Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 37

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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 38) Replacement filing cabinet.svg Good article reassessment (archive) (Page 36) →

New York State Route 308[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: relisted Dr. Cash (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This article was recently listed as a GA, after a proper GAN. User:Derek.cashman delisted it on the grounds that it's not complete, and it doesn't satisfy the criteria. As it is a fairly short route, it is as complete and as comprehensive as it can be, and I strongly disagree with the delisting. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Relist - Sort of ridiculous that someone would delist articles for un-comprehensiveness of the history. I would like to know what's missing, Derek, because as is, article meets USRD criteria as a complete history. I do understand if you're basing this off our FA, New York State Route 174, which has more history, but certain routes lack major history. I feel there is a chance that more may be coming, and I'd rather it solved here than on numerous talk pages.Mitch32contribs 18:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delisted The article completely and entirely FAILS the broadness criteria. There is simply not enough information here to make a complete article. The lead section is also too short, and isn't adequately summarizing the article. Why is this road significant? The article completely FAILS to address that. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
What the heck? Why should any article need to show why its significant? If you have a problem with road articles, bring it up at USRD. A lead is one thing, but a 6.19 mile route is not gonna be that long, compared to something like New York State Route 22 or New York State Route 17, both of which are over 300 miles long. It has been defined that something maintained by the state, or formerly maintained by the state is notable under standards. If you feel there's a problem with our standards, bring it up at WT:USRD or WT:NYSR.Mitch32contribs 21:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with road articles specifically. What I do have a problem with is watering down the GA criteria to allow for more insignificant articles to get listed. All GAs need to adhere to the criteria, all six points of it. We don't allow some articles to skimp on some of them just so we can have more GAs on minor state roads that no one's ever going to take a look at. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Does that mean that there are certain Wikipedia articles that can never be Good Articles? If an article on a specialized topic is complete but is very short (like this one), how would that ever become a Good Article? What does this particular article need for it to be complete? --Polaron | Talk 22:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is very short: both the road and the article. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 22:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • CommentRelist — it has been suggested that the reviewer didn't read the article. Well, I did. For 6.19 miles (9.96 km) it was my editorial judgment that it was comprehensive. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • A short article doesn't need a long review. I checked all photo's description page. I verified the edit history for edit-warring and stability. I found a few minor prose issues that I mentioned to the contributors on IRC that weren't anything I'd oppose over. I reviewed the sources. It's a short article about a short roadway. What more should I have done if I felt it was worthy of promotion? Put it on hold over a simple fix and then promote it ten minutes later? Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Relist This article has adequate information for the length of the road. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's my understanding that even very short articles can be GA listed. The critical threshold is that they cannot be stubby. It must also be broad in its coverage. My initial reaction is that the article meets these standards. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't GA criteria written specifically not to exclude short articles on tiny topics? Majoreditor (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • In fact, I think that hat was the original purpose - recognize articles for which FA might not be possible. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Aerosmith[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: List as GA. The article has been improved to meet the criteria, and suggestions for further improvements have been made. Geometry guy 18:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This article failed nomination primarily because of the reviewing editor's personal disliking for the organization of some of the body and organization of the lead. I tend to disagree with the assessment, and look to featured articles on similar artists such as AC/DC having a similar lead (mentioning specific albums; not naming members right away), and don't really think that there's a set guideline to follow for the organization of history. This one went decade-by-decade, which fits well for the article, while other articles might work better with a different system. The failure was unfair (article wasn't even put on hold) and the reasons given didn't seem adequate. Clairification on how to improve the article was also unclear. At best, the article deserves a second or third opinion. Abog (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Various FA and GA class rock group albumns take different approaches. Some, like AC/DC, are strictly chronologic. Others, like Genesis and Kate Bush, include non-chronological sections such as musical influences, awards, etc. I'm not sure that I would have failed the article based on organization, but I would encourage you to consider adding sections which provide a more holistic, non-chronological overview of the band's importance, influence, etc. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Such sections are planned for the future for an FA nomination, but as it stands right now, isn't the article worthy of GA status? Abog (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a degree of subjectivity in any GA evaluation. This is one of those cases where the article falls into that gray area between an easy-to-judge pass and a clear fail.
I agree with the reviewer that the article would benefit from structural enhancement. That said, the article is pretty darned good as it is; it's GA material or darn close. Personally, I prefer using GA-Holds when these situations arise - but different reviewers take various approaches as GA Hold is a somewhat subjective call.
Perhaps some other editors will now offer their insights. Majoreditor (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think this article needs some reworking. A separate critical reaction section would be essential in my view. There are other minor issues that make the article hard going. One is citation. First, the lead is meant to be easy to read at a glance, but it is so heavily cited that this is difficult. There is no requirement to cite noncontroversial facts in the lead which are cited in the body of the article. There is also no requirement to cut back such citations, but I think the lead would be much easier to read if you reduced citations to those which either are not supported by citations in the body, or are supporting controversial points. In the body, please move citations to the ends of sentences unless there is a really good reason for providing them mid-sentence. These suggestions would help the readability a lot, I think. Geometry guy 21:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Response. I find it a little ridiculous that this article is being criticized for being too heavily cited, while other articles that have horrible grammar mistakes, aren't comprehensive, aren't detailed enough, and aren't well-cited are given a free pass to GA, while this article sits in limbo because it has too many citations. In addition, I'm sure there are other GA and FA articles that are more cited than this one. As far as the lead goes, particularly the first paragraph, many statements are made regarding the band and their overall achievements are made that aren't mentioned elsewhere in the article. They may be repeated in other articles (Aerosmith discography, Aerosmith's awards and achivements, etc.), but I think many people are going to want a citation for 150 million albums sold, and 4 Grammys won, and their nicknames (America's Greatest Rock and Roll Band, Bad Boys from Boston), and other things that could be disputed and have been disputed in the past. Genres/musical styles are also frequently disputed and also need to be cited. And in many cases, citations are provided mid-sentence because they refer to a statement in the middle of a sentence that could be disputed. I really wish I could have more input on this, and I think there are many more reasons to pass than to fail this GA nom.
As far as a critical reaction section, I don't really see the point, when it's noted in the history the commercial and critical success rates of just about every album. Also, I often point to the AC/DC article (an FA) which lists their history and doesn't really have any other sections. Abog (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is not sitting in limbo because it has too many citations: please read by comment above that "there is... no [GA] requirement to cut back... citations": it was a suggestion not a requirement. And I'm afraid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not going to help you much here either. All the matters is this article and the criteria.
Now to your comments: "As far as the lead goes, particularly the first paragraph, many statements are made regarding the band and their overall achievements are made that aren't mentioned elsewhere in the article." This is contrary to WP:LEAD, which is a GA requirement. "the AC/DC article... doesn't really have any other sections". Yes, it does. In particular, it has a "Recognition" section, which corresponds roughly to the missing section here. Such a section might also provide a place to expand on the first paragraph of the lead.
I share your hope that more reviewers will comment. Note that none have yet made a list/endorse-fail recommendation. Geometry guy 14:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind, Aerosmith has an article called List of Aerosmith awards and achievements, which was created to replace an original awards section, which was deleted to cut down on article length. I'd rather keep the article short by making citations in the lead than creating a section that mirrors the lead and another article. I recently broke down the article into further sub-sections as suggested by the original GA reviewer, which appeared to be the bulk of their concerns. Abog (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a long list. All the more reason to have a summary of the most important awards in a separate section of this article, per WP:Summary style. Geometry guy 20:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. I added an awards section, as well as some other sections per the "summary style" guideline. I also broke the history down into more sections and re-organized the lead per the suggestions of the original GA reviewer. I also took out un-necessary citations in the lead per suggestions made here. Abog (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thanks to great work by Abog, this article has been much improved, and I'd like to make a recommendation to list, but I can't do so yet because of WP:Embedded lists, which is a GA requirement. Some of the lists here are probably fine (e.g. the discography), but some are not. The most obvious case is the Awards and Achievements section. This should be converted into prose per that guideline. Possibly one or two of the other listy (sub)sections should be given the same treatment: the guideline provides good advice. Geometry guy 21:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I converted the awards and filmography sections to prose. Abog (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • List as GA. That's good enough for me! One question, though: is "Aerosmith" singular or plural? I can live with the current compromise in which "Aerosmith" is generally singular, but uses "they"/"their" as an antecedant (the singular "they" is becoming increasingly common anyway in this gender neutral world), but I wonder if it would not be better to make "Aerosmith" a plural noun throughout. Geometry guy 18:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
So, do you mean "Aerosmith are..." instead of "Aerosmith is..."? I would assume that there'd be some sort of precedent already on Wikipedia with other bands, but maybe there isn't. Perhaps someone else might have a clue, but I do know this has been the subject of debate several times before. Abog (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this is exactly the issue. Can anyone comment? Geometry guy 20:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I suspect this is a question of a difference between British and US English. I personally would usually say "Aerosmith are", but then I would also say "Manchester United are", whereas I am aware that in the US sports teams take a singular verb. It's probably the same with bands. Meanwhile, I'm happy for this to be listed as GA, though I'd rather there not be four (!) citations at the end of the first sentence, and I feel that the references could be simplified; in fact, I'll go in and do some of that myself now. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 05:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
And the more time I spend with this article, the more I think I prefer the plural. For consistency, if nothing else. Take this sentence: "The band performed at London's Hard Rock Cafe in February of 2007 to promote their European tour." To be consistent with the current style, surely this should read "The band performed at London's Hard Rock Cafe in February of 2007 to promote its European tour." But that sounds weird to me; and presumably it does to the sentence's original author, otherwise he or she would have put "its" instead of "their." --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 06:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
This is what I meant by the singular "they". I am inclined to prefer the plural too, but the very first sentence ("Aerosmith is an American hard rock band") shows that such a solution is not entirely unproblematic either. Geometry guy 17:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • List as GA. I have no issues with the layout, it seems fine for a band article. Everything else seems resolved. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Having gone through the article, I'm a little disquieted at how much it relies upon the "Autobiography of Aerosmith," which is hardly a third-party source, and yet fails to quote six further books in the "Further reading" section, while using a seventh merely as source for one quotation from the band. As such, I'm withdrawing my support for this article's listing as GA. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 06:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for cleaning up the references. Although I'm a little discouraged by your comments. Keep in mind that this article is backed up by numerous web, magazine, and newspaper references, in addition to the book. Also, since the book was actually written by a third-party writer (Davis), based on conversations with a multiude of people (not just the band), it actually provides a very accurate, fair, balanced, and comprehensive picture, more than I think you would get from one of the other books. Since many good Wiki articles are based solely on web journalism, I think it's actually quite remarkable that we've been able to cite sections of this article with a book reference. One book is better than no books in my opinion. Abog (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh, one book is very much better than no books! Absolutely. And I don't know this particular book, except to note that it declares itself to be the band's autobiography. Moreover, in general I agree that this is very well-sourced compared to the vast majority of similar articles. I'm not opposing the listing, but I thought I'd withdraw my active support in the hope that you might be prompted to dig out something from the other books. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 06:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think I'd be able to get my hands on any of the other books anytime soon, and have already put forth days upon days of research with the book that is currently cited. I feel like I've already gone above-and-beyond the call.
As for Walk This Way, the book is half-autobiography/half-biography. It is primarily back-and-forth tesitmony from dozens and dozens of people, primarily band members and their associates but also several other outside individuals. In addition, Davis, as a third-party individual, fills in the blanks for everyone with cold facts throughout the book, and many of the citations do come from these facts. Abog (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I never like to be simply negative, so I've spent quite some time copy-editing the article. The prose could be improved (it suffers the common WP problem of what I'll call the "and then this happened" syndrome), but it's good enough on the whole for GA, I think. --07:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
    Jbm, you might like to know that there is an "official" WP term for "and then this happened" syndrome, or at least something very closely related: WP:proseline. Geometry guy 17:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
    Ah, marvellous, I have a term! ;) --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 20:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • List as GA. There's still room to improve the article's structure but it meets GA criteria. Majoreditor (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

To Tell the Truth[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Delist. Ball fumbled by otherwise excellent reviewer :-) Geometry guy 19:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that this article should be delisted for the following reasons:

1. Two sections have {{unreferenced-section}} tags.

2. More than 1/3 the sources are individual episodes, and another 1/3 are fansites or otherwise unreliable (I see a Geocities, Lycos, and YouTube, among others).

