Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← (Page 32) Crystal Clear app file-manager.png Good article reassessment (archive) (Page 30) →


Result: This article has been languishing here for too long, so I am going to archive. I believe that the point of view concerns raised below are valid, and have not been addressed, so I am going to delist the article. However, since the discussion below is not very elaborate, I give detailed comments on why the article does not currently meet the good article criteria, as if this were an individual delist.
  • There are some other issues apart from the POV concerns. First, the lead is somewhat inadequate at summarizing the large health section and does not mention vegan cuisine. Also, there is surely more that can be said about the history of veganism: this is definitely a broadness issue in an article on a movement such as this. Further, VanTucky has a point about stating the obvious: on reading the article, I couldn't help wondering "if veganism is so great, why are there so few vegans?" This has many obvious answers, from ignorance through to perceptions about vegans and the vegan diet, but the article does not mention them. I'm sure some of these can be sourced. On the other hand, I accept the argument that since no further data on demographics can be reliably sourced, it should not be included.
  • The main concern below is undoubtedly point of view. Since I have great respect for the two GA reviewers who passed the article without raising point of view concerns, I will try to explain. First, neutral point of view is not primarily achieved by giving an appropriate balance of reliably sourced pro-vegan and counter-vegan opinion, although this is, of course, important. I think that Tarret and Skinwalker are missing the main point when they talk about "very little mention of the counter-vegan point of view" and more "counter-vegan rebuttals". Instead, echoing PrinceGloria below, neutral point of view is primarily achieved by writing and structuring the article from a neutral perspective.
  • I'm sure veganism is much misrepresented and much misunderstood, and there is a good case to be made for the benefits of the vegan diet and lifestyle, but it is not the job of an encyclopedia article to make a case: it should read as if written by someone who is indifferent to whether more people become vegans or not. To its credit, the article does achieve this in places, but overall it does not.
  • For example, throughout the article, the vegan diet presented is the "well-planned vegan diet". Thus there is a section on "health benefits" but not one on "health risks", only one on "health precautions". Malnutrition is blamed on the diet being poorly planned, rather than it being vegan. Non-vegan diets do not get the same treatment: they are higher in fats, cholesterol and so on, hence more dangerous than vegan diets. Well-planned non-vegan diets do not get a mention. If one imagines going through the article and adding "poorly-planned" in front of every criticism of a non-vegan diet, the bias becomes obvious. Animal farming does not get the same privilige either: it is the worst case of intensive factory farming that comes under the spotlight, rather than the best practice, such as organic, well-fare and environmentally conscious farming.
  • In addition to this bias, vegan perspective is occasionally presented as fact, there are places where a balance of pro- and counter- is not achieved, or POV is introduced by giving the pro- sources the last word.
  • Some specific NPOV issues (these are not exhaustive)...
    • The last sentence of the first paragraph arguably presents a vegan perspective as fact. The last sentence of the lead needs expansion to achieve a neutral perspective.
    • Ethical concerns: there are certainly those who argue that animals do not have rights in human society in the way that humans do, but no such counter-opinion is given.
    • Other arguments: confusing, and possibly even straw man. I don't see a huge difference between the utilitarian and ethical perspective: both ultimately come down to the idea that animals should not be made to suffer so humans can have a broader diet. The two counter-opinions are hardly impressive, and the pro-vegan point of view is given the last word.
    • Benefits: "The American Dietetic Association states that well-planned vegan diets can also be appropriate for life cycles requiring high nutritional intake such as pregnancy, lactation, childhood, and adolescence." Answers an unasked question: why "well-planned", and why "can also be appropriate"? Likewise the discussion of athletes: how can this be discussed without saying that high-protein diets are often recommended to athletes, and that this is not so easy to achieve on a vegan diet? Then anecdotal evidence is used to suggest that a vegan diet leads to better athletic performance than a non-vegan one.
    • Precautions: give risks first, then explain how a well-planned diet avoids these risks. This applies both to the "specific nutrients" and the "pregnancy and childhood" sections. I again suggest imagining how these sections would read if they were discussing the health risks of a non-vegan diet.
    • Eating disorders: counter-opinion is missing here, and was easy to find by following the source to PMID.
I am coming to the opinion that it is very difficult to achieve NPOV on topics embraced enthusiastically by a minority, but misunderstood more widely. The temptation for advocacy and/or defensiveness is just too great. Compare Anabolic steroid with Freemasonry; the former dispels myths about steroid use, while still emphasising the health risks, whereas the latter is just hopelessly defensive, combining legitimate criticism with anti-Masonry in a totally unhelpful way. Good luck with this one. Geometry guy 18:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to lack a NPOV and lacks details explaining the criticism of this particular topic. Tarret 14:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Criticism is provided in 'Ethical concerns' section by POV of Davis and Jarvis, also various health precautions are included throughout the article. The article has barely changed since original GA review, so specific criticism of POV-ness would be appreciated. KellenT 22:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
