looking briefly at existing railways with wiki articles, the Kangra Valley Railway and the Lumding-Badarpur section are or contain mountain railway, and are active or intact. Looking at defunct system, or systems since converted such as Cherra Companyganj State Railways and some of the Satpura narrow-gauge lines will obviously expand the list much farther. The article is not broad in coverage,but restricted to a small portion of its nominal subject.

Much of the sourcing is from a touristic/passenger POV, emphasizing picturesqueness, and, because of that, it was (and related articles were), until recently afflicted with touristical glurge in their sourcing, with both the accuracy and NPOV problems such sources bring.

Finally, an article just undergoing a major re-write is, by definition, not stable. Give a month or three first. An article can't be both a "good article" and in need of major editing. Anmccaff (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Just two responses: 1) The UNESCO site is called "Mountain Railways of India," so I think the name is proper. And if not, it can easily be changed; and 2) The Guild of Copy Editors has a board where people can request a CE when they are thinking of nominating their article to become a good or featured article. So it isn't fair to say that getting a copy-edit means the article is bad. I recently did a CE on Steller's sea cow, which is currently being nominated as a FA. Just my opinion. I didn't write the article, I just edited it, but I don't think it's fair to strip it just now. El cid, el campeador (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
The UNESCO cite originally covered only one of the railways, then two, then three...what do you think the second two were before UNESCO designation? I'd suggest since they were, in fact, "mountain railways" located in "India" that they were examples of "mountain railways of India" from their building, and UNESCO's designation is superfluous. There are other mountain railways in India still, and there were once even more of them, to say nothing about the mountain railways in what used to be India.Anmccaff (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
It isn't a question of whether the article was "bad", but if it met and meets Wiki's rubric for good articles. If you had to change it, it may not have been good before, and it certainly isn't "stable" if it's recently been changed. Anmccaff (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep-If the article is badly named, request a move. All claims seem sourced. Some of the sources-though I can't say all-might be biased. The article itself seems neutral enough. I also don't understand how an article that recently underwent major changes cannot be considered a good article. If that "major editing" helps the article, why would you nominate it for delisting? Display name 99 (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
If the major editing improved the article, then the article is not stable. Stability imples that it has settled on a version that needs no substantive improvement, which obviously isn't the case if it was just substantively improved. Give it a week, or a month, or whatever, but don't claim, as editfests seem to far too often, "instant stability." Anmccaff (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
If the article grossly fails to meet one or more of the GA criteria, we can talk about demoting it. But to suggest that an article ought to be demoted after it was "substantially improved" falls nothing short of pure insanity.
Did you read the definition of "stability" at WP:Good article criteria? I'm guessing you haven't in a while, so I'll quote it for you. It declares that the article must "not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." So there's no edit war or content dispute, just somebody improving the article's quality. And somehow that's a reason to downgrade it? Perhaps before the article was not GA worthy. Now it seems as though it is. My suggestion for you is to read the GA criteria, determine what it means, contemplate your actions carefully, and to stop punishing people for making Wikipedia better. Display name 99 (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I have read it recently, have you considered that the only reason I (and possibly others) are not actively editing is to give the question here a chance to be settled? If you'd prefer, I'll mark up all the sections that are dubious, &cet. There certainly is a content dispute; we have an article supposedly about "mountain railways of India" which ignores most examples of them, and almost all historical examples. Huge amounts of potential content are missing.
Next, you are assuming that the article now meets standards; as mentioned explicitly above; I feel it does not, since The article is not broad in coverage,but restricted to a small portion of its nominal subject.
Finally, stop assuming that something you don't agree with is aimed at "punishing people for making Wikipedia better; perhaps I don't see this as making Wikipedia better. In fact, I see labeling this in its current form a "feature article" as making Wikipedia a laughingstock. Anmccaff (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Your previous posts focused most heavily on the article not being stable. I was responding to that. The discussion that we are having here does not count as a content dispute. A content dispute would be marked by frequent reverts or drama on the talk page. The idea that an article should be delisted because of a major improvement still sounds just as ridiculous, but your expanded emphasis on the broadness issue seems to have more credibility. Perhaps El cid, el campeador could expand the scope of the article's coverage so that it will better quality as a GA. Display name 99 (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion that we are having here does not count as a content dispute....but it would, you know, were it elsewhere. Should I move it there now? The idea that an article should be delisted because of a major improvement still sounds just as ridiculous. To you, perhaps. As I see it, if it needed major improvement, it probably wasn't given a very good GA review, or it may have suffered from accumulated bad edits. Either way, it has never had a GA review in in its current form, and allowing it to keep the status either because it had once met it, or because someone had mistakenly thought it did, is just silly. Anmccaff (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The only reason for this dispute is because you nominated the article to be delisted. You're basically saying that because you nominated an article for reassessment and thus caused a content dispute, the article should be delisted because of that very same dispute that you initiated. By that logic, every GA reassessment that resulted in any kind of discussion whatsoever-as I imagine nearly all do-would result in the article being delisted simply because of the discussion. Can you see the absurdity in that way of thinking? Display name 99 (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The reason I nominated it is because it isn't a very good article, even if it is slightly improved from when it was a very bad article. The content disputes mentioned above haven't been settled, or even addressed. Until they are, the article is not stable. Nothing in the least absurd about that; but there is a tiny bit of absurdity in the idea that "goodness" is a permanent irrevocable condition. Anmccaff (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

PS:[Here]'s the original "good" article. Do you think this is now essentially the same article? Do you think this article, in its 2010 from, should have passed GA review? Anmccaff (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I can take a look at that. But did you notice this edit, which seems to have removed a whole lot of content? Maybe it includes some of the missing material that you're referring to. If so you can challenge it. Display name 99 (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, before that it was more in-line with the putative subject, although it had some other major failings., too. Anmccaff (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I think this article has, by now, gone through so many changes since evaluation that a reevalution is unquestionably needed; does anyone now disagree? Anmccaff (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


Clover (creature)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

I happen to bump in to this article fairly recently and was quite shocked to find out that this was promoted to GA status even though a number of claims in the article require citations. This shouldn't be listed for now until those citation templates (and that one that requests a clarification) are resolved. Bluesphere 06:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delist: The article is not substantive, the lead does not touch base on main points, the content is largely in-universe and the one external link is for the film and not Clover. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 07:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Me & the Rhythm[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

Article was nominated by a now confirmed and indeffed sock account of MaranoFan. While not vandalism, suggest and request re-review per WP:DENY as the nominator should neither have edited nor nominated the article. -- ψλ 19:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delist even if the nominator wasn't a sock, this article was passed prematurely when it has questionable-at-best citations (namely "Vancitybuzz" and "Inquistr", goes into too much detail on parent album, says nothing about commercial performance (however minor it might have been), and neglects to mention any of its live performances except for a concert on Today. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delist as well. Vancitybuzz seemed legit to me. Inquistr is always questinoble but I have taken some of those references to it now. Yes I completly overlooked the commericla performance. It does mention live perfoamcnes, read the lead. It wasn't worth having a section with one sentence. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I have now added a Commercial performance section and replace the Vancitybuzz reference. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Nero[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