3. Famous contestants section is pure listcruft.

4. The sections on the individual incarnations are full of fancruft -- too much detail given to the sets, aspects of gameplay, etc.

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 20:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong delist per egregious problems with sources and images. NB there must be better sources out there, and Google suggests that there are. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 05:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, I was all for everything until Jb made this point above, as a quick look at the listings show that 90% of the books on the first few pages give a one sentence mention of the show in passing. A better source would probably be THIS book. :) [1] 24.186.96.84 (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, that would be a start. It might even be enough for GA, depending on how much info it has, though as always, the more good sources, the better. NB that (as always) Google books is only part-useful. Many of the books listed are snippet view only, or even have no preview at all. But some of the other titles look like they could be useful. There's only one way to find out. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 02:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment As the reviewer who passed this, unfortunately I have to concede that I fumbled the ball here. Per the talk page, I took the author's sourcing problems into account and was rather more lenient than I should have been (and I don't recall non-free images being so much of an issue at the time). However, given that suitable sources can apparently be found, I'd support a delist. Feel free to throw rotten fruit at my talk page ;) EyeSerenetalk 20:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Procedural close. Raised during a GAN. Article has now failed GAN with genuine issues raised. These need to be addressed before renomination. Geometry guy 22:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There had been concern that there was no section on Wilson's private life, on it's talk page. i believe i have rectified that. Also, added another section or two.--Briaboru (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Briaboru. Thanks for your great contributions the WW article.
I noticed that the article is currently awaiting GA review at WP:GAN. It will be evaluated by a GA reviewer there. Good Article Reassessment won't need to get involved at this point in the review process. Let's close this GAR discussion and let GAN do its job.
I also wish to share an insight. If you're serious about shepherding the article to FA status then please capitalize the first person singular pronoun. Use of lowercase "i" is like walking around with your fly down; while some may not mind it, others will giggle sotto voce and subsequently discount your input.
Keep up the good work and best wishes. Majoreditor (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment In fact, I've just failed the article, for reasons I've outlined on the talk page. It's therefore been failed twice within a couple of weeks or so. As Majoreditor notes, in fact it shouldn't have been at both WP:GAN and WP:GAR at the same time. The reasons for the fail are fairly obvious, and concern both writing issues and sourcing problems. I'm happy for this reassessment page to remain open, in so far as the major editor (rather than Majoreditor!) can receive further feedback. But I fear it's just making work for the already over-stretched crew who oversee Good Article reassessment, so would advise speedy close. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 08:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Self-injury[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: GA status upheld. Although mostly tentative, the general consensus is that this can stay as a GA...just (in other words, keep improving it, guys!) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Article has not been reassessed for two years. Complaints regarding the quality of sources per WP:V. Seems rather wordy with a long list in the middle. There is also no history on the talk page discussing the review it previously underwent or who did the review. will381796 (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you either elaborate the issues you are raising, or consider initiating an individual delist per the delisting guidelines. The GA reviewer was Cedars: the talk page promotion is here. Geometry guy 19:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Where's the review? Are people just allowed to promote an article w/o performing a review? will381796 (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
No, not any more, but these were the early days of GA. (A bit like the Wild West!) Geometry guy 19:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, then I'm going to go ahead and individually de-list this article. I don't think they should be "Grand-fathered" in simply because that's the way they used to do it. Is there some date after which GA required a review? I'd like to go through and at least take a look at all of these good old boy's promotions. will381796 (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think they are old boy's promotions. I do think that editors such as Cedars really evaluated articles against the criteria at the time. They just didn't appreciate the need for accountability in the form of a visible review. And many of our current reviews don't provide such accountability: a list of checks is not the same as a careful review.
I see you simply delisted the article, without following the guidelines linked above. I don't support that, but I will close this discussion anyway if no one raises objections to your action. Geometry guy 20:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't support the de-listing, it was too hasty and should only have followed a fair discussion, considering the time-scale from which it was nominated and then de-listed, it didn't give any chance for editors to have their say. Far too hasty Jdrewitt (talk) 07:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You have not followed the correct procedure for de-listing an article, - you should have waited for the reassement discussion to have run its course and then followed the guidelines on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. I therefore have reinstated the GA review status of the article, the GA status must only be removed once the discussion on this page has run its course as per instructions on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, specifically please read the "Guidelines for closing a reassessment discussion". Jdrewitt (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Okay, objections have been raised and this will thus be a fully fledged GAR discussion. Could the nominator please elaborate the reasons that the article does not currently meet the criteria? Thanks. Geometry guy 10:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Very well. First, my greatest issue with this and many of the older articles is the fact that I cannot find a bona-fide GA review anywhere in the article talk page or talk page archives. The article was passed almost 2 years ago. New nomintations for GA must have a review performed and this review needs to be maintained on the article's talk page for posterity, but this alone is not criteria for de-listment. So, this is just a very brief overview of some of the things I see. I don't have time for a full review as I am currently reviewing another article:
  1. The lead appears to be too short and does not adequately summarize the contents of the entire article
  2. Definition section seems to be abruptly interrupted by the "Methods of injury" list. First, list are discouraged. Second, this information appears to be more appropriate in another section in the article.
    - List removed Jdrewitt (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Several of the items in that list are not referenced.
    - List removed Jdrewitt (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Further reading section seems excessive. We don't need to list every book ever published on the issue.
    - Fixed Jdrewitt (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. Some of your sources are rather sketchy an unreliable. For example, reference 18 does not appear follow WP:Sources requirement for reliable sources. Same goes for 14.
    - Please clarify the references you are refering to, the reference ordering has changed. Jdrewitt (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  6. Source 42 appears to be linking to an entry on a comment made to an online web story. That's hardly a reliable source and clearly violates WP:V.
    - Fixed Jdrewitt (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  7. Source 43 is an internet forum. Also a violation of WP:V.
    - Fixed Jdrewitt (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  8. Some sources appear to be dead, like source #31.
    - Fixed Jdrewitt (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  9. References for websites, in general, appear to be incomplete, with the author's name and dates of publication missing from almost all references. This stuff needs to be included with any reference regardless of whether or not its an internet site.
  10. I am curious about the copyright status of the image. Am I missing somewhere in the image description where the Jamestown Foundation released the image for use on Wikipedia? I mean, its not an image self-made by the initial uploader, so how could they have licensed it under creative commons? If permission was granted by jamestown, then doesn't that permission need to be listed somewhere on the image page? The image also doesn't seem to be appropriate for this article in general. The image hardly is showing self-mutilation. It may have been the painter's intention to have the painting show that, but to the general reader this image does not illustrate self injury very well.
    - See below Jdrewitt (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  11. There is a "citation needed" tag located in the article. I would quick fail any article with a tag such as this if it were nominated for GA.
    - Fixed Jdrewitt (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

These are just things that I've noticed without going into the actual content of the article (as I lack time for a full review). But, if I were reviewing this as a new GA nominee I would fail it simply because the references and the lead need enough work that it will take a while to correct. will381796 (talk)

  • Comment and Keep

1. The lead section could probably be extended but does read well and seems to include most of the content in the article really. How long do you want it?Jdrewitt (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Long enough to do what it's supposed to do. The lead serves as both a summary of the entire article as well as an introduction to the subject. You do a good job of defining self-harm as an intro to the subject, but there's no summary of the other sections (demographics, risk factors, treatment, etc)in the lead. will381796 (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

2. The method of injury list states that the methods of injury are limited only by human imagination and as such do not need citations since they are examples of methods that will cause self inflicted injury - they are commonsense knowledge.Jdrewitt (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Then why include the list? If its only limited by human imagination then no list at all is required.will381796 (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

3. The sources 42 and 43 that you mentioned are no longer cited.Jdrewitt (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

4. "citation needed tag" has been replaced with an appropriate academic reference.Jdrewitt (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

5. If you have a problem with the image copyright, then deal with this through the proper channels.Jdrewitt (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Image copyright is one of the criterion for Good Article status. See WP:GA for the criteria. The article, if illustrated, must have an appropriate image that has correct copyrights applied. I first argue the image is inappropriate. I also have questions on its copyright status. Its appropriate for me to bring this into this discussion if you want to maintain GA status. will381796 (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    The image has been discussed on the talk page and it was considered appropriate. If there is a problem with the copyright status then I again request this be dealt with through the proper channels - i.e. the user who uploaded the image should be notified. Jdrewitt (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