To be more specific the article is very "pro-vegan" meaning that there is very little mention of the "counter-vegan" point of view. Also as the tag in the Demographics says the section lacks a more worldwide point of view most noticably in areas such as Asia, and Africa. Tarret 22:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - most governments do not record details of diet in their census, and so it's difficult to find reliable sources about numbers of vegans worldwide. I think there's an information-gathering attempt on the Talk page about this issue. -Malkinann 22:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment I typically contribute to the article from a "counter-vegan" perspective, if you will, and I'm not sure we need to put a whole lot more criticism into the article. Could you give specific examples of passages that need a "counter-vegan" rebuttal? Though you do have a good point - we need to gather a more global view particularly in the demographic section. Kellen has found some good sources that should be integrated into the article. There just isn't a lot of information out there about many parts of the world, though. Cheers, Skinwalker 23:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The demographics section is actually a virtually unsolvable problem; there are no good statistics for number of vegans almost anywhere in the world. The research has just not been done yet. I did some cross-wiki research but this yielded few results. Since there is no one we can cite, I do not believe this is a good reason for delisting.
There are also few, if any, notable "counter-vegans." There's a variety of people, including vegan orgs, pointing out the need for supplementation, so this is covered extensively in 'health,' but not much else. KellenT 23:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist This is not on dietetic grounds, but the author and chef Anthony Bourdain is quite notably anti-vegan and vegetarian. In almost several of his best sellers he declaims veganism. While mentioning that there is an mainstream objection to the diet on the grounds that its strictures limit gastronomical joie de vivre might seem trivial, it is an easily overlooked topic. Honestly, I feel that the article reads in an unbalanced fashion. While it is true that the majority of mainstream sources don't have much criticism of a vegan diet health-wise, I had a hell of time getting a neutral mention of what the multiple reliable sources reported as cases of vegan baby malnutrition into the article at all. In consideration of the general tone, and the missing vital stats that Kellen mentioned, I think the article should be delisted. VanTucky (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
almost several? Right. ;)--SidiLemine 12:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You apparently missed the point I made about these stats not existing anywhere such that there is no possibility to cite them, and therefore that this is not a proper grounds for delisting. KellenT 17:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist - the article does read POV, sections underdeveloped/stubby, the section lacking worldwide view should be remodelled so that the tag would not be applicable etc. This is clearly not a good article. PrinceGloria 20:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    Comment - I think that simply creating a subsection of the Ethical concerns section labeled "Criticisms," then simply moving the paragraphs from Jarvis and Davis into that subsection would go along way. I think in this case, just having a section boldly titled "Criticisms" would be useful, rather than scattering said criticisms throught the article. Also, I think that mentioning Bourdain would be a very good idea. Drewcifer 22:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    Comment on comment - actually, I find neither a good idea. I HATE "criticism" sections, they are a way of sidelining some views on the subject, as well as trying to do away with NPOV issues ("what do you want? there is a criticism section!"). I believe the article should be written in a balanced way in all. I also am not sure whether Bourdain is that notable. OTOH, I am not that convinced that the medical community is so unanimous in their praise of the benefits of veganism. PrinceGloria 22:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    Agreed that the tag should be removed, but I was allowing time for others to confirm/disconfirm my research that there are not many other applicable sources for vegan demographics. I have to again ask for more specific criticisms of the article as POV since the article has changed little from the original GA review. KellenT 12:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This review is quite out of date. While the article content overall doesn't seem to of changed much, should this GA/R be restarted? Homestarmy 22:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    I think not, obviously. I have recently added demographics for two more countries, so this might ease some of the criticism in any case. KellenT 12:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    By restarted, I mean that it can begin again so that there will be a result more reflective of the current state of the article. Homestarmy 14:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per POV concerns. With some re-tooling this article could be quite good. Start by removing the pig photo. Consider beefing up (sorry) the sections on the impact of the vegan movement and reaction to the movement. Majoreditor 16:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep didn't seem too unbalanced to this ovo-lacto-vegetarian. I think the ethical and other arguments bits can do with some restructuring. Singer seems to get mentioned twice. But I don't think this is enough to delist. No need to say someoen is a PhD candidate. The key thing is whether there comments were accepted by a peer-review journal. The nutrition stuff seems to be reasonably thorough and largely sourced from general medical publications.--Peter cohen 19:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