This article has degraded significantly since its Good Article selection and now is poorly written. It needs an extensive re-write by someone with experience of the topic and who can commit time to do this. Personally I don't think it is even close to meeting GA status at this time and minor changes will probably not fix this. Stingray Trainer (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Stingray Trainer: I am doing a copy-edit but can you be more specific?Seraphim System (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@Seraphim System: To start with the introduction reads like a long list of short statements/facts rather than a narrative overview of the article. There is duplication (e.g. murder of his mother is repeated) and the sentence structure leaves a lot to be desired. This is why I felt it needs to be done by someone with extension knowledge of Nero rather than myself. The rest of the article is in much better shape and mostly needs a tidy and minor improvements to bring it back up to a high standard. Stingray Trainer (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@Stringray Trainer: If I understand you correctly, you feel it should be re-assessed for failing 1b(lede) with minor copy editing? What about the excessive use of primary sources? I've tagged these in some places, intending to improve the sourcing when I've completed the read through. I think using Suetonius as a source, without secondary sources is a major problem (and the article is templated for it, so this should also be considered for GAR- wouldnt articles templated for sourcing issues usually be quick failed?) I agree with you that it does not currently meet GA criteria. I am not too familiar with the procedure though - would we have to remove it from GA and then renominate it, or could it be improved while this discussion is open? Seraphim System (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Stingray Trainer, as nominator at GAR, it is your responsibility to notify the main contributors to the article (if any remain active) and also the various related WikiProjects (they are listed on the article talk page): see WP:GAR for the instructions on how this process works. Seraphim System, since this is a community reassessment, anyone who has taken part in the evaluation may not close it, and the article may not be delisted unless the consensus is to do so (and is so assessed by the closer). The ideal end of a GAR, per the instructions, is that the article is brought to meet the GA criteria. As this is not always possible, articles do get delisted with some regularity, but community reassessments, which this is, tend to be a fairly lengthy process. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@Seraphim System: I agree that it would be quick failed if this was a new recommendation, but I am also not sure for the process for re-assessment (i.e. can you quick fail it?) - hence why I put this to a community reassessment. As per BlueMoonsets points it apparently appears I am required to do a lot more than just nominate this article - this will happen in due course, but a) I don't think there are regular contributors to notify; and b) I don't have time to do that this week due to work, but should get around to it shortly. As per your point reference Suetonius - I'm sure there is a policy reference this sort of thing, but whilst it is technically primary research,it is also a source that is widely quoted as fact (due to a general lack of other evidence) and may be acceptable. Hopefully we can get some advice. Stingray Trainer (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── my understanding of this is that it is still WP:OR. Yes, Suetonius is widely discussed but we need to stick to the analysis of secondary sources, not our own analysis of primary texts. So while it is ok to cite Suetonius, the analaysis and propositions need to be cited to secondary. Seraphim System (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Stingray Trainer: now that I've done some work on it I can say more—some of the details from Suetonius I have not been able to find in secondary sources. They are not emphasized anyway—for example, insinuations that Nero may have poisoned Claudius. Instead of working backwards to source the primary as it is written in the articles, I am preferring to follow the account in secondary sources. I have rewritten the family section. Just thought you should take a look because I've done some major editing and let me know what you think. (I'm saving the lede for last.) Seraphim System (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Stingray Trainer I've done a lot of work on this article. There is still more to do (including revise the lede) but I have restructured to make the chronology clearer, I've removed some content which was sourced to primary but either not discussed in secondary analysis, or the secondary analysis had different conclusions. I have tried to follow the secondary sources for the analysis and to resolve issues of due weight (the sources I used most were Shotter, Griffin, Champlin, Malitz and Scullard). Can you look it over and let me know where you see problems? (except the lede). This is a high traffic article so it would be nice if we can fix the issues instead of just demote it. Seraphim System (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System, you would be more likely to get a reply if you spelled Stingray Trainer's name correctly in your pings (Stingray, not Stringray). Generally, a red link when the user's sig and other pings have been blue indicates a typo somewhere or something likely to interfere with the notification you're looking for; preview is your friend. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Thanks, I think I fell asleep promptly after posting this, this article really needed a lot of work as it was almost entirely sourced at primary sources, and so far I have been the only one working on it. There is still more to do, but it's really not ever ideal to have only one person working on it. The premise of Wikipedia isn't that we won't make any errors, I appreciate your fixing a typo but Occam's razor is helpful here- red links don't show up in my color scheme which is kind of annoying, I will look into fixing this - but it's not because I didn't look over the comment after I posted it, or that I don't understand the concept of a red link, that is a lot to assume, but thanks for fixing this one. Seraphim System (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
EDIT: Actually I see the username typos haven't actually been fixed, so I fixed them myself. I think it's pretty obvious that not every color scheme displays red links correctly and that I would have fixed it myself if I'd seen redlinks. I know what a red link is, why would I just leave it like that if I had seen them? Obviously, if I am pinging, it is because I want a response after putting many hours into improving the article. For future reference, usually when someone sees a typo like this, they can fix the typo and just leave a note that it has been fixed.Seraphim System (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Seraphim System, Wikipedia pings only work if they're added with a valid sig in the same edit, so correcting the typo won't get the ping to work retroactively, since there isn't a new sig with the correcting edit. My previous post should have gotten a ping through to Stingray Trainer, so that should be set. Just so you know. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
That is good to know, thank you Seraphim System (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchBank for Reconstruction and Development/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

This article relies too much on references to primary sources.(20/21) Clear Sky Talk 13:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


HIStory/Ghosts[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

The participants at article talk page agreed to split the article. Since there was not yet an opposition to the split proposal, the split will affect the article's status as GA. I could review it and then delist it, but I feared that I might displease some others who would want to preserve the article's status, especially after the split. Also, I have not reviewed and promoted an article to Good Article before. Maybe this discussion would help preserve the article's status, or maybe this would result in the article being delisted as GA, i.e. demoted into being former GA.