6. The remaining issues that you have raised are pretty weak and to be honest if you helped to improve the article yourself then ALL problems could get fixed pretty rapidly. We editors do our best we can but have to work together. Jdrewitt (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • No time. As I said, I'm reviewing other articles. If I get time maybe I'll run a fine tooth comb through the article, but it's not our jobs as GA reviewers to edit an article until it is a GA. will381796 (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    - I disagree, if there are relatively simple tasks to be completed, then common courtesy dictates the reviewer make these changes rather than simply critisising them. Jdrewitt (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Generally, missing or not-properly formatted references are not considered to be simple tasks. Reviewers need to refrain from contributing too much an article they are reviewing as they would no longer be reviewers but instead contributors, thus making them unsuitable to review an article. will381796 (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    That isn't actually correct: all GA processes encourage reviewers to contribute to improving the article once the review has started; this is not regarded as a conflict of interest. However, there is no obligation to help out. Geometry guy 11:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I consider it a conflict of interest for myself as a reviewer. If GA criteria state otherwise, wonderful. But if I make a total re-write of an article following a review to make it conform to GA status, and then promote it to GA status, then you're promoting an article to which you have significantly contributed. I don't see how that can not be considered a COI. I see no difference between that and a nominator promoting his own nomination. will381796 (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Second opinion: this reviewer is requesting another editor's input on the article. I am perfectly prepared to make any minor adjustments to the article to ensure it retains its GA status, however I request a second opinion on the issues that have been so far raised. Thank you Jdrewitt (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    Don't worry, you'll get more than one opinion at GAR. I'm currently checking out the article. The references don't seem to be very consistently formatted, and it could use a copyedit. I'll make a first pass at this and then comment further. Geometry guy 20:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've been through the citations: the formatting was very inconsistent (e.g., placement of the year, which parts to italicize, whether to put the title in quotes). I've used {{citation}} to provide a standard format as far as possible, but in some cases I didn't understand the citation, and in some cases data is missing (I've added a question mark, comment or "unknown" in these cases). Could editors more familiar with the sources tidy the handful of references that I was not able to fix? The further reading section would also benefit from a clear choice of format.
In general the article feels untidy, a 2005 work which has lost its shine. It needs a thorough copyedit, and I think Will381796 raises a lot of valid concerns, even if they can be easily fixed. I hope we will be able to fix them over the next week or so, otherwise we'll have to settle for a delist. Geometry guy 23:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thanks for your efforts.
I have been through and fixed the missing data in the references, I will continue to check this in case I have missed any and as you say, there is still work to be done here. I also updated the dead link on reference 31.
With regard to the image copyright, I am unsure of the correct procedure, but I think the user who uploaded the image should be notified to confirm the copyright status.
I think the content has certainly improved since 2005, however as the article has been updated since then, general consistency and wording may have suffered. Hopefully the issues that have been raised won't take an age to fix, if the article does end up having to be de-listed then so be it, but I'm not giving up yet!Jdrewitt (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, I have now fixed the further reading section Jdrewitt (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Image copyright, please see [2] (Andrei Lomize's wikipedia commons discussion page) where Jamestown Foundation clearly give permission for the Nikolai Getman paintings to be used in wikipedia under the [3] (Wikimedia 3.0 license) Jdrewitt (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for doing the research to clear up this copyright status. will381796 (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Good work! I've made myself into a commoner and updated the image information so that the next editor does not have to do the same amount of research as you did to find the permission. With regard to references, I notice that you changed some {{citation}} templates to {{cite journal}}, yet used {{citation}} for the Further reading. It is probably best, for consistency, either to use {{citation}} for everything, or to use {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}, {{cite book}} and {{cite news}} for everything (they format slightly differently). I prefer citation because it is just one template, and allows Harvard-style links, but I don't mind if you want to go with the other option.
    "I'm not giving up yet!" - that's the spirit! I'm sure the content has improved since 2005: I was just trying to convey an impression. I think we should be able to polish up those rough edges. Geometry guy 11:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    I did change some of the {{citation}} templates to {{cite journal}} but since I wasn't consistent I have now changed them back so all references have {{citation}}. Next task seems to be the lead section and maybe fixing that "methods of injury" list...watch this space Jdrewitt (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Minor process comment. It is generally regarded as inappropriate to strike out other editors' comments: just add the "Fixed" or "Done" and leave the editors to strike out their comments themselves if they are satisfied with the fix. Thanks, Geometry guy 11:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    - OK, have reverted the strikeouts Jdrewitt (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks. I've reformatted the page slightly to make it clearer who wrote what (I hope other GA reviewers will stop by and comment!). If anyone objects to the way I've indented their comments, feel free to readjust. Geometry guy 12:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Tentative keep. There have been fantastic improvements to this article. I've made a few minor copyedits and added a couple of citation needed tags, but the article generally reads well. I have a slight hesitation that the article conveys a point of view, but other editors would need to demonstrate that there is a serious problem for me to change my recommendation. Geometry guy 20:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you, I have replaced the {{fact}} templates with appropriate academic references. Jdrewitt (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Reassert keep. After the spurt of activity that has resulted from this GAR, the self-injury article has been improved significantly. I am rather disappointed that no more users decided to contribute to the process, especially considering that there is (or was) a community of users who frequently contributed to the article. Nevertheless, thanks go to Will381796 for highlighting the problems and Geometry guy for helping to fix them as well as chairing the review. No article is perfect, but I do feel that self-injury deserves its GA status and I am therefore requesting a close to this review. I will continue to contribute to the article in an effort to maintain and improve its standard. Cheers, Jdrewitt (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm glad the article has been improved as much as it has. With these changes, I think it can probably retain its GA status. But, I wouldn't mind hearing input from some other's. Strange how only 3 people have commented on this reassessment. will381796 (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That is good news and I am happy that you are happy with the changes. I have asked a number of times on the talk page for contributions on this review process but alas no one has responded. I suppose a further request could be made but I'm not sure anyone will respond Jdrewitt (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm used to commenting on similar articles at the FA level, so my observations may not be a concern at the GA level. The sources may be acceptable for GA level (things like autism.org, helpguide.org, palace.net, spartacus.schoolnet, firstworldwar.com), although they wouldn't be sufficient for an FA (the article could be entirely sourced to high-quality reviews from peer-reviewed journals), citations are not completely or correctly formatted, publishers aren't specified, and the article is UK-centric and doesn't conform with WP:MEDMOS. However, I don't think any of these issues preclude GA status. I do suggest an independent copyedit and prose audit to pick up instances of unclear wording. I noticed sentences like this: . self-injury Awareness Day (SIAD), which is set for March 1 of every year, is one such movement. and this In a study of psychiatric morbidity carried out in the UK an overall lifetime prevalence of 2.4% was found, 2.0% of which were male and 2.7% of female. Large study? Controlled study? Not a peer-reviewed source. Population sample? 2.7% of female? The article would need significant expansion (per WP:MEDMOS) and higher quality sourcing if it is aiming for FA status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
-I have fixed your latter points. With regards to the sources, much of the information cited is available in the academic references that have already been cited by the article. So although there is some concern over the reliability of the sources, the information isn't necessarily factually inaccurate. In fact, I am attempting to replace all these poor sources with academic peer reviewed references. It is an on-going task but, as you suggest, I don't think it is a reason against GA status. Jdrewitt (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes it is helpful to cite both an academic reference and an online source, and I recommend considering this option in some cases: Wikipedia has many types of reader. Geometry guy 21:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
-Additionally, considerable effort has been made to format the references consistently. In this way ALL journal articles and ALL books citations are correctly formatted with their auhor, title, publisher, year, ISBN etc where applicable. The only references that do not conform are the web citations, which I agree need to be fixed per my comments above. Jdrewitt (talk) 08:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Also, the article incorrectly mixes the citation template with the cite family of templates, see WP:CITE#Citation styles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      Many thanks for commenting here! I was just clicking the edit button to comment (i) that I've updated the lead per WP:LEAD, but my edits need to be checked by experts, and (ii) that I agree with will381796 that another independent comment would be helpful. I agree with you that the sources are not FA level, and appreciate you making the distinction: I think some of the issues you raise may not be a problem for GA, but some may be. For example, citation formatting and unclear prose are commonly regarded as GA issues, and it would be good to have another opinion on the source quality. I hope these will be addressed and that someone else with experience of GAR discussions (Majoreditor, EyeSerene, DHMO, anyone?) will comment here. Even though I have been helping out with this article, I will not be offended if other editors think that it still does not make the grade, and Jdrewitt has both expressed determination to bring this to GA standard, but also some understanding that a delist (and hopefully future renomination) may the outcome here. The nominator has been satisfied with the improvements, but that is not the only point. In any case, I hope we can reach a consensus soon. Geometry guy 20:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I think it's borderline, but don't object to GA status for this article. A general copyedit would be useful (aren't they always!), and I'm not convinced of the relevance of the example at the start of Psychology - it's rather left hanging with no further development or explanation (and I think curly-quotes are discouraged by the MoS unless used in a callout). The only other thing that jumped out were the number of very short sub-sections, one of which (Self-injury awareness) is very unclear. Is " Self-injury Awareness Day" an international or a national observance, and if the latter, who (and why not others). There are also a few uncited statements, but I don't like fact bombing and I think what's there is OK for GA. EyeSerenetalk 23:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Darrell S. Cole[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Fail endorsed. Kumioko, thank you for your work so far on the article, and I encourage you to try to address the issues here and renominate some time in the future. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe this article was failed way to fast. It should have been put on hold 1st to give me a chance to make any necessary corrections. Additionally, the rationale for failing the article was in my opinion not approriate or accurate. See my comments on the articles talk page.--Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree that review was not very helpful. There are a few minor issues: in particular the lead needs to be expanded slightly. However, the main issue is not minor: you need an additional reliable secondary source, preferably an authoritative history book, to describe the events of the battle. The U.S. Marine Corps book is not sufficiently independent of the subject to be used as the sole source for this information. That will require some research and some rewriting of the text, which is why I believe the reviewer was correct to fail the article, so that you can work on it and renominate later. Hence I endorse the fail. Good luck improving the article. Geometry guy 12:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
PS. The references section of Battle of Iwo Jima has some sources that you could consult. Geometry guy 12:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse fail. The review should have elaborated on problems. The article would beneift from additional, non-military sourcing. There are also issues with criteria 1a, 1b and 3a. The lead needs developing. The article is choppy in places due to short paragraphs. And the article isn't quite as developed as it should be. That said, you're off to a great start. With some additional work the article will pass GA. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The article is improving but still faces some criteria 1a and 1b issues. Here's some examples:
  • The lead needs to be enhanced.
  • Some paragraphs are too short, such as the first one in the body of the article; it's a single 11-word sentence.
  • Some words are capitalized when they shouldn't be: "and was eventually promoted to the rank of Sergeant in 1942."
  • I question whether the "Medal of Honor citation" should be nothing more than a verbatim quote - and an unabridged one, I suspect.
I think that you are well on the way to getting this to GA status, but it's going to need additional copy editing. I think it's best to work on it and then re-submit it for consideration at GAN. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I broadly agree. In particular, for the medal of honor citation, the preamble adds nothing to the article. The rest could be kept, but might be better placed in some sort of quote box to emphasise that it is a direct quotation. Geometry guy 08:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I made all the necessary changes. Please let me know if you see anything else that needs to be adjusted.--Kumioko (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I made a few fixes myself. I am still unhappy that most of the article is attributed to the US Marine Corps, but I am willing to reconsider my endorsement of the fail if convincing arguments are made that this is the best we can hope for. Geometry guy 18:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse fail I disagree with the original reviewer, Redmarkviolinist on 3(b). He regarded the article as focussed; I find the battle subsections largely an enumeration of the strategic and tactical significance of these engagements, with only brief references to Mr. Cole's participation in them. Consider the entry on the Battle of Siapan: we are given the date on which it was fought, the units involved, the American and Japanese commanders, casualty counts on both sides, then a briefer second paragraph concerning Mr. Cole's role in the engagement. This enumeration of battles can be replaced with smaller, terser paragraphs focussed specifially on Mr. Cole's Pacific theater resume. The remarks on the various battles' tactical and strategic significance, statistical abstracts, and the like are better left to the articles on those battles and not in Mr. Cole's biography, where they are off-topic, redundant, and bloating this biography with information not particularly about Mr. Cole.
The article sections "Early years" and "Military service" seem to be pretty much word-for-word extracts from Who's Who in Marine Corps History, with just a bit of copyediting. While this is government work, and outside the domain of copyright, I do think that Wikipedia is better served by sourced summary articles rather than reproduced passages from underlying sources.
Overall, I agree with the various project assessments: this is a reasonably good Start class article, but it could use the infusion of another obituary or two, if those could be found. It could also stand an overall re-write, so it is less like a composite from some of its sources. Gosgood (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Although I agree that copying from the source is not the preferred method I also believe that rewriting the article just for the sake of rewriting it is a waste of time. Time was spent writing the original article and that information is in the public domain and is fairly well written. I see no point in taking the time to rewrite it just to put a different flavor on the same meat. I can edit out some of the battle specific info and I can add in a couple of extra references I found (these references only show the Medal of Honor citation and info about the ship thats named after him) but in the end I think that the sources, although they are from a single source, are accurate. Aside from going to the Marine Corps research center and treading on the no original research criteria I believe these sources are as good as we are going to get.--Kumioko (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is still an issue for me that so much of this article is a taken from Who's Who in Marine Corps History. Imagine this were an article on a Serbian hero in the Kosovo war and much of it was taken from a source published by an institution within the Serbian government of the time. That would be unacceptable. It is similarly unacceptable to rely so much upon the US military as a source here. I appreciate it is harder to find other sources for older subjects like this, but I'm afraid that just means it is harder to bring articles like this to GA status: "as good as we are going to get" is not a GA criterion. I continue to endorse the fail: despite improvements made, there are fundamental concerns. The article has now received a proper review here and closing this GAR is the best option now. Geometry guy 19:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Delisted. Arguments not about the GA criteria have been given much less weight, and it is thus evident that there are still significant issues with this article being a GA. The lead is far too short, the referencing is poor (when citing a wiki (if you must) you should at least use permalinks), and the prose could do with work. Please renominate when you think it's ready (or ping me and I'll take a look). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Uncyclopedia, as funny as it is, should have its article delisted from GA for multiple reasons:

1. The lead is too short, as mentioned on the talk page. It should easily be two paragraphs.

2. The history section consists of a ton of one-sentence paragraphs.

3. {{Fansite}} tag on the "Uncyclopedia in other languages" section.

Mostly criterion 1 of WP:WIAGA is what it seems to fall short on.

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 18:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Fails 2c, about 80% of citations are from the site itself. The site includes intentionally false information, so this is like shooting yourself in the foot.

2. Fails 3, goes into unnecessary details about the site in other languages. Which is why Fansite tag is there.

It is a very difficult article to main, and as it is edited by many users from the site, fansite-like details are commonly added but are debatable.

--Otterathome (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delist per above. Majoreditor (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. Someone could close this now, the article even uses user pages at Uncyclopedia as references.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 17:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The {{Fansite}} tag should never have been applied, as the languages listed are just the major ones - not all of the (currently fifty-two) Uncyclopedias in existence. Many of the references are from mainstream media and, if the effort expended in burying this page in maintenance tags to further some agenda were instead exerted more constructively, the intro could've been rewritten long ago. --carlb (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    The whole article should be tagged with {{fansite}} how is this:"The websites also invoke various spoof languages such as « Portuñol » and " English But Louder "" notable or encyclopaedic? how is the Pee review system notable or encyclopaedic? The article is filled with WP:CRUFT.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 16:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. You know, I actually thought everything was just gonna return to a nice good article equilibrium for this page. Apparently not. At any rate, I agree with Carlb on the issue of that language section; although some of the information given seems a tad trivial to me, when I skimmed it briefly, it seemed to have been all sourced thoroughly and properly(I don't speak much of any of those languages, of course, but doubt you do, either.). Don't like the links to the userpages? What links to userpages? I don't see any links to any userpages on this page, do you see any links to any userpages on this page? My point is that something as small as that can easily be fixed, in 30 seconds or less(or your money back!). This page isn't perfect. Far from it. It is, however, in my humble opinion, far from any kind of snowball clause closeout, and even further from simply removing the template yourself, without discussion. - TLB (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep My reasons are based on looking at the edit histories of some of the people involved here, and the page itself. MrN9000 (talk)
    None of the above have said why all these primary sources are acceptable which make it fail criteria 2. They sound more like WP:ILIKEIT votes instead of actual justifications.--Otterathome (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Are you familiar with the Good Article criteria? I ask this based on your edit history and the page itself.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 16:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Obviously I am familiar with WP:GA. What kind of question is that? Why would I vote if I did not know what I was voting for? My main reason for discussing edit histories was to draw attention to the fact that some of the people who wish the status of this article to be changed have been regular contributors to it. I find this strange. Why not address your concerns about this article when editing it? MrN9000 (talk)
  • Comment: There are more than two dozen non-wiki sources cited in this article. Uncyclopedia, Desciclopédia, Inciclopedia and Ansaikuropedia have all had mainstream media coverage, WP:IDONTLIKEIT considerations aside. That the original poster on this thread has been blocked twice from Uncyclopedia after a page-blanking spree (same username as here, reversed sdrawkcab) does not lend this much credibility, at least in context of edits to Uncyclopedia's article here removing valid sources (Chilean newspaper Las Últimas Noticias and Madrid's TV Cuatro) from the section on other languages. --carlb (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    The background of users involved has nothing to do with this, if their take on their article is correct explain why.--Otterathome (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    It's not a question of merely the "background of users", it's a WP:COI question if banned users or vandals on another site are coming here to demand that articles directly relating to that site be delisted or deleted. The topic is notable, the page has already been endlessly reworked and re-edited to meet the GA criteria and there are more than two dozen WP:RS cites to back up the statements within it. Any links to Uncyclopedia itself are within the narrow range of use permitted by WP:V and are not the sole or primary source for the article. I am concerned that the removal of information from these articles by those who want them delisted or deleted is not contributing constructively to the encyclopædia but merely disrupting its operation to make a point. --carlb (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I agree -- even if I did goof around on Uncyclopedia, that doesn't mean I've got some sort of hidden agenda to get its page delisted. It's because the page here that is poorly written -- too many one-sentence paragraphs, listcruft, too-short intro, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 18:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Even if this article does have valid issues, I don't think anyone would seriously argue that vandalizing Uncyclopedia and getting banned from Uncyclopedia doesn't present a conflict of interest. --Syndrome (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    In any case, a user wanting to recreate this mess based on one source while claiming that a GA on Uncyclopedia cannot be constructed with the more than two dozen external sources currently in use does seem a bit like the application of an arbitrary double-standard. --carlb (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: What do Uncyclopedia, Wikipedia, and everything in life have in common? You have to take it with a grain of salt, and not just believe everything word for word. Yes, there are inexactitudes on Uncyclopedia, but anyone can look past them and see the real message as long as they have a decent command of English and a sense of sarcasm. The same is true with Wikipedia; not every POV is N and not every fact is sourced, try as you might to make it so. My point is, having an article about Uncyclopedia cite Uncyclopedia does not lower the value of the article. About Uncyclopedia. --Syndrome (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    In this case, it does.--Otterathome (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    No it doesn't. --Syndrome (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia's article on itself has many other wikipedia articles as its source. It just make good common sense when it comes to wikis. For instance, to point to the existence of other uncyclopedia projects, just as wikipedia's article on itself points to other wikimedia foundation projects. Carlb also made some very strong points, specially on his last comment, really, the sole reason for this nominarion is WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Rataube (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    So using a website which has editable-articles that are all intentionally fictional is ok?--Otterathome (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    That depends what the links are used to support. To support a claim that Uncyclopedia has a subproject named UnNews by linking to http://unne.ws makes sense, to base your nation's foreign policies on the news contained therein may not make any sense. See WP:V as it addresses this distinction quite clearly. --carlb (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The primary sources do not necessarily make it fail 2c. Using uncyclopedia as a source is not always wrong - as long as you're following the rules for citing any primary source, primary source ≠ original research. For example:
Uncyclopedia describes itself as a "content-free" encyclopedia. [4]
Uncyclopedia has two rules, "be funny and not just stupid," and "don't be a dick." [5]
are both correct uses of a primary source, according to the original research policy. Even if the primary sourced material were false, it wouldn't matter, because wikipedia articles have to be verifiable, not true. And if the primary sources (assuming they're used correctly, there may well be some that aren't) are the only acceptable-by-wikipedia-standards verification available, removal of such sources would make the article less good, unless you find a better secondary source. Spang (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article has other problems as well. The lead is underdeveloped. And many sections are choppy, list-like collections of material, such as "Criticism" and "Other Languages". This article can be brought up to GA standards with some work, but it's not quite there at the moment. Majoreditor (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Fixed criticism section. --Syndrome (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. TenPoundHammer, please stop reverting my edits. You claim this article isn't good and yet you resist any attempt to improve the article. First you say my edit is unnecessary and then you say that it violates NPOV; it looks like you're just desperately grasping for an excuse. Your conduct does not make it apparent that you are holding Wikipedia's interests paramount. --Syndrome (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, I agree with the uncyc vandal on this one. Saying stuff like vanity pages are deleted because "they're simply not funny", while true, lacks sourcings, I think. Besides, it just sounds fancrufty. Sorry Sydrome, I know your intentions are the best. - TLB (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 17:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
      • There are sources for what I was trying to add. I didn't add them for the sake of not having a little number at the end of every sentence, and because they were already used in the same paragraph. --Syndrome (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment:I find this kind of funny, but the editor who nominated this article for a reduction in rating also wrote an essay penalizing Uncyclopedia as a source of Vandals, claiming that edits to Uncyclopedia are vandalism as per Wikipedia guidelines, and is resisting legit attempts from multiple editors to increase the articles quality. Javascap (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delist. I think Uncyclopedia is great, but until someone can improve upon the crappy 4 sentence lead, I don't care about the politics of the nomination, this aint a GA. Geometry guy 21:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Scrap this whole thing/Keep

  1. . The lead is too short, as mentioned on the talk page. It should easily be two paragraphs.

There are multiple other articles that are "Good" quality, with "Short" openings

  1. The history section consists of a ton of one-sentence paragraphs.

You seems to be a bit dramatic here, a "ton" emphasises the entire thing is a series of single sentence, one paragraph, when that seems a bit invalid. The sentence structure goes as so, 1 3 3 4. Those four numbers tell how many sentences (as of this edit) make up the "History" section

  1. . {{Fansite}} tag on the "Uncyclopedia in other languages" section.

What fansite tag? This section seems to work by emphasising the popularity of Uncyclopedia and its global appeal.