St Thomas' Church, Oxford

Result: Keep. I agree there is no reason to delist this straightforward factual article, and there has been no dissent. Geometry guy 20:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

GA/R restarted due to extremely large gap between time of initial start and the latest comments. Even the name changed in the time the review was going on :/. This is a procedural nomination, (though I admit, i'm sort of inventing the procedure) previous review is archived in archive 30. Homestarmy 14:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Two things that I want to comment on. Firstly, the lead mentions that the church was repaired and expanded during a certain time period, but the article only seems to mention that it was expanded and damaged, but never repaired. There also don't seem to be specifics on what the expansion was precisely, to the point where the lead is almost more detailed about it than the body. Secondly, the first line of the history section seems to be somewhat off, it acts like its going to give a few reasons why the traditional founding date of the church isn't likely accurate, but then only says one thing. Also, it doesn't say who is traditionally placing the date, is that in the first reference? Homestarmy 14:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed these two points. We welcome more suggestions. -- SECisek 15:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep With the latest changes, I see no reason for this article to not be a GA. Homestarmy 16:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - With recent improvements, the article now meets all GA criteria. Great work. Rai-me 20:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Reginald Fessenden

Result: Endorse fail. It would have been nice if this had been failed with a review instead of quick-failed, as then it would not have been brought here. It doesn't need many citations, but it does need some, and the lead needs to be fixed to summarize the article. Anyway, this reassessment should give plenty for editors to go on in improving the article. Geometry guy 20:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was quick-failed. I am disputing the contention that the article has a complete lack of reliable sources. The references list found under 'Further reading' seem reliable to me. It does not contain any in-line citations but the references are reliable with varied sources. The article is decently written and is well researched. The problem is no in-line citations but in-line citations - as I understand - do not have a consensus at the GA level. Compared to a non-Wikipedian article, this article is not so bad. Certainly the main writers have made a good constructive contribution to Wikipedia. Wassupwestcoast 00:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the reviewer did not add the article to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Unreferenced GA task force/Nominations. Wouldn't it be listed here if referencing were the problem? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
That's only if the article has been fully reviewed and the ONLY reason was the lack of references. Since this was a quick-fail, the reviewer can't say that it was the only problem because they haven't given it a full review. I think that's the explanation anyways. Cheers, CP 01:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
How can such a situation ever arise? If no references equals a quick fail then logically a full review would never be done. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse failure The big issue seems to be that the article lacks any inline citations where specific facts are linked to specific sources. Thus, though there is a list of references, none of those references are actually being used to support anything in the article. While not every single sentance needs be cited, certain types of statements (statistics, direct quotes, controversial or challengable statements, superlative statements, etc.) should have them. For example, here is a PARTIAL list of ideas that seem to beg for support from a specific reference:
  • "While growing up, Reginald was an accomplished student." Expresses an opinion. This opinion belongs to someone. Cite who it belongs to.
  • "At the age of eighteen, Fessenden left Bishop's without having been awarded a degree, even though he had "done substantially all the work necessary". " Direct quote. Needs attribution.
  • "This lack of a degree may have hurt Fessenden's employment opportunities—when McGill University established an electrical engineering department, Fessenden was turned down on an application to be the chairman, in favor of an American.)" Contains an analysis of events. Analysis is opinion. Opinions must exist outside of Wikipedia and be properly cited.
  • "Interested in increasing his skills in the electrical field, he moved to New York City in 1886, with hopes of gaining employment with the famous inventor, Thomas Edison. " interprets the motives of a person. Such interpretations are opinion, and must be tied to a reliable source where the opinion is expressed.
  • "Fessenden wrote "Do not know anything about electricity, but can learn pretty quick", to which Edison replied "Have enough men now who do not know about electricity". " More unattributed direct quotes.
This again is NOT a comprehensive list of uncited ideas, merely a few choice selections from the first few paragraphs. Since the article lacks ANY inline citations, it can be quickfailed, since there is certain to be unverified statements which need verification. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Jayron32, I've copied your comments over to Talk:Reginald Fessenden#Good article reassessment. Hopefully someone can easily match the reference to the text. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse Failure The lead is too short, seems to only mention his radio work and basic facts that would be in any biography, even though much of the article content doesn't concern his work with radio things. (For example, the more detailed biographical information on his early life, his early work, and his death) Homestarmy 03:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. What bothers me about this article is that it is actually good ...except for the in-line citations. Nothing strikes me as being contentious. I do not doubt everything could be referenced. Unfortunately, the editors did not know about the in-line citation policy or were baffled by the code. So a truly encyclopedic article is dissed while we stamp GA on ephemeral pop culture articles. Strange. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 03:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Part of the problem might be that your references aren't labelled as references, but instead are in the "further reading" section. A further reading section is typically for material that isn't being used to source the article, but which might contain media which would be helpful for a reader seeking to learn more about a topic. So technically, not a single thing in this article is actually indicated as being a reference :/. (A section labelled "References" would be better, assuming that you know for a fact that nothing in there actually should be in a further reading section) There is a stray inline citation number, but it seems to be orphaned. Homestarmy 14:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Reply to Wassupwestcoast: Please avoid casting aspersions on every person who works at the GA project because a) some other articles that are below standard have been passed and b) Most of us hold all article to the exact same standards, those of WP:WIAGA, regardless of the subject of the article. The issue with in-line citations is NOT that something is contentious. Sure, if someone reads something and says "I don't believe that" it needs a citation, HOWEVER, direct quotes, even those direct quotes that are uncontentious, need citations. Claims in the superlative (so-and-so was the first/best/largest/smallest/worst/etc.) always need citations. Statistics always need citations. Opinions need citations. Analysis (so-and-so did X because of Y) need citations. There is no need to make a point by over-citing an article and citing every sentance, which would just be spiteful. However, it is good scholarly practice, when a source is used to produce an idea, that the particular source is credited. That is all we ask; credit the source for the ideas in this article, so we know whose ideas are being reported here. For example, when you say that "While growing up, Reginald was an accomplished student." it is an unsupported statement. Besides bordering on the weaselly, it doesn't say where this analysis comes from. Did YOU look at his report cards and decide he was a good student? I hope not, because that's original research. Did someone ELSE look at his report cards and decide he was a good student? If so, do that person the courtesy by citing their work. If your goal is to make this article the best possible article it can be, then people here will give you all they have to help you do so. If your goal is to get a green plus on the talk page, and that's it, you will not find much sympathy. The GA project, as with all projects at Wikipedia, is about improving articles, no more and no less.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Pace Jayron32. All I did was to nominate this article - after it failed I did add a couple of sentences. And I nominated this article - as I said - because it looks good. I'm not seeking a "green dot" but pointing out a flaw in the process: in the real world in-line citations are not needed as long as references are given. A year ago, this was also true for Wikipedia. And because of the awkward coding for in-line citations we are over-looking good work on technicalities of our own making. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 03:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Really? Because the last 3 non-fiction books I read all used either footnotes or endnotes. There probably wasn't a page in the book without some kind of direct reference... And I am sorry I got heated. It gets tiring spending time carefully reading and reviewing an article only to have someone argue about why your review isn't worthwhile... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
How about 'Scientific American'? Articles about the size of an Wikpedia article. No in-line citations. Just a short further reading. Sorry, I'm quibbling. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 05:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Scientific American is an edited journal, with rather high standards for inclusion of information and a rather strict editorial and peer-review process; there is a reasonable standard of trust in those processes that makes the information there decidedly more reliable and trustworthy. Wikipedia is an openly edited encyclopedia, and has MUCH higher standards for transparency in its sources, and rightfully so. While I have trust that SA has vetted its articles, edited them well, and checked its sources, I cannot hold the same trust in any Wikipedia article. Wikipedia cannot be held to the same standards as something like Scientific American because it is a different kind of publication, and its very nature means it must be held to a higher standard of referencing. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse fail. I'm one of those here who believes GA should not have a very stringent inline citation requirement, but I still would like there to be some clue in the article which reference the reader should consult. There is probably just one main source for most of the sections, but which one is it? I agree that this article probably should not have been quick failed, but it isn't GA standard at the moment. Indeed, as mentioned by Homestarmy, the lead does not summarize the article adequately. Anyway, it should not be too much work to raise the article to GA standard, as the content is excellent. I hope someone gives it a shot. Geometry guy 17:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