I would like to be bold and split the article right away. However, history logs of this article have been recorded. Maybe cut-and-paste portions about one song into Ghosts (Michael Jackson song), and move the page to "HIStory (Michael Jackson song)". Otherwise, maybe cut-and-paste other portions into HIStory (Michael Jackson song) and move the page to "Ghosts (Michael Jackson song)". First, I'd like to hear your thoughts please. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

George Ho, until the split proposal on the article's talk page is closed by an independent closer with a decision of "split", no action should be taken here, or indeed in splitting the article. There is no rush.
In general, it would be a bad idea to have a complicated situation like this be your first GA review. However, since you are to be involved in doing the splitting, you certainly are not eligible to do a GA review, since you will have been involved in creating the resulting new articles. Also, since this is a community reassessment, while you can add comments, it is not in your power here to delist it; this page will also need to be closed by an uninvolved editor/closer. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I struck the reviewing part out, BlueMoonset. May I request a closure at WP:ANRFC then? Also, you want it this assessment closed, right? --George Ho (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, I did request a closure to seek uninvolved closer, but it was declined as too soon and obviously unanimous. --George Ho (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Update: The split proposal is closed as "split unanimously supported", BlueMoonset. --George Ho (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Narendra Modi[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchModi/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page
Result pending

I have been frequently watching articles of Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, that are written much better than this article, they are rated at C class. I am surprised this article qualified as GA. Article has tons of issues, raised entire last year[1] and even recent times, but I am writing down how it fails GA criteria.

Fails #2, because the article has BLP violation, on lead it claims or at least tries to push Modi to be complicit of 2002 Gujarat riots, despite the whole claim is a dead horse following the clearance. Allegations (especially refuted) should be never on lead and if they should be on the article, sources need to report the events after the acquittal, in place of pushing less accepted thoughts. However this article with the sentences such as "His administration has been considered complicit", "is generally considered by scholars to have been complicit",(giving 3 sources all dating years before he was acquitted of all charges) with such wording it treats the allegations as obvious convictions. Genuine issues with BLP have been raised before on talk page, but ignored.[2]

Some good examples would be, that we don't see mention of Obama's alleged illegal warring in Libya on Barack Obama,[3] we don't see Putin's alleged role in the bombing of Moscow building. Even the article of Kim Jong-un is less negative. So why we are seeing similar claims on the article of Narendra Modi?

Fails #3 because it still gives minimal or no details about his output of last 3 years as prime minister, although it provides a huge section for 2002 Gujarat riots, which could've been reduced to 3 sentences without requiring a section. The lack of details about his relationship with other countries, encouragement in sports,[4][5] is also missing, more could be provided.

Fails #4 lacks neutrality; like we can see, other than that the lead is unnecessarily balanced to the extent that it is too repetitive (mentioning Hindu nationalism identity twice as well as "2002 Gujarat riots") the last part of the lead is itself childish, with its claim that Modi is "controversial", because every politician even mayor happens to be controversial. Large amount of content has been also forked from 2002 Gujarat riots to the section Narendra Modi#2002 Gujarat riots. Article has trivial material like criticism for "half-sleeved kurta", which is not even encyclopedic.

Fails #5 its not stable; few examples of edit warring[6][7][8][9] can be found and content dispute still continues, with editors other than me, finding genuine problems with the sourcing.[10][11][12]

I would say that this article really lacks even basic requirements of B-class, let alone GA. I would be one of the editors posting on the talk page, but first the GA rating would need to be removed as GA rating itself serves as justification for not removing/modifying the content. Lorstaking (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