Other:

  • POV pushing - " The site has gained some negative press over some of its articles which mock certain places and people." Your userpage that states "Discussing or linking to Uncyclopedia can: Cause or incite vandalism", you removal of an Uncyclopedia reference form the article on Oscar Wilde, and you seeming hatred of Uncyclopedia abounds.
  • Reverts of HELPFUL edits - (Just look at the article history to see the history of reverts)

My belief is that you are TRYING to get this article demoted because of a personal vendetta against Uncyclopedia, with help from Tenpoundhammer. Why don't you just admit it so we can be over with this whole debate, and while you are at it, read this. Javascap (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Repeat comment. The lead now has 5 sentences, which is an improvement by one sentence. There's no point in considering this article for GA until it has a decent lead. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a famously invalid argument. Geometry guy 21:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment to closing admin There are far too many amboxes for the article to pass in its present state, too-short intro notwithstanding.Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 01:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The mess of Article message boxes which are being used to deface this page and another related topic were put there by those who wanted the articles delisted or deleted. They are not part of a legit attempt to improve the article text in this case. To spam a pile of message boxes onto a page, then come here and demand that the article be delisted because it is suddenly a mess of message boxes, is disingenuous at best and disruptive at worse. Let's not go there. --carlb (talk) 03:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Byzantine-Arab Wars (780–1180)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Delisted. This is, unfortunately, a relatively clear cut case of something that should not have passed GAN. I encourage article editors to work on the comments raised here and on the talk page in bringing it up to criteria. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Two editors have had problems with this article's GA review, as listed on the talk page. Mine mainly concern criterion 2a: there is serious confusion regarding the sources, such that it is impossible to know which works are being cited. For me, though this is something that can probably be fixed quite quickly, this is enough for an instant delist. I will allow the other editor to comment here if s/he so chooses. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 21:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delist. I am the mysterious "other editor", and I believe that this article is so far short of the GA criteria on so many levels that I was about to delist it until Jbmurray came along. The formatting of the sources was to say the least confusing, and remains confusing, but the quality of the prose alone is a show-stopper IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist, with regrets. The prose needs improving and the article needs copyediting. I share Jbmurray's concerns about the citations. Majoreditor (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. I agree with the above comments, particularly regarding copyediting and sourcing. The article seems to rely heavily on one or two sources, despite a fairly extensive references list (some of which are apparently unused in the article). The makings of a decent article are there, but it needs some attention before I'd be happy seeing it as a GA. EyeSerenetalk 13:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. The article has been copyedited and the prose improved somewhat, but the confusion over the Treadgold reference has not been fixed. The limited number of sources has suggested concerns about plagiarism, which need independent checking. In addition to the general sourcing issue, the article has an uncited "Conclusion" section, which appears to editorialize the whole article. Wikipedia cannot and must not do this. A "Conclusions" section can be bad even when reliably sourced, as it is difficult to maintain neutral point of view. I agree with the consensus to delist. Geometry guy 00:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Episode 210[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: No action per consensus, including the nominator. The prose has been improved by several copyedits. Geometry guy 14:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm very concerned about the prose in this article - it's really bad and choppy. Otherwise, the article's fine, but the prose isn't. Sceptre (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see there is some poor prose. For instance:
Tracy Jordan (Tracy Morgan) buys a coffee machine which he stations at Kenneth Parcell's desk. Kenneth then gradually develops a coffee addiction throughout the course of the episode.
In the first sentence "stations" is a bad choice of word, and the second sentence should be rewritten less redundantly.
Can you clarify what you mean by "choppy", maybe with an example? Thanks. Geometry guy 22:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
There are quite a lot of commas in places where they shouldn't be, making the reader insert unnecessary pauses when reading. Sceptre (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The writing is far from brilliant - far enough that the article fails criteria 1a and 1b. Sceptre's examples are just the tip of the iceberg. Unless the someone improves the prose we should delist this article. Majoreditor (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. Barring significant copyediting, this should not be listed as a GA. (Discount vote if said copyediting takes place.) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC) (struck per 00:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC) comment, more from me below...)
  • Comment. I've given this a going-over, but my edits need to be checked for accuracy, and I'm not sure if they are enough to overcome the objections. Geometry guy 20:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It's much improved. There may be some minor wordsmithing to do, but the article is now in such a state that I lean toward keeping its GA status. Majoreditor (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • There is no mention in the lead of how Episode 210 became the episode's title.
    • The subheadings in the Reception section probably aren't necessary.
    • The Continuity and Cultural references sections would probably work better if merged (somehow) with the Plot section, to create a general section about the episode's content.
    • Dates in the Production section need wlinking per WP:DATE
  • dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I've done a quick copyedit (mainly trying to help the prose flow and address some of DHMO's comments). One item that needs clarification in the article: who or what is "TGS"? EyeSerenetalk 14:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    I've clarified TGS based on enwiki info. There appears to be no will to recommend delisting, so I suggest closing as "no action", unless anyone objects. Geometry guy 22:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    No issues with that from me. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    I agree with the recommendation to close as no action. Majoreditor (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Fine with no-action. Sceptre (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Skin & Bone[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: List as GA per improvements to article and agreement from original reviewer. Geometry guy 17:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Reviewer failed the article based on criteria 1 and 3. Perhaps I'm taking the critique of the writing quality too hard since I am the primary author of the piece, but the writing does not seem sub-standard to me. Regarding criterion 3, the fail reason appears to be that the article does not contain information that explains the "contextualization" of the film in relation to other films on the same subject. In all of the film articles I have had promoted to GA, the only other time that I have been asked for contextual/historical information was for Boys in the Sand and that was because I was asserting that the film occupies a seminal place in the history of pornography. No such claim has been made here, although I believe the reviewer mistakenly thought that there was because the article originally included mention of two similar films released in the same year. I don't believe that "contextualization" is required under the GA criterion of "broadness." The reviewer fears that the plot summary dominates the article, however, the plot summary accounts for approximately 1/3 of the article, which seems reasonable. Additionally, the reviewer did extensive restructuring and rewriting of the article in the course of the review and, rather than failing it, should have asked for a second opinion since he had become a major contributer to the article. I asked him to request a second opinion but that request was declined. Otto4711 (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm glad that this article has been put up for reassessment, as I had more than half a mind to submit it myself. I certainly thought that a better solution than simply seeking a second opinion. (In any case, my understanding of the GA Review process is that reviewers are actively encouraged to intervene to improve an article, and that such intervention does not disqualify their review.)
  • I should note also that I suggested this was a marginal fail. Had the primary contributor not already indicated that he was not interested in investing more time into the article, I would have kept it on hold so it could have been improved further.
  • What's at issue may be a question of genre. Up until know I have mainly reviewed literature articles, and there seems to me little question that were this an article about a novel, it would be failed for consisting only of a plot summary and critical reviews. I suggested at least one source, and also the kinds of sources that I thought would be needed for some form of contextualization.
  • I added a section on themes, and suggested that a section on (effectively) "Background" was important, and also (as I myself read the reviews, which made much of the film's stylistic idiosyncracies) on "Style."
  • I also stated from the start that it seemed to me that as this was almost bound to be a relatively short article, in which there are relatively few reliable sources beyond newspaper reviews, all the more effort should be put into ensuring that the prose was up to scratch. This may be something of a personal take, but it seems to me to stand to reason that an article can try to compensate for deficiencies in one area by going the extra mile in another. The plot summary is not only long but also, as I found when I tried to reorganize it, confusing, in that (as the primary contributor remarked on the talk page) I had clearly misunderstood what it described.
  • But it would be good to hear other voices, to reach some consensus on what is expected of an article of this kind, about a relatively recent film that was not necessarily either a critical or a commerical success. (Which does not mean that it is not notable or not worthy of a Good Article, of course.) --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 13:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • To clarify some points above, I did not suggest that I was uninterested in investing more time in this article. What I said was that the suggestion offered by the reviewer (that a "contextualization section" was needed) did not strike me as falling under GA requirements. The reviewer is miscategorizing the article as it existed at the time it was submitted for GAC. It did not consist solely of a plot summary and critical response section. It also included (and still includes) a production section. Reviewer took information from that section and the critical response section to build the "themes" section. This complaint about the length of the plot summary I simply find unsustainable. This is an almost two-hour film, that includes extremely complex interrealationships between the main characters along with near-constant shifts between fantasy and reality. It accounts for 1/3 of the article. I don't think that 1/3 of the article, meaning that 2/3 are intro, production, critical response and themes, is so very overwhelming. The length of the plot summary falls within the guidelines of WP:FILM. Otto4711 (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • A couple of responses, and then I'll shut up. Apologies first if I misread you in thinking that you were uninterested to proceed further with this article. But I certainly felt some kind of deadlock, and that you'd felt you'd gone as far as you were willing to go; in your words, that you'd "already put far more energy into the topic than [you] care[d] to." Apologies also for misrepresenting the original state of the article: it did indeed have a production section: this is what it looked like, and as I've said it's come a long way since then. It's also true that MOS:FILM is completely silent on themes, context, or even style. I only discovered that recently, and left a rather surprised note here. So as I say, what may be at issue in part is genre. On the other hand, film FA articles are not significantly different from literature FA articles, though their focus is thematic rather than stylistic, and on legacy more than on influences. Anyhow, once more, I'd be pleased to hear a broader response. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 15:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • A couple of responses to your repsonses and then I'll shut up too. 1) The "far more energy" comment was specifically regarding whether or not the image in the article was a poster or a DVD cover. 2) This was not an attempt to promote the article to FA but to GA and I wonder, based on your comments both at the review and here, if you were applying standards more stringent than are required under GA criteria. Otto4711 (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • ...and that's what I hope this GAR will determine. --15:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article is pretty good in its current incarnation, but the plot summary does rather dominate the article. It should probably be cut fairly drastically to maintain balance. As a comparison, look at American Graffiti (a GA and landmark film, with a plot summary of around half the length of this one). Also (as a minor nitpick), the image filename should be descriptive rather than a string of numbers. EyeSerenetalk 09:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • List as GA. This article could be improved. The prose is still weak in places, and the plot could be trimmed and copyedited, although I don't think it should be cut drastically (what is the benefit to the reader?); the plot section of American Graffiti is rather too short for my taste. The article might benefit from more discussion of the genre and context. However, compensating "for deficiencies in one area by going the extra mile in another" is not a GA requirement, and I don't find any of these problems compelling enough to fail, hence my recommendation to list. As an aside, I would note that reviewers are encouraged to help to fix issues with articles under review: we're all on the same side here, namely, improving the encyclopedia. With that in mind, whether the article is listed or not, further improvements (by anyone!) would be very welcome. Geometry guy 09:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I would appreciate any specific suggestions regarding what parts of the prose you think are weak. Otto4711 (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I fully concede that the plot is within WP:MOSFILM guidelines (hence my earlier comment rather than !vote); however, as a stylistic point I believe the degree of detail it goes into is unnecessary and its length unbalances the article. This is a preference though, not an argument for not listing... to clarify, I have no real problem with this being listed as a GA. EyeSerenetalk 13:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've copyedited lead and plot section, shaving off 130 bytes, but I may have introduced errors, and I'm not the best copyeditor in the world. Please see the diffs for suggestions on improving prose. Basically, the rules of the game are: find a good subject for each sentence, use a straightforward verb, eliminate unnecessary words, and don't editorialize. For example, "X has Y do Z" is not good prose, "ends up falling in love" can be replaced by "falls in love", "took turns raping" can be replaced by "raped", and words like "in fact" and "tragically" should be avoided. I haven't necessarily done a particularly good job following these guidelines, partly because I've not seen the film, so I couldn't copyedit radically. I recommend reading Tony1's style guide for further advice. Geometry guy 21:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've done some more pruning on the plot section, knocking out another 176 bytes. I really don't think it can stand much more trimming at this point. Otto4711 (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I saw the copyedit before coming here, and was very impressed. You did a much better job than I could, because I don't know where to place the emphasis. I've already recommending listing, but now I have no hesitation. Further if you use these writing skills more widely, Wikipedia will benefit even more from your contributions. Nice work. Geometry guy 19:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Very kind of you to say, thank you! Otto4711 (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • List As the person who (by failing the article's original review) prompted this reassessment, I'm more than happy now to recommend listing the article. I'm pleased that EyeSerene and Gguy have added their thoughts, confirming my assessment in some ways and correcting it in others. I'm also glad that the article has further improved as a result. If this is possible, I recommend list and speedy close. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 21:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Okay, I suggest a small pause to wait for EyeSerene to be active, and give any other reviewers a chance to raise objections, then we can list. Geometry guy 00:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Apologies - I hadn't realised you wanted more from me. It's academic now, but no problems here with GA! EyeSerenetalk 18:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks to everyone for your valuable feedback. Otto4711 (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Book of Abraham[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Delisted. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There are several tags on the article including POV tag. I think it should be reassessed. --Seyyed(t-c) 13:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Wow. The article is currently a trainwreck. It's got more banners on it than Times Square, and more flags than the U.N. Building. Structurally, the article reminds me of Beirut; it's full of craters from previous battles, skirmish lines and balkanized sections. Can this article be saved? I have my doubts. Majoreditor (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist in its present form; I think Majoreditor has said pretty much all that can be said. Not all tags are bad, but the layout, organisation, prose, presence of {{fact}} tags, diputes and lists are enough, I believe, that this would be quick-failed were it nominated at WP:GAN. EyeSerenetalk 18:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, this is a definite quick fail, and could have been boldly-delisted instead of coming here. It isn't GA material at the moment, and the tags on the article should tell its editors what to work on! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Bleach (manga)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Delisted. 10 days and no commentary from authors. Please renominate at GAN when you think it's ready (or ask anyone who commented here, including me). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This ia a restart of the first GAR for this article, which stalled. Please could editors base their comments only on the current form of the article with respect to the current good article criteria. I hope we will then be able to reach consensus on whether to list or not. Geometry guy 18:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I think the short paragraphs in the lead, Production and Reception sections break up the text too much. Some of the prose isn't great, e.g. in the Reception section "but later added saying that some scenes 'were not balanced out'" and "mediocre anime series at best...' adding on the animation was 'standard". It seems to have more "in universe" information than real world, e.g. the amount of detail in Character types, compared to Production and Reception. There is little that I can see about influences and inspiration, metaphors used, impact, comparisons to characteristics typical of manga in that genre, etc. Does this information exist? Somno (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Most of the things you are commenting on (the production section consisting of a single interview and that does not discuss production, the internet review of the anime version) were only added to the article in the last couple of weeks and could probably do with some cleaning up. I doubt that many academic interpretations of the series exist at this point, since it's ongoing. 221.90.134.44 (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment (witholding !vote for now): Both jb's and Somno's concerns are very valid, and it was the amount of in-universe information that first jumped out at me when I read the article. I'd certainly like to see more about the actual process of creation rather than, say, detailed character bios. It can sometimes be helpful to regard an article from the perspective of a reader who knows nothing about the subject (ie me!) coming across it, and asking "what would they want to know?" (and conversely, what wouldn't they be interested in). The external links need trimming (per WP:LINKS), and templates would be helpful to consistently format the references (although not a current GA requirement). The web citations should, however, have access dates. I think the prose is fine for GA, and most statements and sections are sourced where they need to be (with the exception of CDs). I'm not convinced about the www.popcultureshock.com reader review though (essentially a blog), or the need for two copyrighted images in a single section. EyeSerenetalk 18:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Pelé[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Delist Geometry guy 19:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm nominating this for reassessment as I feel it doesn't meet 1(b) or 2(b). There are numerous unsourced statements throughout the article in Early Life, Honours, Some Historical Details, and After football. Additionally, the Some historical details section needs copyediting. 116135 (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delist. The article has serious issues with a lack of citations. The prose is in woeful shape - here's an excerpt:
Given the global economic conditions and the football regulations at the time (especially in Brazil) the only players who left the Brazilian leagues for the European ones were usually those who could not get a regular place in one of the top teams or who were at the end of their careers. Sometimes a great player who were eclipsed by more talented footballer in his position, in an era when substitutions during the matches weren’t not allowed did this change as Mazzola for example, after lose his position in Brazilian National team to Pele went to Italy and became an idol there playing the 1962 World Cup for Squadra Azzurra (in those times a player who had done a World Cup for one country wasn't forbidden to play another cup for another country), same as Filó already had done in 1930s. Back to Pele's era, Julinho was another Brazilian who, without opportunity in Brazil, made success in Italy.