Result: Delist. Listing was procedurally flawed and inappropriate per the undeniable concerns raised below. Geometry guy 19:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know how this was passed. The article is mostly unreferenced OR, so it fails to meet criterion 2 of the GA criteria. This article is certainly not of GA quality. --Agüeybaná 21:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Delist Per the lack of referencing in Reggaeton around the world and the absolutely appalling Musical characteristics section. I may have missed it, but I didn't see any images either. For something this popular, there has got to be a free image or two. VanTucky Talk 22:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Minor comment Images aren't (or weren't last time I looked!) a criterion for GA. 4u1e 22:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • No, but they are desirable, which is one half of why they are included in most checklists and templates. VanTucky Talk 22:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, criterion 6 states that GAs should be appropriately illustrated, where possible. It is certainly possible to find images for this article. --Agüeybaná 23:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Certainly possible, but appropriate? What would pictures tell us about a musical style that the words don't? Is there information lacking that is important enough to de-list the article? On the other hand, footnote 5 of the Good Article criteria, which I hadn't noticed before, says that 'image' in this case includes other media. An excellent addition to the article would be some (not too many!) embedded music clips to illustrate the points being made about the style - like what 'Dem Bow' sounds like. Currently a couple of the references are links to music sites offering samples of Reggaeton albums, but that's not really precise enough to be useful. 4u1e 09:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

De-list Although I don't agree that images are an issue, referencing, or at least citation, seems to be - only two citations after the first third of the article. May be easily fixable from the existing references. 4u1e 09:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Actually I'm not sure this is even a Good Article, as can be seen here [1] the GA template was just placed on the article's talk page without any apparent GAC notification before it, in other words I don't think this was ever taken to GAC. About the issues expresed here, I don't think this is Original Reasearch since after reading it appears to match what is generally said of the history of the music genre but there are some heavy referencing problems, maybe WPP:MUSIC should be informed about it so they can reference it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The time of that listing seems to be slightly before the existance of a formal candidate process. Homestarmy 21:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


Result: Delist A clear consensus here, including from a major contributor. Good luck improving the article, and with the renomination (maybe Jayron could be the reviewer). Geometry guy 19:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Article contains many statements which seem to beg more detailed inline citations. For ONE example, the Geographic distribution section is entirely unreferenced. This will need to be brought up to standard to remain a GA. Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Being a main contributor myself I am inclined to agree.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 17:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist I'm not sure if there are MoS related citation policies concerning language articles or not, but in the absense of such guidelines coming to light, it appears many of this article's sections are mostly unreferenced. Homestarmy 03:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist First quarter is well in-line cited, then these drop off the page after that. I'm sure all the statements are true and given the broad list of additional reading sources, I doubt that such in-lines can't be fixed in the future, but for right now, should be delisted. --MASEM 13:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I've done some work on the article today that I would like you to consider.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This is getting much better, but the inline cites magically disappear about halfway through the article. (the last one in the Classification and Terminology section) and several sections are still unreferenced. Keep working this one up, and continue to reference the article, and objections will cease. However, its not there yet. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


Result: Delist. It wouldn't take much work to add a few citations to sources. See my comments below. Geometry guy 19:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the article in its current state, it appears that the good article criteria are not being met. Specifically, criteria 2 is the problem; this article is well below standard with regards to its level of referencing. There are no inline citations at all, and many places seem to beg for them. Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delist per nom. This article needs better referecing throughout to meet GA criteria. Rai-me 02:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Although it seems some of the general references at the bottom likely cover much of this article, I have another concern. Latin is such an extremely important language in terms of influence on western language, that I don't understand why the article is as short as it is, surely the history section deserves some expansion at least? While it is using summary style, there's such a thing as too short a summary. Homestarmy 03:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist A nice article, but hugely under-referenced. The order of the cases under declension is rather curious, I notice that the main article on the subject adheres to the standard order. The description of it as a universal church language is also poor, it was the universal language of the Western church and this should be clarified. And the retreat of the language should be identified as earlier when literary works such as the Roman de Troie or The Divine Comedy began to appear in the vernacular--Peter cohen 10:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. There isn't much that is controversial here, and most of the article is summary style, and so statements can be sourced in subarticles. It doesn't currently meet the GA criterion for citation, but it would not be too much work to fix it. The reader just needs to have an idea which of the main references to consult for which parts of the article. Geometry guy 18:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist, with regrets. As mentioned above, the article is under-referenced. Majoreditor 15:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew language