  • This "reassessment" is quite absurd, and shows only that this user has not read the relevant policies. The article does not say Modi was complicit in the riots. It says scholars consider his government to be. If readers are unable to distinguish between "Narendra Modi" and "the government headed by Narendra Modi" that is their problem, not Wikipedia's. Modi has not been acquitted. He has not been acquitted, because he was never tried for any crime. He was investigated by a supreme court committee. The committee found insufficient evidence against him. This fact is mentioned in the lead, quite appropriately. What Wikipedia says about Obama and Putin is quite irrelevant here, and should be raised on those talk pages. The notion that the riots are given undue weight is once again absurd. The riots are given three paragraphs, despite the huge coverage they receive in scholarly sources: see [13]. In contrast, his Prime Ministership is given 27 paragraphs. Indeed, the section about his prime ministership was so long that folks asked for it to be trimmed. I do not even understand most of the other complaints about neutrality. The complaint about "controversial" is, once again, quite misguided; many major political figures are controversial, and if sources describe them as such, then so must we. Vanamonde (talk) 10:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I believe we need to go by the common standards of writing articles and it is relevant to look at other articles. Since multiple editors had raised concerns over the sentences, it had to be resolved rather than keeping on mainspace. And if you want to preserve the preferred sentences, then don't expect having better rating. If article doesn't say Modi was complicit, why it even mention his role? He wasn't acquitted? It is still WP:UNDUE, it rather reads as the article has been designed to claim him as complicit because he was the Chief Minister of the state government at the time and he has been largely singled out in the entire riots. If you are saying that he hadn't been tried for any crime it makes even more WP:UNDUE to mention the entire riots in the article. The lead is providing undue weight to allegations. Yes every politician is controversial and it is childish to mention that on the lead or entire article, and here, it has been mentioned that Modi is controversial but after repeating the already mentioned subjects. Lorstaking (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Due weight is not based on what editors like, or how many editors like something. It is based on coverage in reliable sources. For example, of the 9000-odd scholarly sources that mention Narendra Modi, approximately 2000 also mention the riots. The numbers are even higher for the sources that cover this in detail. Thus, per WP:DUE, the weight given to the riots is very very low. If you want to change this, you need to demonstrate that there are things in sources of equal weight that are not being covered in the article. Otherwise, this just sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Vanamonde (talk) 11:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support stripping of good article status. As per all the points noted. I had brought this page on Biography of living persons noticeboards a few years ago[14] because of source misrepresentations, but not much has changed in fact worsened when it comes to WP:NPOV. The comparison of the lead is somewhat worse than what it used to be years ago, despite Narendra Modi is himself highly applauded internationally for his efforts.[15][16][17][18] However this article continues to paint a negative image of him. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - For all the reasons described.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, obviously. No substantive evidence has been provided that the article violated WP:DUE. No concrete suggestions for improvements have been made that have any basis in policy. And I do not often play this card, but the fact is that the inexperience of some of these folks with the GA process in showing: whereas Midnightblueowl, who reviewed this, for instance, has a hundred GAs and nearly as many GA reviews; and I have 20 of each myself. Vanamonde (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delist Yes there are huge amount of BLP, NPOV violations. I was one of the users who raised issues on talk page[19] but I was met with dissatisfaction even after providing much better sources than what this article has. Controversial edits were made without consensus days before GA started. Capitals00 (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Oppose: I was the editor who reviewed this at GAN and, after a lengthy discussion with Vanamonde (which entailed a range of prose changes), the article was passed as a Good Article. I am not thoroughly convinced by Lorstaking's argument that it fails the GA criteria. Rather, this looks to me as if it is more of a content dispute and an editor potentially using GAR as a means of pushing a POV. There is of course a pro-Modi lobby here at Wikipedia as in the real world and I am wondering if this attempt to have the article change may have more to do with concealing criticism of Modi than genuinely adhering to Good Article criteria (if I am wrong on that, I apologise, but I think we need to bear it in mind as a possibility). Editors have raised comparisons with articles like those on Putin and Kim Jong In, although both of these articles are in a fairly sorry state (the Obama article is rated FA but frankly it shouldn't be and will probably be delisted soon). It would be better to hold the Modi article up against other FA-rated political biographies like Vladimir Lenin, Nikita Khruschev, and Nelson Mandela. How does it stack up against those in its coverage of controversies? Unless very clear evidence can be presented that this article misrepresents the Reliable Sources then I would suggest dropping this issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
@Midnightblueowl: You are comparing biographies of dead people with a BLP, is there some difference? 2 of them being communist dictators and one of them being someone who had been jailed for 27 years. All I find no more than one negative sentence on Nelson Mandela, Nikita Krushchev and Vladimir Lenin on lead, while Narendra Modi's article lead is smaller and contains 3 negative sentences. Also I am not seeing any content forking on these 3 articles either. So your comparison with this articles is largely uncomfortable. Yes there are issues with sourcing like it has been already mentioned, "giving 3 sources all dating years before he was acquitted of all charges", that's how POV pushing has been done of this article. How come one cannot provide the sources for those claims that came much after the court verdict? Obviously because such source would differed the preferred POV. Issues have been well raised on talk page entire time if you haven't observed, if you really want to compare the article, then try doing so with other Indian political leader GA, Mayawati, you will find this article's quality is actually bad. Capitals00 (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I still think that this is primarily a content issue that could be dealt with in a more appropriate manner. For instance, why wasn't this raised as a Talk Page section first? (Or was it?). For me, GAR just seems like the wrong place to be raising these issues at this stage. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
@Midnightblueowl: I had raised few issues,[20] but they hadn't been answered appropriately and in fact I was told by this same user that article is GA that's why information should stick. You have asked above if this article has misrepresented sources, I find a bunch of misrepresentation on lead itself.
  • "His administration has been criticised for failing to significantly improve health, poverty, and education indices in the state" cites [21] but nothing like this can be found there. And the other source it cites is [22], which the other user with access had already confirmed that there is no use of "criticise" in entire document.
  • "His administration has been considered complicit in the 2002 Gujarat riots" is using sources[23](from 2007) that doesn't even mention Narendra Modi, while other one doesn't use the word "complicit" or anything same[24], it only says "accused of failing to stop" which is far from any complicity.
  • None of the sources claim that he is controversial nationally and internationally both. Sources must cite it exactly otherwise it is WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. [25][26] only states the controversy regarding 2002 Gujarat riots, none of the sources tell that he is controversial for his "Hindu nationalist beliefs", and "cited as evidence of an exclusionary social agenda" is not supported by any sources.
And that's with the lead alone, I would be finding more misrepresentation of sources, but for now this seems enough alone to maintain that article is in really bad shape. Capitals00 (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
These "objections" are mostly hot air. I responded to Capitals00's points on the talk page. I supported two of his five proposed changes, and explained the problems with three others. He neglected to respond; that is not really my issue. As with Lorstaking above, it would appear that Capitals00 is unable to tell the difference between Modi and the government run by him. Thus, the sources in question need to discuss his government, which they do. He also seems to want to see the exact sentence from the article in the source, which of course is impossible, because that would be a copyright violation. The article is largely based on scholarly sources; replacing them with media sources, which you folks seek to do, would definitely make it worse. The Shani source most certainly mentions Modi, and directly states that the rioters had help from the authorities. On page 169. Have you even read that page, Capitals00? I thought not. I have yet to hear a substantive objection to anything in this article. Pankaj, this is not a vote; supporting complaints of no substance does you no credit, and does not help your cause. If you folks had kept track of the GA review, you would have seen that Midnightblueowl actually raised substantive issues, and that I acted on most of them. Vanamonde (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes you have used a partisan source from 2007 to make a problematic claim doesn't adhere to NPOV. How about use a source that comments on the clearance? Capitals00 (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support removing GA for reasons stated above. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The nominators reasoning is invalid. Looking at each point:
  1. Doesn't fail #2. The body of the article clearly contains many scholarly sources on the complicity of the Modi administration in the 2002 riots. The nominator raises the "acquittal" argument which has been much discussed and, to summarize, Wikipedia gives more weight to scholarly sources and less weight to government commissions or court judgements.
  2. Doesn't fail #3. At least not per nominators arguments. The lack of details about his relationship with other countries, encouragement in sports,[14][15] is also missing, more could be provided - these are WP:CRUFT and I'd say that the article would fail GA status if they were included!
  3. Doesn't fail #4. "Controversial" is well documented (and much discussed on these talk pages). I'm surprised (or perhaps not) that it is being raised again.
  4. Doesn't fail #5. Yes, there is edit warring but the content is reasonably stable. Edit warring occurs because various POV editors raise points similar to what the nominator is raising but they haven't been getting much traction. There is no reason why an article on a controversial subject cannot be a good article despite the presence of POV pushers as long as they are kept at bay. In a sense, the fact that the nomination is merely reiterating the various issues that keep getting raised on the talk page but never get anywhere shows that the article is actually quite stable!
  5. As I state above, the issues raised by the nominator all are content issues that have been raised multiple times on the talk page but have not gone anywhere because they either want to remove information well backed up by reliable sources or add information from less reliable or primary sources. When you find that your content choices are not getting traction, the traditional way to deal with that is through dispute resolution. Not by seeking to demote the article. We have a well referenced and comprehensive article and that makes this a "good" article.--regentspark (comment) 14:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • You seem to be saying that many editors raised concerns with the edits but their concerns were totally ignored. So we are claiming him to be complicit in the disguise of his state? That's WP:UNDUE and doesn't deserve anywhere entire article, because there are enough academic sources that have commented on his clearance, and I had provided them on the talk page but I am not seeing them to be included, instead we are seeing sources that were published years before the clearance. Most of the negative content is clearly not "well documented" like I have highlighted out above. Capitals00 (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
No. I'm saying that many editors raised concerns but that their concerns were shown to be invalid. A good example is the "clearance" issue you've repeatedly raised on this talk page. As has been explained (e.g. here), we give more weight to scholarly sources and "clearances" don't mean much (though, of course, they can be mentioned). "Controversial" is another much discussed example. So, no, nothing is being ignored. Rather, the changes sought by you and others are not making their way into the article because, again as I say above, the things you want removed are well supported by reliable sources. --regentspark (comment) 16:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Much has been already discussed here or there, I would point out that one needs to see Barack Obama#Foreign policy, an FA article, that details his activities and relationships with other countries, we can't find same for Modi. And all of the sources used in the foreign policy section of Narendra Modi are one year older. Article is lacking updates. Lorstaking (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
You should then be listing what specific updates you're seeking on foreign policy etc. I'm trying to assume good faith here but it does seem odd that your very first edit to the talk page is a GA reassessment. --regentspark (comment) 16:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • By initiating this discussion I was only telling that the article fails GA criteria and if editors are ready to work on it they should, but it seems that while most editors oppose the current article, not everyone is ready to work on it. After seeing more of these comments, it becomes concerning that article includes is contrary to WP:BLP, contains misrepresentation of sources, non-neutral content and WP:OR. It can be assured that the article is no where near the quality of C-Class articles such as Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, either. But I think we are going around in circles, it is better to seek community opinion for the GA now. Lorstaking (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - RegentsPark has analysed the issues well. Modi has a troubled past, and it would seem that his fans would like it to disppear. As far as the facts are concerned, Modi has never been investigated, charged or acquitted. He was only "questioned". The Special Investigation Team has determined that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute him, which was accepted by the Supreme Court. This makes no difference whatsoever to the scholarly assessments of Modi's conduct, which we report faithfully. The objections being repeatedly made on the talk page as well as here basically leads me to the conclusion that all this business needs to be covered in much more detail than done at present. I will be happy to work on that. This really makes no difference to the GA status. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose-This reads more like a content dispute than that of a reassessment of GA criteria. As summed up by other editors above the article does not fail GA in fact the changes suggested in the review would certainly fail this article.It must be remembered that the article serves to report what ever is the opinion of reliable sources and not what is considered to be the truth--RADICAL SODA(FORCE) 11:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose what appears to be primarily a political rather than quality-based reassessment. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This article doesn't meet WP:NPOV and portrays an overwhelmingly negative tone. It needs substantial copy-editing in order to meet GA status. --RaviC (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I haven't checked who the author of this article is. I hope they won't mind my saying that the article has a much bigger problem than one of meeting or not meeting certain WP criteria. The article has no narrative, no affect. It has been drained of all life blood. It reads like a list of events in a person's life. You might as well rename it Modi sutra and park it at FLC. Is the author really interested in writing this? If so, forget about GA, FA, ..., go read a bunch of books on Modi. Then reread them. Then put away all your books away and write. I mean this sincerely. And, if you are not interested in writing it, then why are you? Good luck. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
    • PS. Thinking this over. It might be that the author is trying too hard to tread a narrow, circumspect, path, given Modi's detractors and supporters, given the lack of any scholarly work on his life, Modi's own tendency to be highly secretive. If that is the case, then perhaps the author should wait until such scholarship etc appears. There have to be backstories. A person can't just announce at age 62 that he has a wife, whom he married as a teenager and later deserted citing high principles, and it all happened in an emotional vacuum for both parties. A 17-year-old boy of very modest means in 1967, couldn't just run away from home, turn up in all kinds of exotic Himalayan locations, return home two, or was it three, years later with no tangible recollection of these trips in the memories of others, nor explanation of how he was able to afford them. By listing these events in a highly cautious, non-judgmental, tone, the article appears to give credence to them. This in turn makes the article less credible. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
As you well know, F&f, Wikipedia articles are not "written". They accumulate mass over time and periodically cleaned up. I doubt if there is anybody with an NPOV frame of mind who is seriously interested in "writing" an article on Modi. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I just took a look at the comments. I didn't realize that people are thinking the article is too critical of Modi. My sense is that by using circumspect language it is too easy on him. As for as GA criteria are concerned, it certainly meets them. So, I oppose removing it from GA status, but generally wanted to tell the authors to rewrite it with some verve, when they eventually submit it for FA. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Thanks for coming by. This topic is so contentious that making any changes to it is fraught with difficulty; and if that were not enough, there is a string of people who come by wanting to turn it into a hagiography, and another (less common) set who want to add the odd insulting statement. Keeping the article on the straight and narrow between these is inevitably going to make it rather dry, and very circumspect in tone. Does it go too easy on Modi? That's a complicated question. Scholarly sources are, on the whole, more critical of him than this article. The print media has a mixture of attitudes; and the visual media, from what I have heard, is rather more supportive of him. What that tends to mean is that anybody trying to move the article from being based on media sources to scholarly sources is going to run into the same cluelessness that is being trotted out on this page. Hence the circumspect tone. If you want to help move it towards a more balanced outlook, you are more than welcome. With respect to your initial point, though, I'm not sure I agree it's a problem. For a contemporary political figure, providing narrative of any kind is a questionable enterprise, because really we do not know how history will see his figure; and so we need to be a lot more wary using heavy editorial voice than in an article on, say, an 18th century figure on whom most scholarship is already in. Vanamonde (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hermann Graf[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