Sorry, this article will need much work before it meets GA standards. Majoreditor (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delist, needs a lot of work on citation (plenty of {{fact}}s) and prose. It seems a non-native speaker wrote this...that's fine, but it'll need some copyediting before going for GA again. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This is an article which attracts a lot of drive-by edits, and it seems it has suffered over time as a result. I'll see what I can do when I get the opportunity. Whether that will be enough, I don't know. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Having looked at the article more closely, getting it up to scratch will be a huge task. While I'd like to do so at some point, it will take far longer than the time this process takes. Delist. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. Reluctantly, because there's obviously a lot of work gone into this, but there's quite a bit more required. Citations and prose are the two obvious problems as has been said above. There are quite a few weasel words and peacock terms in there as well as the general prose cleanup that's needed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. Per above: a random sentence from the "Some historical details" section is "Due to the sheer size of Brazil and the problems and costs related to air travel at the time, until 1959 there was nothing that could be called a National Football Tournament between the best teams from across the whole of Brazil." This sentence needs a major overhaul: "Due to the country's size and the cost of air travel, Brazil did not have a national tournament between its best teams until 1959." conveys almost the same information in half as many words. It still begins with an ugly subclause, so I'm sure other editors can do better. Good luck fixing problems like these and many others. This GAR is probably closable. Geometry guy 21:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Overwhelming suppose of keeping the article with no objections apart from the requester, so result is kept per WP:SNOW. To the requester's final comment, that page says process for its own sake is not part of Wikipedia policy.LostOldPassword (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This article fails in comprehensiveness, as it does not mention at all the fact that the PlayMakers Repertory Company, one of North Carolina's leading theatres is located on the campus and the fact that the school has a very well regarded acting program for both undergraduates and graduate students. The GA reviewers have stated that it is "consensus" to not include this information, perhaps because some other universities do not mention their theatre programs, but this is rubbish; it is a big violation of comprehensiveness, which is a criteria for GA and FA. Unless this is added, it should be delisted from GA. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep This appears to be a sensitive subject for you. You also seem to be very familiar with the subject at hand. It would be very helpful if you would take the initiative to include this subject and source such statements as the school having "a very well regarded acting program for both undergraduates and graduate students," since this subject appears to be of the utmost importance to you. Rather than spending the time to complain in various sections about the lack of this information, perhaps your time would be better spent improving this article rather than trying to devalue it. Certainly every good article strives to include comprehensive information, but there is simply no way that the majority of good articles include every single bit of pertinent information. Also, the parameters of what is pertinent are subjective. I don't mean to be rude, but I cannot understand why you're so adamant about this issue, yet haven't taken the opportunity to improve the article in regards to your point of contention. Fletch81 (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep: I had reviewed the article, and I felt the need to promote the article based upon the criteria of inclusion. I personally feel that you de-listing the article based on the fact that the article does not have the acting company that you mentioned is disruption to prove a point. Since you have an apparent conflict of interest with your theater company, and using this GA review to advertise your production company is a big no-no. While reviewing, I did not take into consideration to fail the article because it did not have the "PlayMakers Repertory Company". The article didn't have collegiate political parties mentioned either, such as the College Republicans and Young Democrats? So, should I fail it based on that premise? No. Consensus has stated on the talk page that this not be an issue in judging the GA, but you are welcome to add the drama/theater to the article. But, de-listing UNC-CH, because it does not advertise a theater company is becoming disruptive, in my opinion. Also I don't appreciate this compromise either, which is dreadfully close in pushing POV. It is a waste of my time and other users' time. miranda 04:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep: This is patently ridiculous and bordering on bad faith. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - It is pure arrogance to assert this is bad faith. It is an award winning regional theater company, which but no means is on every university campus, and the lack of inclusion of a notable aspect of the university is a lack of comprehensiveness. The fact that you are so defensive about it indicates how correct I am that it is a gap. And perhaps I would spend more time improving the article if there was some indication you heard me when I identified it on the talk page as a gap, but you prefer to ignore the issue, so here it is. Comprehensiveness is not negotiable, and it should be discussed; if GA reviewers no longer care about comprehensiveness but would rather attack me, enjoy, but you could just add something and be done with this, but do what you like.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep: Whether the theatre in question is notable or not, the article is still GA. No article can be 100% comprehensive to everyone's taste or opinion, only to a reasonable consensus. I live in Chapel Hill and haven't heard of this acting program, and if it's that important I'm sure the requester of the re-assessment can add a sentence or two very quickly. 71.70.143.158 (talk) 04:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I just looked to find out about this company, and the PlayMakers Repertory Company article has no references. It sounds like you know a lot about this subject so it would surely be more help and better use of time to clean that up than argue a point, whether valid or not. 71.70.143.158 (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep: As noted here and on the article's talk page, a proper review was conducted of the article. In fact, it's one of the more detailed reviews for a GA I've seen written up. The issues were noted as corrected and the article was promoted. The information the requester seeks to include might be better off in a Academics of the University of North Carolina at Chapel HIll or some such other article that details the academic programs of the university. Otherwise if this program is so well regarded and so notable a single sentence with an appropriate citation after the sentence: "Nationally, UNC is in the top ten public universities for research.[46]" might be all that is needed. Otherwise I agree that the requester is on the verge of disrupting to make a point and may be acting in bad faith. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And perhaps that is all that is needed, but as I said, something should be added, be it a sentence or a few. And again, this is not "disruptive", in the same way that FAR is not "disruptive" if articles do not come up to standard. This is also not about the propriety of the review, which was strangely conducted "off site", but that doesn't matter, this is only about comprehensiveness of the article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Please add the sentence then yourself, since you know the subject, then there would be nothing to argue about. Also, I think this is rather unfair on the original reviewer, who I think did a great job and should be thanked for all the time and effort put into it. 71.70.143.158 (talk) 05:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: The review wasn't conducted off site. miranda 05:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep "Comprehensiveness" is a requirement of Featured Articles, not Good Articles. This article meets the broadness criterion and all the other criteria for GA, and a full review was done by the reviewer. Somno (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep First of all, if the information is going to added, then it would be a very minor edit, so exactly why a GA reassessment needs to take place, I have no idea. Secondly, judgesurreal, from the article's edit history (which can be found here), I see you have not made a single edit to the article. So why don't you make your first one and add a (PROPERLY referenced) statement? After all, no one owns the article, and you have every right to edit it was well (within Wikipedia policy). So why not stop talking and start doing? Noble Story (talk) 07:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, funny none of you would prefer to do just that but instead prefer to cry and moan through paragraphs of how unfair it is to be GA reviewed instead of fixing it. Give me a break; either fix it or stop crying over it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is the onus on the rest of us? Most of us have never even heard of the company before. You seem to know a lot about it, so what's stopping you? Please, be our guest. Noble Story (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Judgesurreal777 created the article PlayMakers Repertory Company and is the main contributor. Whether assuming good faith or not, this strikes me as a huge conflict of interest. Is that not a reason for a speedy close, so we can all get back to editing? 152.23.51.220 (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep I'm going to have to agree with the original GA review on this one. Failing to mention a very specific theatre company, even if it is 'highly acclaimed', shouldn't preclude an article on the entire university from being comprehensive enough. Now, if it left out a major subject area, like not including anything on 'academics' or 'athletics', that's something else and probably would stand in the way of GA in that case. But reading the article, I think this meets the GA criteria. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - Even if there were a thousand keeps, procedure is for seven days, and you have no authority to close it because you dislike the review. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment That's not actually true. Read the top of the page (click show if necessary) and you will find the following:

Reassessment discussions which are still active should not be closed unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than 4 weeks have passed since the article was listed here. All articles should be listed for at least 7 days, unless there is a procedural mistake and a GAR is not appropriate. The clearer the consensus, the sooner the discussion can be closed. In particular, it is not recommended to close any discussion that has a comment less than 7 days old, unless

  • at least five editors have expressed an opinion
  • the editors' comments demonstrate a very clear consensus.