Result: Delist. Not all of the concerns raised below are valid. In particular, the lead does not need citations as long as it summarizes material which is adequately sourced in the text. Furthermore, the GA requirements for inline citation are no longer as exacting as they used to be. However, Peter cohen's point is entirely valid, as are concerns raised that the reader simply does not know where to look to verify some of the claims. I suspect that this is just a matter of adding a handful of citations to Sáenz-Badillos or Hoffman. However, this has not been done, and I agree that the lead needs to be trimmed a little. Geometry guy 19:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This article does not seem to meet the good article criteria at this time, specifically criteria 2 (b) seems to be lacking. Many parts of this article have unverifiable statements which are not supported by inline citations where they seem to need them. Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please add {{fact}} tags where you perceive a need for them. Thank you. --Ling.Nut 04:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be being disruptive to the text of the article simply to make a WP:POINT? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
no. How would you like it of your Significant Other gave you an ultimatum: Shape up or I'm leaving you. Then when you ask what you need to do to shape up, he/she doesn't reply... listing an article on GA/R is such an ultimatum. :-) -- Ling.Nut 04:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
As a counter arguement, sometimes a spouse is so out of line, they should KNOW when they have screwed up... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Delist This article needs much more than fact tags, it needs a {{morereferences}}. Huge chunks of sections are completely unreferenced, starting with the origins section. Rather than asking for fact tags, which would really mke the article look ugly, just look over the article. If you see sections without inline citations, add them. They will not be hard to find. Wrad 05:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Delist - The article is in dire need of more referencing. I agree with Wrad; a general referencing template rather than scattered fact tags would be more appropriate here. The lead is also rather long; 5 paragraphs is pretty lengthy for a 62 kilobyte article. I would suggest combining paragraphs and/or possibly trimming some information out. Rai-me 02:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Several of the references appear very authoritative and general in nature, there seem to be compleate works on the History of the Hebrew language and a phonetics book, while there aren't very many of them, how can we be sure they aren't referencing their respective parts of the article at all? Homestarmy 03:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the whole point; if we can't be sure, then by definition isn't it unverifiable ? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The titles suggest to me that the books do reference the material, but i'm not familiar enough with this article to be certain of that... Homestarmy 16:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
But which books reference which material? Without properly formatted inline cites, we have no way to link any fact, statement, opinion, analysis, statistic, quote, or anything else to a specific reference. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Delist per the above delist votes. There are various points at which reference is made to what moat scholars think (e.g. on the classificaiton of the modern language) but no example citations are given, only those of dissenters.--Peter cohen 17:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Delist due to lack of in-line citations. The lead paragraph has no citations. The History section is also woefully under-referenced. Majoreditor 18:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? (US game show)

Result: Keep. The issues raised appear to have been addressed and there is certainly no consensus here to delist the article, so it retains its current GA status. Geometry guy 19:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Large sections are unreferenced and the article is not complete in coverage of the subject. --Czac 15:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Delist Lead needs work, the only picture lacks a fair-use rationale. No External links section. Could also be expanded substantially, I believe. Drewcifer 20:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Delist As nominator
Weak Delist - Not beyond help. Mostly minor issues. I don't see too many problems with the lead, but the second paragraph could use some prose work. The external links section seems mostly irrelevant - why are IMDb links to classmate biographies needed? The "Controversial questions" and "Records and statistics" sections need references. However, other than those sections, I don't see many referencing issues. The "Gameplay" section is redundant - it seems to me that "contestant" is repeated far too many times. Raime 01:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep I reached basically the same conclusions that Raime did, but believe it deserves the weak keep rather than the weak delete. The picture needs a rationale or needs to go, but beyond that I felt taht it meets the criteria for a GA. The section on "controversial questions" needs a citation or it needs to go as well---it appears to be OR as is. The records/statistics section appears that it might have a reference, but if that reference is to cover all the cited facts, it should be associated with them all. (On a stable piece of work, one citation would be fine, but when it is an electronic format where people can add new items, each bullet needs it's own reference.)Balloonman 17:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment I took the suggestions here and I believe I have improved the article back to the GA point. I agree that the controversial question section was OR and have removed it. I have also tightened the prose, and reduced the dependency on the word "contestant" in the gameplay section. I have two issues that I would appreciate assistance with:
  1. In terms of the image, I am not sure how it does not have a fair-use rationale. The image is tagged with {{Template:Non-free television screenshot}}, which I would have thought was sufficient; if it is not, please advise how I can fix this.
  2. I am not sure how to cite the Records and statistics section. Essentially, it is just collated data from watching the show, but could probably be grokked from the episode recaps provided on the official website. As far as I know, there isn't one distinct statistic-keeping source for the show.
Hopefully with these improvements, the article will be able to retain its GA status. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 08:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Great job improving this article. To reply to your questions, the {{Template:Non-free television screenshot}} is a copyright tag, not a fair use rationale. The tag indentifies it as a fair use image, but the image description needs to include specifically why this exact image can be used on Wikipedia. Fair use images need to have fair use rationales along with a copyright tag, or else may be subject to deletion. Stating "This image is of a screencap of the television series "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?", it is intended for use in the article "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" to visually aid and provide critical commentery on the show" is inadequate. The lack of a rationale is a serious issue that needs to be addressed for this article to meet criteria. And per criteria 2(b), all statistics need to be cited. Without references, the "Records and statistics" section reads like original research. Rai-me 00:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I have replaced the image with one of a smaller size and added the rationale template, so hopefully that will fix the non-free use guidelines for the image.
In terms of the Records and statistics section, I know it needs to be sourced, but I'm not sure how it can be sourced. For instance, the statistics that deal with total or average winnings; the source for those stats is every single episode of the show. Do you have any suggestion how I can go about sourcing these statistics? For now, I've just commented out the section, which should also remove the last lingering issue that this GAR addresses. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 18:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
delist - it can be a good article one it meets the GA criteria. Sfacets 08:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delist Much of the prose seems to be changing in an unstable manner: [2]. Homestarmy 03:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Most of those changes were done by me in response to suggestions made in this GAR... —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 16:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, my mistake then. Homestarmy 17:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Facing the Giants