Nomination[edit]

Much of the subject's war-time career is cited to:

  • Jochim, Berthold K (1998). Oberst Hermann Graf: 200 Luftsiege in 13 Monaten Ein Jagdfliegerleben. Rastatt, Germany: VPM Verlagsunion Pabel Moewig. ISBN 3-8118-1455-9.

Berthold K. Jochim (de) is a pen name of Franz Kurowski, a known fabulist and apologist for the German war effort of 1939–45. By his own admission, he reserved his own name for "more serious work" and used his pseudonyms for largely semi-fictional accounts. correction follows: was the founder and long-term editor of the pulp series Der Landser. Specific to the book in question, an editor, who is familiar with the source, noted: The book is actually written by Franz Kurowski (under a different name). I own the 1998 version and I think it more or less a piece of s***. Quoted from: [27]. I was not surprised at this assessment as the source was issued by Pabel Moewig (de), the publisher behind Der Landser.

In my opinion, the article fails several GA criteria:

  • Criterion 2 -- Verifiable: all in-line citations are from reliable sources
  • Criterion 3 -- Broad in its coverage: it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail
  • Criterion 4 -- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

I was unable to locate alternate sources on the subject that are reliable and neutral and provide the same level of detail. I don't believe it's possible to improve the article through normal editing for it to retain GA status and remain broad in coverage.

I'm thus nominating the article for community reassessment. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

I have the Bergstrom, Antipov & Sundin book and am gradually working through it verifying the details. I am positive a lot of the facts cited can also be referenced out of that volume. Though it looks like a fair portion of the wiki-article's early paragraphs may need to be rewritten a little to avoid claims of direct copying from the B/A/S book Philby NZ (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. How close is it to B/A/S book? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@User:Ian Rose Hi, per your revert, is there some middle ground? This seems a little overly wordy to say he did flight training between x and y dates that would cover the the things you would expect a pilot to do? Cinderella157 (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand the nom's claim that "much of the subject's war-time career is cited to Jochim" when only 9 of the 38 wartime sources cite Jochim and that period only covers a year when he fought against the Soviet Union. Even if we are really convinced that everything that Jochim says has been made up, it would still seem more constructive to seek alternative sources for that short period, rather than downgrading the whole article. Bermicourt (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