With eight editors expressing an opinion in favor, one against, and some comments, that satisfies both criteria for closing in less than 7 days, and so this reassessment is closed accordingly. See above. LostOldPassword (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


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

Jay Pritzker Pavilion[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: After the primary problem areas were addressed, namely the restructuring of the Acoustics section and the expansion of the Events section, the consensus reached was that the article should keep its GA status. Torsodog (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm listing this here for reassessment because I have my doubts that it meets GA criteria for a few reasons. Most notably the Events section, which is lacking a lot more relevant information than it currently has, and the awkward bulleted sections in the Acoustics section that I believe would serve readers better if it were prose. Opinions? Torsodog (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    • I am the main author. I think the problem with the events section is that I wrote it in a way that will obsolesce.
    • I await the bulletpoint v. prose feedback. I will address the events first thing tomorrow. I am about to go to bed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think this article is a keeper, although there are issues which need to be addressed. The Acoustics section should be re-structured so that it's less list-like. The Events section would be better if it had more substance. I'd also like to see the article cite better sources. Majoreditor (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I also think this is a keeper, unless the significant issues with the Events section I'm missing are raised (and if they are, I'm sure Tony will deal with them!). The acoustics section, now in prose, is good. All seems keepable to me. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think this sentence needs rewriting: "Despite the redesign, the pavilion has its blemishes..." because "bit controversial" and "bothers some observers" seems too informal to me. I don't understand this sentence: "been honored for his contribution to the America more accessible" - what is "the America more accessible"? Somno (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The Hustler (film)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: No action. Reviewers did not endorse the fail, but did not recommend listing it either. Renomination is therefore encouraged. Geometry guy 20:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The article was failed solely because the reviewer didn't like the format of the cast section, suggesting that it be placed in a table under the reasoning that all FA and GA articles have their cast lists in tables. However, per the comment posted to the review page about an hour after the article was failed, many FA articles don't have their cast lists in a table format and some don't have cast lists at all. I disagree that a table is warranted and I don't think from an aesthetic viewpoint it benefits the article. I asked the reviewer on his talk page to reconsider the fail. Given that he has since edited the GA fail template on the talk page and left it failed, I can only assume that he has declined my request to reconsider. I'm hoping that this can be dealt with quickly and won't drag on for a month as these reassessments so often do. Otto4711 (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

  • The article should not have been failed because of the Cast list. It is a minor thing and if Limetolime had felt it was that key to being listed, all he had to do was reformat it himself and pass the article. I applaud Limetolime's interest and motivation in reviewing GANs, but I am very concerned about his process. I have made suggestions to him about vital areas on which to focus, but I'm not seeing much improvement.
That said (and this has no bearing whatsoever about the validity of the concerns expressed above), I think to go to GA the article should expand its Production section (there's got to be some good material out there), clean up the passive voice a bit, and add a section on music if applicable. Other than those straightforward items, this is a good article (sourced, pretty well written, broad in coverage (except for light Production), and interesting).
Jim Dunning | talk 17:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, the cast list is not a big issue and in broad terms, I agree with JimDunning: the review is not particularly good, and Limetolime might benefit from mentoring, but the article still has quite a few genuine GA issues. In particular the prose and lead need some work. For example the last sentence of the lead sounds like trivia (and I was tempted to delete it), but on reading the legacy section, this is not so clear. Now, we can either hammer out these issues at GAR (which may take a while), or we can simply close this as no action and recommend renomination (which may or may not take a while). The nominator may have a preference, which I think we should take into account. Geometry guy 21:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with closing this and renominating. Otto4711 (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • FWIW I've expanded the last sentence of the lead and eliminated some of the passive voice. I've searched for additional sources online in about four different databases and am not finding anything else about the production or about the music (which is too bad because the music is great). There's a book on Rossen's films that I'm going to try to get from the library. I agree the production section would benefit from additional information but I do think it's a pretty decent overview of the main points.
Comment - I'm not going to oppose the reassessment, but I would like to clear everything up. I didn't have much time to leave a thorough reason, so I left it at the Cast section. More later, gotta go. Limetolime talk to me look what I did! 02:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Over the Edge (1999)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: List as GA. The fail was initially endorsed but significant improvements took place during this GAR, where the article received a thorough review. Editors, including the original reviewer, agree that it now meets the criteria. Hence further renomination is unnecessary. Geometry guy 09:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This article primarily failed because of the way the death of Owen Hart was handled in the article. The reviewer stated that he failed the article because it did not include any discussion about the controversy of continuing the event or not, however, from the reliable sources available, there were no discussions about the WWF's decision to continue the event, (quote from Slam Wrestling! Stunned by the accident, the WWF talent continued on with the Over The Edge pay-per-view though the feelings over the loss of their friend and collegue were visible in their somber ring entrances which were devoid of any enthusiasm or excitement. Therefore, I can't in good conscience rate this pay-per-view or any of its matches. It wouldn't be fair to you, the fans, and the World Wrestling Federation.) (quote from Online World of Wrestling The decision was made by Vince McMahon and management that "the show must go on"..) What is mainly told from these reliable sources is that the WWF continued the show, and the wrestlers felt somber in their entrances, and that's primarily all that is said about the decision as the WWE, wanted to lure itself from the responsibility of his death. Currently WWE.com and Corporate WWE.com do not have articles about their decision. This article has been on the GA list for more than 1 month, and for it too fail like this is appalling, there wasn't even a chance (On Hold status) given to address the concerns. I also do not see how the article fails NPOV, I did not write this article with any bias whatsoever. Also again addressing the main concern, there a few sources that have information about his death, and all that is available is stated in the event section and the aftermath section. I understand however, that a seperate section could be needed for his death, but that would mess up the TOC, as his death occurred midway into the event, and if I place the content in a different section, I would have to put a "event (continued)" section after it, which is not organized IMO. --~SRX~ 20:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Endorse Fail. Sorry, the writing isn't up to GA standards. Some examples:
  • Back and forth action between the two teams, until X-Pac attempted to launch himself onto Henry on the outside, but was caught and rammed into the ring post, which allowed the double team on X-Pac by Brown and Henry. That's a sentence fragment.
  • Austin though, was able to untie and save Stephanie, after he attacked The Undertaker and his Ministry of Darkness. Punctuation problems.
  • However, Austin gained revenge... Poor verb choice.
I could go on, but you get the point. The article needs a good copyediting to get the prose up to par. Regarding content, I would suggest adding more details on Hart's death and subsequent reaction. I'm not sure if the article is NPOV; I'll need to re-read it before I can tell. Majoreditor (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I went through the article today and did a bunch of copyediting. I believe it now meets the GA criteria for quality of prose. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I have also added a "Criticism" section detailing the reactions to Owen's death and the decision to continue the event. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Owen Hart's death and the controversy surrounding it should be summarized better in the lead. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I did the best I could with it, and added more about the Owen Hart tragedy into the lead, with a basic overview of it.22:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)~SRX~