Result Archived and restarted to regenerate more discussion. This was done by Drewcifer3000.

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

After re-review of the article I've found it to have the following issues:

  • The biggest problem with the article is alot of POV prose, most notably in the Reviews and Rating controversy. Sentences like "Some critics, perhaps disparagingly, complained that characters confronting problems from an evangelical Christian worldview belonged in Sunday School rather than portrayed in film, as if to say a film could not be well made or entertain with such a worldview." and "yet some reviewers hint that Hollywood often doesn't do as well." should be changed to a more neutral tone.
  • The plot section also has some prose problems. Instead of going into all the sub-plots, I'd recommend a much more straight-forward "this happened then this happened." The thing is, the plot section should ideally by in-universe. Also, the later part of the section, the big quote and the last paragraph don't fit with the rest of the section. I'd recommend giving that stuff a subsection of some sort. Also, there are a few more POV issues here too: "This supplies both poignant and comedic moments."
  • "Events and situations work themselves out" huh? Please expand.
  • The lead section is way to short. See WP:Lead for more info.
  • The formatting of the in-line citations are inconsistent with usual style and even with each other. I would recommend using citation templates, though using these are not a GA requirement. Consistency and proper attribution, however, are required, and the templates help do alot of that work for you.
  • There are a bit too many External links. See WP:EL for more info.

(Updated the list based on improvements Drewcifer 17:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)) Drewcifer 03:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delist Article fails multiple criteria of the Manual of Style and WikiProject Film's guidelines. I think the issue with the quotations above is due more to poor writing than bias, but either way it needs fixing. VanTucky (talk) 04:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist The lead alone is a good enough reason to delist. - Shudde talk 09:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I cleaned the article up somewhat, but it would be great if the original editors would continue to improve it. I expanded the lead a little, removed the statements in the review section (one had a dead link), fixed the plot statement (it looks like the original plot before the film was released was kept and then just expanded upon), switched over to the citation templates, and removed some of the external links.--Nehrams2020 20:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - improvements are significant, but it still needs some minor work. The lead could still be expanded more. I agree with Drewcifer; the plot section could be more straight-forward. However, the referencing and citation issues have now been completely fixed. It is mostly the lead I am concerned with, and it is certainly not terrible, but is is just not completely adequate yet. Rai-me 01:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm happy to say this article is much better since the improvements. The only remaining issues (small issues) are the lead and the plot section. Job well done Nehrams! Drewcifer 17:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Somebody else is going to have to do the lead and plot, those are my two weak points on Wikipedia, and I haven't seen the film so I have no info on the plot. Also, I believe the original editor who brought it up to GA status hasn't been editing on Wikipedia for a while. --Nehrams2020 16:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep The lead is a bit too short for my tastes, i'd prefer if it included something on the production section, and general expansion of it overall. However, I do think it just barely summarizes at least most of the article. Other than that, I see no other problems. Also, although this GA/R is quite old, the article doesn't seem to of changed signifigantly since mid-september. Homestarmy 18:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Mobile, Alabama

Result Delisted by VanTucky as having established consensus to delist. Recommended clean up and renomination at GAN when fixes are made.

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I believe that the article did not reasonably meet the criteria for a quick-fail. If it doesn't meet the good article I would like a more indepth assessment. Altairisfar 02:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC).