K.e. coffman, if Kurowski and Jochim are the same person, then what's up with the different German wikipedia entries, which say that Kurowski died in 2011 and Jochim died in 2002? Kges1901 (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I've now updated with reference additions & details from Bergstrom, Antipov & Sundin for his early life and the 1939-1940 years of the war. I've taken out a bit of text which adds standard detail that can be found linking to other relevant articles. I've also reworded a few phrases which may be construed as overly emotive and/or too close to the original Bergstrom et al text. Comments welcome if you think these are improvements to the article or in fact denigrate the Good Article status that it holds now (which I certainly don't want to do). I'll be getting onto the Russian Front part of his career next from the same source. Philby NZ (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm rereading this article after having edited it for grammar yonks ago. It seems to me, as to Bermicourt (talk · contribs) that the citations to are minimal in the larger scheme of the article. Second, these are citations to fact, not to opinion. It is not Jochim's opinion that Graf shot down this plane or that plane, but his facts. Philby NZ (talk · contribs) seems to have confirmed the veracity of much of Jochim's citations vis a vis Bergstrom in the earlier sections. I agree with changes that reduce some of the "emotive" sections.
  • relating to Kges1901 (talk · contribs)'s question, why are there two completely different biographies in the German wikipedia for Kurowski and Jochim? These are not just slightly different, but radically different, from birth to death. And just if they are one and the same man, does this mean that the work he wrote as one is superior to the work he did as another, or that either or both should be discarded simply because he was a fabulist? I'd like to know who claims he was a fabulist, and why it should be assumed that anything he writes about Nazis generally and Graf particularly should be discarded for this reason?
  • Generally, on the subject of pen names: anyone who reads Napoleonic war era stuff probably knows that Digby Smith also wrote as Otto von Pivka. He chose to use a pen name (he claims) because he was writing while he was in the military. I don't know why Kurowski possibly used a pen name, and I'd certainly say that Smith's work as himself is far superior to his work as Pivka. That said, the works he wrote under the pen name are not exactly chopped liver, though. auntieruth (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: This is really a serious discrepancy – I've done some googling and found this Kurowski German Digital Library Catalog entry, which states that Kurowski died on 28 May 2011 in Dortmund. Note that Jochim is not listed here as one of Kurowski's pseudonyms. Meanwhile, the German wiki article on Jochim references an August 2004 journal article about "Landser-Pulp" in Jugend Medien Schutz-Report (apparently a German publication on the protection of youth from bad influences). The title of the article as used in the German wiki reference says that Jochim lived from 1921 to 2002. On page 8 of a later issue of the same journal, the author of the 2004 article repeats the information that Jochim died in 2002. So it seems clear that Jochim and Kurowski are two completely different people. Kges1901 (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment—regarding sources, the state information system of Baden-Württemberg website leobw names the following sources:
  • Gerhard von Seemen, Die Ritterkreuzträger 1939-1945. Bad Nauheim 1955
  • Fritz Walter, Elf rote Jäger. 1957; Die Roten Jäger. Ein Schicksalsbericht deutscher Nationalspieler aus dem letzten Kriege. Broschüre, Hg. Ernst Heuner, o. J.
  • Oberst Hermann Graf. 200 Luftsiege in 13 Monaten. Ein Jagdfliegerleben nacherzählt von Berthold K. Joachim. 1975, 5. Aufl. 1985
  • Günter Fraschka, Mit Schwertern und Brillanten. Die Träger der höchsten deutschen Tapferkeitsauszeichnung, darin S. 65-76: „Oberst Hermann Graf: Fliegen, Kämpfen, Fußballspielen.“ Wiesbaden- München (7. Aufl. 1977)
  • Berichte des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht 1939-1945. Bd. 3. München (1988)
Also it is not a valid reason to say "an editor, who is familiar with the source, noted: I own the 1998 version and I think it more or less a piece of s***."
I have a wider concern that K.E. Coffman's very extensive work on Germany during the Second World war seems to me to lack objectivity and be focussed on portraying Germans and Germany in an excessively negative light; far worse than is warranted by the historical evidence. Nazism was an evil, but we should tell it like it is, neither exaggerating nor playing it down. --Bermicourt (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The editor who stated that Jochim's book was s*** was now-retired User:MisterBee1966, who wrote most of the World War II German military biography articles. MisterBee does come back occasionally and I've emailed him on this issue so that he may clarify whether the entire book (including unit history) was s*** or just its conclusions. Kges1901 (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Misterbee has responded. Here's his email: "Regarding the book in question, I believe the book to be reasonably accurate regarding facts such as when where and how. I consider the book by Bergström to be superior and of higher quality. But this is just my amature opinion." Kges1901 (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Request for clarification from nominator: could you pls provide some evidence that Jochim was a pen name of Kurowski? As it stands this appears to be the basis for the assertion that the referencing used here is unreliable and that it therefore does not meet the GA criteria; however, as several editors have pointed out above it seems likely (based on De Wikipedia at least) that they were actually two different authors altogether. If this assertion was in error then is there an issue here with the referencing at all? I'm assuming from the nomination statement that the implied criticism of the work remains regardless of who the author actually was given the publisher's alleged reputation, is that correct? As such is there any published criticism available on Jochim's unreliability specifically that you could provide a reference to? Unless there is something which can verify these concerns I don't think the case has been made here really. At any rate I note that another editor has already re-worked the article to reduce its reliance on Jochim anyway. Anotherclown (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • furthermore, Jochim is not listed among Kurowski's pen names in the article on him (although it is listed in the box), much of which was edited by K.e.coffman (talk · contribs). After reading that article, I'm inclined to tag it for POV problems, because of its use of loaded words ("highly exaggerated numbers", for example) . Second, such phrases as "nationalist battle painting" are unclear, -- how is this different from de:Hugo Ungewitter, Carl Röchling, Richard Knötel, for example? And how is this different from the images of, for example, the Confederate painter, Conrad Wise Chapman? auntieruth (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Clarification re: nomination[edit]

  • @Anotherclown and Kges1901: Sorry about the confusion; it was my fault. I made the corrections above [28], and in the Kurowski article. I saw MisterBee's comment (The book is actually written by Franz Kurowski (under a different name)) and had assumed it was a pseudonym. I'm curious as to how MB came to the conclusion that Kurowski wrote the book. It's not impossible that the latter had indeed done so. Kurowski had written for Der Landser' himself, both under his name and various pseudonyms, while Jochim was the founder and long-term editor of the series.
In any case, a source from the Der Landser founder / editor cannot be presumed to be reliable. Quoting from the linked article, Der Landser was described by Der Spiegel as "the expert journal for the whitewashing of the Wehrmacht" ("Fachorgan für die Verklärung der Wehrmacht"). K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying this. Given that original objection to the source is no longer an issue and that the article has been reworked quite a bit since this nomination is there anything specifically in the information still referenced to Jochim that you believe is unreliable? Taking what you say about Der Landser on good faith I can see how other books from the publisher and editor associated with it would be worthy of closer scrutiny; however, I don't think that automatically means that we assume they are not reliable either and therefore cannot be used, just that we need to be careful when doing so as they might not be reliable (in the absence of any authoritative criticism of the source in question that is). If you can point to something specific it might be able to be addressed. Anotherclown (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying the issue. MB has elaborated on his assessment of Jochim from 2012 in a response to the email I sent him: regarding the book in question, I believe the book to be reasonably accurate regarding facts such as when where and how. I consider the book by Bergström to be superior and of higher quality. But this is just my amature opinion. Currently, Jochim is only used to cite facts and not opinions in the article. But there's no reason why the citations shouldn't be replaced with references to Bergström, and when Philby NZ finishes doing that, I think that this GAR should be closed since Jochim was the main issue with the article according to K.e. coffman's original rationale.Kges1901 (talk) 11:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Given recent changes which have now further reduced the article's reliance on Jochim I propose removing the "unreliable" sources tag. Although the source in question is still used it does seem to me to now be used to state facts only, whilst in many instances it has also been used in concert with other sources which I presume are considered reliable (at least no objection has been raised to them). Are there any comments on this proposal? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm okay with removing the "unreliable sources" tag and leaving the status of the article as is. auntieruth (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I also support Anotherclown's proposal. Jochim is now used in just 7 references - less than 1% of the 90 citations in the article. Kges1901 (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

”Fact” vs “opinion”; Discussion of other sources[edit]

Thanks for the continued discussion. I would object to the removal of the tag. Any source that is affiliated with Der Landser does not belong in a military history article, IMO, unless there's a very good reason to include it. Separately, re: “facts” vs “opinions” -- if said facts are only to be found in unreliable sources, should they be given any weight? Are numbers being cited, for example, facts or products of war-time propaganda? (For a related discussion, please see: Talk:Helmut Wick#Propaganda origins).

More on sources being used in the article: Bergstöm appears to be a fairly obscure author, despite having published 70 works in 146 publications, per Wordcat. His books are not available via my library system, except for the Barbarossa one. Outside of Barbarossa, I was not able to find reviews of his works. Here’s a book by Bergstöm on another German ace [29]; the web site includes the following description:

Hans-Ekkehard Bob: Ace Profiles - The Men and Their Aircraft

Acclaimed aviation historian Christer Bergstöm has drawn upon personal recollections and records to produce this in-depth and graphic account of the wartime experiences of one the Luftwaffe’s leading Jagdflieger. The text is enhanced by rare photographs taken from Hans-Ekkehard Bob’s own collection as well as highly detailed colour artwork by leading aviation artist, Claes Sundin. 

At the last moment, Bob pushed the stick forward and attempted to dive his Bf 109 to the left, and beneath the crippled bomber. But his manoeuvre was carried out a fraction of a second too late… Bob flashed beneath the bomber and, just as he did, he heard a crash and felt a terrible jolt. Looking back, he saw that his Bf 109 had lost its whole tail section, and he also saw that a part of the bomber’s starboard wing was missing.

Soft cover, 8.3" x 11.7", 72 pages, 77 rare b+w photographs, 11 beautiful colour artwork profiles.”

This does not read like historical scholarship or even popular history. This style of writing sounds closer to historical fiction or personal reminiscences.

The article also extensively uses these sources:

  • John A. Weal – “98 works in 248 publications”, per Worldcat. He appears to have started as an illustrator and translator and then branched into writing. Here’s a sample title: Wings of the Luftwaffe : flying German aircraft of the Second World War, by Eric Brown; illustrated with cutaway and cockpit interior drawings by John Weal”. I’m unable to find reviews for his works. I would place him in an “amateur historian” category.
    • All Weal's works referenced in this article are published by Osprey, which specialises in works on fighter aces (among other things) -- I've used their books in many Allied ace articles, cross-checking their info with other secondary sources, and found them low-key in their language and reliable in their facts and figures. Evidently those editors reviewing sources in such articles that I've put up for GAN, ACR and FAC also consider them acceptable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the level of detail, the article contains material that is either immaterial, undue or needs to be attributed due the nature of the claim. Some examples:

  • German airmen of 9./JG 52 spent a couple of relaxing months in Bucharest, which was beyond the censorship and control of the Nazi regime in Berlin. Graf even managed to play football when a team of the Deutsche Luftwaffe played against Cyclope Bucharesti at the Bucharest Sport's Arena before thirty thousand spectators.[1]
Were they engaged in any activities that would have been subject to the censorship and control of the Nazi regime? The article does not say. Graf “even managed” to play a game of football—so what?
  • Graf helped Jewish families escape to Switzerland at a time when the "J" stamp in German Jews' passport had been demanded by Germany's neighboring countries. He took a great personal risk and came close to getting caught. Graf was assisted by Gruppenführer (Group Leader) Albert Keller of his local NSFK Glider Club (National Socialist Flyers Corps), who later covered up the bureaucratic traces that Graf had left.[2]
This is fairly extraordinary statement. What is this being cited to?
  • The entire section Hermann_Graf#Aerial_victory_credits strikes me as undue and indiscriminate. This list may belong in a book-length bio of the subject, but not in an encyclopedia entry. Aircraft are not capital ships to list all 200 of them in detail. Even if they were, this section reminds me of a “trophy room” and is non-neutral.

I’m curious what sources Bergstöm cites. Perhaps Philby NZ can shed some light on this, since he has the book on hand.

K.e.coffman (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Here are some reviews: Ardennes 1944: Hitler's Winter Offensive, [30], [31], [32]. I can email you copies of the reviews on questia if you want them. On aerial victory lists, they are a fairly standard part of flying ace articles – see the extensive lists of victories for non-German aces like Albert Ball, Mick Mannock, Gabby Gabreski, Alexander Pokryshkin, Ivan Kozhedub, etc. Kges1901 (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer; I just emailed you. Re: claims tables, I'd consider them undue in these other articles as well. Way too much detail for an encyclopedia entry, especially for the WWII aces, due to the industrialised nature of warfare. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Clearly not everyone agrees, as I've explained to you elsewhere. There are detailed claims tables in smaller bios than this in books on Allied aces. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Long day, busy at work, not going to get into this otherwise I'll likely boil over. I'll let others address these. The Bergstrom et al book lists >50 books in its bibliography, but like many books, they're not linked to specific passages. I'm trying to add context & background and show he's not just a 1-dimensional "killing machine grunt" stereotype nor be just a narrative of kills per day. Are we squeezed for space here?? Is this boring reading? Philby NZ (talk)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Responses to some of the nominator's points above:

  • "re: “facts” vs “opinions” -- if said facts are only to be found in unreliable sources, should they be given any weight? Are numbers being cited, for example, facts or products of war-time propaganda?" This is fair to a point, although we have not determined that the source in question actually is "unreliable" that I can see. If the source is proven to be unreliable then I agree it should be given no weight at all. However, while I accept that you believe the source may be unreliable, that is all it is at this point. Unless there is some evidence to prove this assumption we need to move on. That said if there is specific information ("fact" or "opinion") that you believe is suspect potentially this could be addressed by qualifying the wording used in the article to make it clear that Wikipedia is reporting the details as provided by the source only etc.
  • "Any source that is affiliated with Der Landser does not belong in a military history article, IMO, unless there's a very good reason to include it." That's fine, but that is really also only your opinion. So far your concern about it only seems to be due to its association with Der Landser, and as far as I can tell nothing definitive has been offered to prove that there is actually a problem here. Jochim is used sparingly (six times out of 105 citations) for my mind, and sometimes bundled with other sources. What specifically about the information it is currently used to cite do you believe is in error?
  • "Bergstöm appears to be a fairly obscure author" - this also seems a matter of personal opinion, but honestly why would that be an issue even if it is true? Obscure doesn't mean it cannot be used as long as it meets the requirements of WP:RS. Is there a reason to believe it doesn't? If there are published reviews of his works that express concern about POV or accuracy then certainly lets consider them, but if not then I see no issue with the source being accepted on good faith unless proven otherwise.
  • "John A. Weal – “98 works in 248 publications“, per Worldcat. He appears to have started as an illustrator and translator and then branched into writing". Ian's already responded here and I agree with him. I see no issue with using this source either.
  • "Ralf Schumann an author of a number of Knight’s Cross recipient profiles, including in extremist publishers such as VDM Heinz Nickel". Are there reviews of his work which support your implied concern? Also what information cited to this source do you feel is wrong?
  • "Regarding the level of detail, the article contains material that is either immaterial, undue or needs to be attributed due the nature of the claim." I agree there are areas where this article could be tightened so I have no issue with you re-writing the section you identified if you are concerned about it. I've also made a few changes in places previously due to similar concerns but feel this issue has mostly been addressed. That said I don't subscribe to the view that the scope of a biography should be limited to the subject's main claim to notability, as there does seem to be value in adding detail outside this which gives a reader a sense of who the person was. This then becomes a question of editorial judgment to be resolved through local consensus.
  • "Graf helped Jewish families escape to Switzerland... This is fairly extraordinary statement. What is this being cited to?" - well the citation at the end of the paragraph is obviously to "Bergström, Antipov & Sundin 2003, p. 12" so I'm not really sure what the concern is. Is there a reason to assume that it is not accurate? If so pls elaborate so that it can be addressed.
  • "The entire section Hermann_Graf#Aerial_victory_credits strikes me as undue and indiscriminate." This also seems like a question of editorial judgement as I am not aware of policy which addresses this specific matter (pls correct me if I'm wrong). I don't see it as undue or indiscrimate though and I don't see much support for this view to date. It does seem to be the case that many of our biographies on similar topics do treat this matter in this manner (i.e. a referenced table). This should be fairly easy to resolve through consensus. Are there any other views on the issue? Is there support for removing it for instance? Anotherclown (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I essentially agree with the points Anotherclown has made, most of this is unsupported opinion of one editor. I would add that I don't believe the victories tables are undue, he's an ace and details of his victories are directly relevant to his notability and his biography in general. Also the opinion that the scope of a biography should be limited to the subject's main claim to notability is an utterly fringe view, unsupported by long-standing consensus on biography articles on en WP. Examination of any random selection of FA biographies will make that clear. It is an area in which K.e.coffman should just drop the stick and accept the consensus. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

The main issue here is that the article is not stable, which is a major GA requirement. While there is no actual edit warring, probably since the article falls under ARBPIA, the article has had hundreds if not thousands of edits since receiving GA, and there is talk page agreement that it's missing large amounts of information in both the Background and the Long-term impact sections. I think the article should be delisted until it stabilizes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. The requesting editor has just added a neutrality tag (without contributing any useful edit himself) to a section of the article so as to support this reassessment request which otherwise would likely fail for lack of any good reason to suspend the listing. The claim that the article is missing large amounts of information is false. The editor is recommended to follow the Wikipedia article reassessment guidelines (reproduced here for ease of reference):-
Before attempting to have any article delisted through reassessment, take these steps:
   Fix any simple problems yourself. Do not waste minutes explaining or justifying a problem that you could fix in seconds. GAR is not a forum to shame editors over easily fixed problems.
   Tag serious problems that you cannot fix with appropriate template messages, if the templates will help other editors find the problems. Do not tag bomb the article.
   Make sure that the problems you see in the article are covered by the actual good article criteria. Many problems, including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with the Manual of Style are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for delisting.
   Notify major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects. Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.
Selfstudier (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Also disagree. The nominator's concern appears to be re WP:GA? number 5: "Stable". The footnote attached to that criteria says "... good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion". Since reaching GA status, the article has been undergoing a peer review over more than a year, including a GOCE Copy Edit, with considerable improvements being made, with the intention to reach WP:FA status.
Onceinawhile (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Neither of those comments addresses the issue I have raised. This article has gone through substantial changes since being listed, not just copyediting or "changes based on reviewers' suggestions". It is likely to receive more substantial changes in the near future.
I hope some uninvolved editors will show up here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
For ease of reference, here's a diff that contains all the changes to this article in the last 3 months [33]. Those are not just copyedits and this is not a stable article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - it is common, if not the norm, that GAs evolve a lot on their way to FA (which is the purpose here), due to the higher standards there. Articles are required to be stable before being GA nominated, not necessarily after, as long as the instability is leading to improvements. The next step here would simply be to improve the article further, which is already happening, until everyone is happy. But yes, this article should be stabilised before an eventual FA nomination. FunkMonk (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: this reassessment request seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what Stability means for a Good Article. To quote from the GA criteria: Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. (Footnote adds: Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of non-constructive editing may be failed or placed on hold.) There appear to have been extensive revisions—good faith improvements, I'm guessing—but as the nominator points out, no edit warring. Without a major and extended edit war/content disagreement, there are no grounds for delisting that I can see. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with the preceding comment. There has been no recent instability, so what is the complaint? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's not clear to me what "Good Article" status means. Does it refer to a point in time, or to the article itself? I would think the latter is much more consistent and coherent. Therefore, if an article has had major changes since its assessment, it should automatically be given a reassessment. I don't know how the GA process works, so I can't really say if this is common practice. But it seems sensible to me (modulo the effort required to actually assess the article). To that extent, I agree with NMMNG. However, do we really need a GA reassessment now, since other procedures (for FA) are already in the works? If the latter succeeds, the former is moot. Perhaps, just wait for the latter to be finished and then worry about the former. Kingsindian   06:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)ç
  • Comment: Good Article Status is defined at WP:Good article criteria. To propose a delist (which in addition assumes that a fix is not possible), it is enough to show that the criteria are not met. A large number of changes since listing does not by itself affect good article status per the criteria.Selfstudier (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)