  • Comment After reading the article, and the comments by VanTucky I must say I agree that little or no information about segregation is included. It took me about five minutes to find multiple pages on the net about this and I'm surprised more isn't included in the article. I strongly recommend that more is included on this in the article, and also that History of Mobile, Alabama is expanded. - Shudde talk 02:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse delist An article on a major city in the deep south which doesn't mention segregation and the civil rights movement at all in its history section is woefully inadequate. The ironic thing is, the trivia section (oh, I'm sorry, "In popular culture") mentions Ken Burn's The War; which focuses in-depth on the racial segregation, violence and the initial stirrings of the civil rights movement which occurred specifically in Mobile. This isn't just a History issue either, the Education section says nothing about school integration. The economics and demographics sections fails to adequately discuss race issues. It's horrendous. Not only this, but as you can see in my review there are plenty of other issues (even with some of the fixes made recently). VanTucky Talk 03:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. The article is spotty. Some sections are too short. The writing is often sloppy. Segregation and integration merit additional treatment. I wouldn't say it's "horrendous", but I agree that it's not GA-class in its current form. Majoreditor 17:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per eeverything above. Drewcifer 18:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist I would endorse the above sentiments. It seems to fail the broadness requirement pretty easily, especially given the importance of racial segregation. Indeed, however, the article History of Mobile, Alabama does cover this some. While I would not expect EVERYTHING from that article to appear here (this article should be a sumamry), it should mention SOMETHING of it. Also, some other minor things we might as well fix while we are at it:
    • The transportation section is unreferenced AND it contains an external link in the text, which is contraindicated by WP:EL.
    • The education section is unreferenced, and it contains stats, and dollar amounts, and the like. These need references.
    • Much of the economy section is unreferenced, and this section is LOADED with stats and opinions, like, for one example, "The rapidly growing auto industry in Alabama has also resulted in over 2,800 new jobs created in Mobile." or for another "Mobile's unemployment rate is 5.1%." When was it that? The unemployment rate is updated quarterly, IIRC, maybe more often then that...
    • The lead is a bit sketchy as well. It is a jumble of random facts from the article, poorly organized and not really as summary, as expected per WP:LEAD, but really just a bunch of random facts. The lead needs to be expanded and better organized, into, you know, paragraphs, and such.
This looks like MUCH too many fixes for a hold or even for some quick fixes to be made here in a short time. I would recommend making these fixes, and trying again for a new nomination. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Silent Civilian

Result Placing on the GA list as a result of a clear 6-0 consensus.

This article was failed for

  1. Having a red link
  2. A reference had the same name as the other - so a small formatting error (fixed it in a second)
  3. Also because i have references covering entire paragraphs the reviewer did not take the time to read the sources and believes that the article requires more sources. I don't see the point of having the same source five times in a paragraph when one can go at the end. I'm not renominating it at GAC to wait a month for another review... M3tal H3ad 12:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment I was about to vote keep because none of the reasons given represent real failures of the GA criteria, but after checking one of the websites of several references, I have another concern. describes its authors as "...a web site run by some dudes who love metal.", and the articles cited don't seem to have any references themselves, so I really question how reliable this site is. I can't even figure out who writes, also a bad sign. However, rock bands aren't really an area of articles that i'm very familiar with, so I thought i'd mention my concerns first before making an opinion one way or another. Homestarmy 15:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Live-metal is the source. It is an interview done for the actual website. Blabbermouth is run by Borivoj Krgin and Roadrunner Records staff. M3tal H3ad 12:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
List as GA Those sites sound fairly decent as references then. And, as I said before, the review doesn't really seem to of revealed any deficiences of the article related to the GA criteria. Homestarmy 21:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
List as GA Initial fail didn't seem to be based on GA criteria at all. Drewcifer 03:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
List as GA Seems to meet GA, and the nominator is willing to address any valid concerns editors may have. LuciferMorgan 11:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
List as GA I can see NOTHING wrong with the article in the state that it is in. Redlinks are never an issue unless the article is OVERLINKED per WP:CONTEXT, and this does not appear to have been so. The referencing looks fine, the article is broad enough. This seems GA worthy easily. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
List as GA per above comments. This article meets criteria. Rai-me 02:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
List GA its not perfect but its good for a GA. Tarret talk 16:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert Perreault

Inappropriate nomination: article retains GA status.

This is a very unusual nomination. I have nominated several things here for lack of references. In this case, I am nominating an article that has had editorial disagreement. I did a lot of work in late July and early August to get this article promoted to WP:GA. Then, User:RGTraynor started removing a lot of the details in the article. Most of the disagreement relates to how heavily an article should be cited. If I cited multiple points from the same source separately he removed many of the multiple citations. I did not totally disagree and relented to many of the changes. However, as he continued this, I began to feel he was taking destructive action. We have gone back and forth on our talk pages. The debate provide great fodder to derail my WP:RFA on WP:OWN issues. We agreed to accept outside opinions but neither WP:WPBIO nor WP:HOCKEY gave any feedback on their talk pages. We then posted at WP:PR and got one response that supported my opinion that greater citation detail was a positive for our international audience. I am bringing the article here to get some consensus regarding edits like this September 24th edit made after the September 21st feedback at PR. In its current state (which I consider vandalized by User:RGTraynor) it is not the greatest GA. If I was using a scale where 95 is a WP:TFA, 90 is new WP:FA promotion, 75 is a new WP:GA listing or a WP:FAR keep, and 65 is a WP:GA/R keep, I would rate this article as about a 70. Basically, I am calling for support to revert the removals in the edit documented here and make some sort of clear statement that removing these kinds of details degrades the quality of the encyclopedia. I am calling for consensus on the debate about the direction of this article and have exhausted my avenues.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Keep with support to revert removed citations as nominator.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep per my statements made on the talk page earlier and the nom. Bring back the removed citations because most if not all of them fall under Wikipedia:When to cite. T Rex | talk 03:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep, The dispute doesn't seem to of resulted in any recent article instability, and even without more citations, it still looks pretty well-referenced. However, as long as the details you want in this article are, indeed, well-referenced and useful for mentioning in the article about this subject, I don't understand why they should be excluded.... Homestarmy 01:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and restore citations. The only time I could imagine an article with too many citations would be when one fact is cited with 5 different sources, or when every single sentence is cited. Removing a fact's only reliable citation borders on vandalism. Jeff Dahl 04:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I will restore the citations this weekend if User:RGTraynor (or someone who agrees with him) does not present a reason why I should not by then.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Tony is misrepresenting the situation. I removed no citations; I simply trimmed back an overwhelming number of inline citations that were as thick as every sentence in spots, each and every one an item of uncontroversial statistical fact already referenced below in a list of citations that I very properly did not touch. Tony's overeager inline citations flout official policy: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (emphasis in the original, from WP:V). (By contrast, Wikipedia:When to cite is an essay with no force as policy or guideline, and in any event does not focus on inline citations.) That he characterizes this as vandalism verges on personal attack -- given that I was editing this article a year and a half before he ever noticed it, should I claim that he vandalized my work? -- and if he feels that this issue impacted his RFA, his ambitions would be better served by correcting those actions of his which caused a raft of Oppose votes than by forum shopping. A GAR nomination on an article for which he pushed for GA status in the first place smacks of WP:POINT.  RGTraynor  19:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this forum process is not the place to resolve editorial disputes. The GA criteria set a minimum standard for citation, and this article meets them. Beyond that, they do not specify how much inline citation there should be. Please use Requests for comment or similar, not GAR. I intend to archive this discussion. Geometry guy 15:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this forum?? Wikipedia is not a forum. Davnel03 19:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting that, and sorry for using the wrong word. This is most definitely not a discussion forum, but that serves only to emphasise further the point that it is not the place for this discussion. Geometry guy 19:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Black Marsh

Result - Delist
(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

The content of this article does not adhere to WP:FICT – it does not contain any development information or what the developers envisioned, its impact on the real-world. Although written well, I am led to believe that it is not broad in its coverage. hbdragon88 03:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Delist Have to agree that it pretty much only using primary sources with only a few hints of how development came about. Was passed last year, so more recent changes would likely have invalidated it. --MASEM 15:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Entirely in-universe, therefore completely lacking in broadness. Not to mention the red-linked picture. Drewcifer 03:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a very readable and well-researched piece of in-universe writing, spiced up with one or two interesting (admittedly unsourced) speculations, and some helpful original research. Delist. Geometry guy 17:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Majoreditor 19:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. In-universe issues need to be addressed, and the article's breadth needs to be expanded. Rai-me 19:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. Written in-universe. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

It is of my opinion that this article is not "broad in its coverage" because of a lack of development section. All listed video game articles at WP:CVG/GA all have development sections, and several character articles have also been delisted for the same reason. hbdragon88 04:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - Forgive me, but this is not a development section? Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I must be blind. Forgive me, and do whatever the procedure is. I withdraw. hbdragon88 04:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Angolan Civil War

Result: Keep - Issues addressed. LaraLove 06:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Angolan Civil War (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I don't believe this article received an adequate review. There is a copyright image which lacks a fair use rationale, and a movie poster that is inappropriately being used in this article (the copyright on the image clearly states it is only appropriate for fail use when it is used to provide critical commentary on the film in question or the poster it self; additionally, the fair use rationale for this image should be specific to each article in which it is used, not a blanket FUR for all uses), the years are not wikified in full dates and some dates are not wikified at all it's very stubby in places with many one-sentence paragraphs, there is a main article link to a redlink article, there are inconsistencies in formatting voting results (ie. 54-22 vs. 12/91), I believe the use of dashes needs to be corrected, it is in need of a good copy-edit, and the references are not consistently formatted correctly. LARA♥LOVE 19:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Delist per nomination. The footnotes/citations in particular are a mess.Drewcifer 04:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Week Keep Seems much improved. The references are still a little messy, but other than that the article seems decent. Drewcifer 17:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Lara's points are valid. However...
    • Copyright image: gone
    • Dead link to a main article: fixed
    • Vote style: Consistent
    • Dashes: fixed
    • Year wikifying:fixed
  • Still to be done:
    • Merging stub-paragraphs
    • Converting refs to Cite format

Perspicacite 22:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Updated fixed items. LaraLove 18:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Once the copyedit and ref formatting are done, does anyone else think it should try for an FAC?---SidiLemine 11:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I would go for PR first. There is still the issue with stubby areas. The one sentence paragraphs can probably be worked into fewer, larger paragraphs. LaraLove 00:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Convert to GAN with LaraLove as reviewer :). The copyright issue seems to have been fixed, so in my view this can now be listed, but in view of the initial comment, this is Lara's call. Geometry guy 19:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. At first glance it looks like a keeper. Majoreditor 02:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Iglesia ni Cristo

Result: Closed early per WP:SNOW, delisted prior to nomination. This article fails so many criteria, it's not realistic to believe it can be improved quickly, particularly considering the stability issues and disputed content including a request for comment. LaraLove 18:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

See Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo#Coffeemaker's Rant. Issues concering the use of references, lack of vital information and structuring has lead a contributer to doubt its GA status wL<speak·check> 13:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Go for delist. In addition to your points, I also want to mention that it is not a stable article. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that this article should be delisted. While I do not agree that "too many references" (one of the points brought up on the talk page) is really a valid reason to delist this article, there are clearly many other issues, particularly reference verifiability and neutrality, stability, length of lead, scope and the need for cleanup. However, the article was delisted two days ago, so at this point this debate should be closed and archived, or the article should be relisted, at least until this discussion is closed and a clear decision is reached. However, it seems to me that this article could have been outright delisted without being listed here, as it has several problems that cause it to easily not meet the GA criteria. Rai-me 15:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delist - Cleanup and verification banners are a quick-fail. Copyrighted image of the magazine cover is not covered by fair use. External links need to be removed from the body. References have formatting errors that need to be corrected. That's in addition to the aforementioned issues. LaraLove 18:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)