Thanks, I'll try to take another look before I leave for vacation. Majoreditor (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Endorse fail. I encourage Majoreditor to look again, as the prose has improved, but it is still weak in places, e.g., "After the teams fought back and forth, X-Pac attempted to launch himself onto Henry on the outside but was caught and hit into the ring post. This allowed the Brown and Henry to double team X-Pac.", "Snow pretended to be out cold but surprised his opponent by countering Holly's powerbomb into one of his own through the table, pinning Holly for the win and retaining the Hardcore Championship.", and "Martha Hart, Owen's wife, refused to openly criticize McMahon in the immediate aftermath after her husband's death."
However, I think the article has more serious problems. In short, the entire article is far too "in universe" for a good article. Almost the only hints that everything is staged are in the wikilinks to wrestling terms. Apart from the criticism subsection, the article (the background, the event, the aftermath and the results) concentrates almost entirely on the in universe perspective. While the reviewer does not articulate this clearly, this is actually the main problem with the treatment of Owen Hart's death: it receives perfectly good coverage in the criticism section, but in the event section, it is a four sentence aside to purely in universe action. This is pretty shocking in my view. In an out of universe perspective on this event, the fact that a wrestler was killed is the most significant information. It should be in the first paragraph (maybe even the first sentence) of the lead, and the death should be clearly described in an out-of-universe context. If this imbalance is a result of following WikiProject guidelines on article structure, then there needs to be a serious discussion about this in the WikiProject if they wish to encourage the production of good articles.
There are other minor issues: the results section may fail the WP:Embedded lists criterion, and the article is overlinked: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and we don't need to link terms like "abducted", "crucifix" or "casket"; terms with technical wrestling meanings should, of course, be linked, probably on the first instance in each section, but no more than that. Geometry guy 22:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the problems with the prose. After looking at the article this many times, it's hard to catch them. I believe I have fixed all of the prose issues you mentioned. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome: those look better now. I did a minor tweak of the last one. It may be helpful to look at other sports and entertainments GAs to get an idea for the balance between in-universe and out-of-universe reporting, e.g., Super Bowl XL, Super Mario Bros., Mulholland Drive (film). There are of course wrestling GA's to look at, and this article comes closer to these in standard, but in comparison with other sports and entertainment articles, I think a lot of leeway is already given to wrestling GAs on this issue. Geometry guy 18:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Well this is the first time this comes up in many of GA's about the in-universe writing of wrestling GA's, the thing is of all of our GA's and our FA is written in-and-out-of universe, with links to the terms for further explanation. But if this is a major problem, then all of your GA's should have failed. Besides that, I feel that the Owen Hart death has been expanded and more covered throughout. Is there anything else we can do to improve it or does it still deserve to fail?SRX 18:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, especially to the FA December to Dismember (2006). I actually don't think this is FA-standard right now, and the FAC was not thoroughly discussed. However, I do think that this article provides a good example on how to write the report. It is punctuated throughout by out-of-universe facts, and so does not have the same in-universe feel as the current article. If you can capture some of this prose style, I doubt my objection to the fail will stand at the GA level. Maybe it won't anyway, but other editors need to comment. Geometry guy 19:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
My concerns have now been largely addressed thanks to good work by SRX and others, and am no longer against listing the article as a GA. Geometry guy 20:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think this is far off GA, although not there yet. The amount of in-universe writing is a concern, and more than I think we'd accept from a game, film or book article. There's also a dead link (check here) that needs fixing, and the prose wanders from present to past tense in places. For what it's worth, I think the Owen Hart death is handled fairly well, with plenty of sourced detail on the circumstances and ensuing controversy. For me, this was the most convincing part of the article ;) EyeSerenetalk 19:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Link is fixed. The article has also been copy edited. --SRX 04:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay in getting back here! I've been hoping I'd get the time to copyedit myself, but that's unlikely to happen in the short term, and given accepted practice in this area and the improvements made by SRX and others I think this article is now basically sound for GA. EyeSerenetalk 17:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
To clarify for SRX per my talk page: yes, I think this is now OK for GA. I'm still uneasy about the amount of in-universe prose, but I accept that professional wrestling is unusual in this respect and certainly don't think this article is any worse than other wrestling GAs. I've removed a couple of wikilinks that were bugging me though! EyeSerenetalk 09:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, overall I see that there is less disagreement for it to become a GA, should I renominate the article or will it pass straight from this GAR?SRX--LatinoHeat 19:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
If you want to renominate then I can probably close this GAR with the next day or so as "No action" (not endorsing the fail and recommending renomination). However, if you wait a little, it might be possible to pass the article straight from this GAR. This would require more reviewers' comments: for instance a revised opinion from Majoreditor would be helpful. Geometry guy 19:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I will wait for his opinion then.SRX--LatinoHeat 19:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow. The article is much improved. While some work remains, it's at or close to meeting GA standards. In light of the article's progress I am withdrawing my recommendation to delist. I have, however, one request. Is there is a way to legitimately correct the sentence fragment in this quote:
He wrote, "To question if this was really necessary. Shame on you, Vince McMahon".
Thanks and keep up the good work. Majoreditor (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm fairly confident that this was the complete sentence, but I agree that it sounds awkward. I'll dig out the newspaper and see if adding more context helps. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It was indeed the full sentence (the full paragraph, actually). I'm not sure why he phrased it like that—it doesn't fit the context of the previous paragraph, and it's not used for parallel structure in Hart's article. I have changed the phrasing for this article, though, so that it fits better. I hope that works. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Question. This discussion can either be closed as "no action" (recommend renomination), or "list as GA". Are there any objections to me closing it as "list as GA", on the grounds that it has been looked at closely by several reviewers, so that further nomination is unnecesary? I am equally happy to recommend renomination if reviewers think another pair of eyes would be a good thing before listing. Geometry guy 20:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • List as good article. I was the original reviewer who failed the GA nomination, and I now consider this article to be of GA-quality. In response to the question posed by Geometry guy above, I have no problem if this GAR is closed as "list as GA." Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • List. Majoreditor (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources of Islamic law[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Delist and put on hold. The initial review was lacking, and it was agreed that a more thorough review by Somno should proceed before listing. In that respect, advice from subject experts would be invaluable, but Somno should be the reviewer. If this results in conflict rather than healthy collaboration, editors are welcome to reconsider help from GAR: we are here to help. Geometry guy 22:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The article was given a quick review by the original reviewer, Orca8767 here [6]. After receiving no response from the reviewer after addressing their concern, editor Bless sins asked for help on the GA talk page here [7]. I provided a full review of the article (as I don't believe the first reviewer did that) here [8]. Now the first reviewer has passed the article [9] and none of my concerns have been addressed. I don't think this article meets GA standards - several sections are unclear and there are problems with the prose. Somno (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • criticism I'm a Muslim and review the lead from Islamic viewpoint. This is the lead:Sharia is the dynamic body of Islamic religious law. The primary sources of Islamic law, accepted universally by all Muslims, are the Qur'an and Sunnah. The Qur'an is holy scripture of Muslims, believed by them to be the direct and unaltered word of God. The Sunnah is the traditions established by the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
  1. Is the title correct? As Morteza Motahhari explains it should be the source of Islamic jurisprudence or Fiqh which means Jurisprudence is the study of the secondary commands (i.e. not the principle matters of beliefs and moral perfection, but the commands regulating actions) of the Shari'ah of Islam gained from the detailed resources and proofs.[10] Then he explains that there are four sources for jurisprudence.
  2. The first sentence says Sharia is the dynamic body of Islamic religious law. What does dynamic means here. If it means that Sharia changes from time to time, this is rejected by all Muslims except Ismailis. The sentence doesn't have any source. Sunni defines it as The Arabic word shari`ah refers to the laws and way of life prescribed by Allah (SWT) for his servants. The shari`ah deals with the ideology and faith; behavior and manners; and practical daily matters. Shari`ah includes the Qur'an and the sunnah of the Prophet (saas). [11] Seyyed Hossein Nasr defines it with Sufi approach as The concrete embodiment of the Divine Will, which is the Shariah, is called the exoteric dimension in the sense of governing all of man's outward life as well as his body[12] In addition, Noah Feldman writes Shariah, properly understood, is not just a set of legal rules. To believing Muslims, it is something deeper and higher, infused with moral and metaphysical purpose... In fact, “Shariah” is not the word traditionally used in Arabic to refer to the processes of Islamic legal reasoning or the rulings produced through it: that word is fiqh, meaning something like Islamic jurisprudence. The word “Shariah” connotes a connection to the divine, a set of unchanging beliefs and principles that order life in accordance with God’s will.[13] Unfortunately some scholars who haven't studied in Islamic seminaries such as Abdolkarim Soroush mixed these terms (Religion, Shariah and Fiqh)[14].
  3. These two points show that the source of Islamic law as a divine law is Wahy and some scholars may add intellect(reason which relates to wahy). In fact, Fiqh is the dynamic understanding of Shariah. Faqih(jurisprudent) uses different sources to find the divine law(Shariah).
  4. It's written in the second paragraph Secondary sources of the Islamic law, also called Islamic juristic doctrines, are: ijma, qiyas, aql and ijtihad. Is Ijtihad a source beside Ijma, qiyas, aql, etc. In fact, Ijtihad is a technical term of Islamic law that describes the process of making a legal decision by independent interpretation of the legal sources. Thus Ijtihad itself is not a source.
  5. What about Urf or custom. Urf is not a source to find the law, but it's a source to understanding the problem. Furthermore in some cases like Hijab, Shariah describes the restrictions and other issues such as shape, color,etc are depend on Urf. So we shouldn't mention it beside other sources without clarification.
  6. previous knowledge? What does it mean? Unfortunately I couldn't find any section which clarifies it. --Seyyed(t-c) 03:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
To Somno: I'm in the process of addressing your concerns. About half of them have been addressed, and I will finish addressing them within the next 24 hours.Bless sins (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear Bless sins, I think the name of the article should be changed, the lead should be rewritten completely and the body should be rearranged. Thus I added an expert tag. I hope it would not bother you.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Just commenting on the issues raised. 1/2/3 are reasonable points, the terms Shari'ah and Fiqh are often confused. In short, fiqh involves the employment of the four aforementioned sources to obtain a Shari' verdict. "Islamic law" can actualy connote several things, so a better title might be "Sources of Islamic jurisprudence." But it's not a significant problem IMO. Ijtihad isn't a source, it's a process which mostly uses qiyas. I wouldn't say that aql has traditionally been considered a source. Urf is not really a significant consideration either. ITAQALLAH 16:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Proposal. I'd like to do the obvious thing and close this GAR as delist, putting the article back on hold at GAN with Somno as the reviewer. I think this is the best way to serve the interests of the article, and hence the encyclopedia. :-) This is a case, I agree, where input from a subject expert (who is not a significant contributor) would help to balance the "outsider perspective" of the reviewer. If anyone thinks that this is likely to lead to conflict, rather than a healthy collaboration, then please comment: in that case it may be better to keep this GAR open to provide disinterested input from regular GAR reviewers. Geometry guy 10:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you. This is the best way to serve the interests of the article. I think I can help with the article by adding technical viewpoint, if Bless Sins accept. Another choice is Itaqallah. None of us have participated in the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm also happy with that solution. I brought the article here rather than just delisting it myself because if one GA reviewer has recently decided it is GA quality, I didn't want to assume my opinion was "better" than theirs and delist it - I would rather get feedback from other reviewers. Somno (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Majoreditor (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess that sounds fair: so Somno is the reviewer of this article for GA status.Bless sins (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Concur, and look forward to seeing the results ;) EyeSerenetalk 20:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Mission San Juan Capistrano[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Procedural delist. The article was never nominated or properly reviewed. Geometry guy 21:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Mission Industries section is not neutral and needs verification for at least two statements. Please see the Discussion page (for Mission San Juan Capistrano) for details.

I'm brand new to Wikipedia and will appreciate feedback. Sabbaticalready (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I haven't reviewed the entire article yet(lazy slacker that I am -- I'm on vacation.) However, the Industries section has problems. First and foremost is a lack of citations. I have flagged certain statements which need in-line references.

The POV issue is mingled with the citation problem. I understand Sabbaticalready's point that the section presents the Native Americans in an unfair light. I suggest that the article's editors research the issue by going to high-quality reliable sources. Let the sources tell the story. I'll try to review the rest of the article later; in the meanwhile, perhaps other editors wish to share their observations. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment, The article has too many pictures, most of which are not even near text related to the image. The article would be better off with a few less images. Nikki311 05:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Something very odd seems to have gone on with this article's GA assessments. As far as I can tell, it has never been properly assessed. It was apparently delisted (and therefore must once have been listed, though I can find no review), then relisted (although things aren't straightforward - see the talk page archive), because an editor thought "it's even better than before!" Granted, this was a couple of years ago, but it was clearly an unsafe listing at best. I suggest we should restore the delisting for now, and recommend nominating the article at WP:GAN for a proper assessment. However, I have to say that I don't believe it would pass in its current form. The entire "Prehistory" section is dubious, having nothing much to with the article subject; there are factual statements in the lead that need citing or backing up in the article body; the lead itself does not really comply with WP:LEAD; in places the prose needs copyediting; although some sections are well-referenced, others are not; the article over-uses images (including non-free ones); and the "External links" section needs a trim. I hope my comments aren't too disheartening - clearly a lot of work has gone into this article, and it has the potential to be very good. Our most important article foundation - sourcing - is very impressive, and so is the attention to detail. I suggest comparing it to similar GAs (perhaps Elgin Cathedral?), to see the kind of thing we're after. EyeSerenetalk 17:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Procedural delist. Well spotted EyeSerene! It is safer to check the talk page history than the archives, and in this case the history is short, recording multiple abuses of process :-)
The second edit listed the article as GA with no review, but hey, in the pioneering early days of GA, the frontier was still to be conquered! A year later it was delisted for having not been nominated properly. These were the times when "not enough inlines" was just beginning to rise as the clarion call of GA reviewers, from which we are still recovering. Unfortunately the delister failed to update the WikiProject Catholicism rating, and this remained unchanged to this day.
Barely a month later, it was relisted (with no nomination or review) in a minor (!!) edit by Mr Snrub. He covered his tracks with another edit, but two weeks later his ruse was spotted, and the article was delisted again: no review this time, but, not surprisingly for the period, WP:V was the only justification given. Undeterred, Mr Snrub saw an opportunity when WikiProject California tagged the article. With an even more cunning plan he listed the article, then covered his edit by updating the WikiProject rating.
Cemented by [15] [16] [17] further edits, the GA status was retained from October 2006 until the present day. Mr Snrub has not contributed since 20 June 2007, otherwise I would be (struggling) to assume good faith rather than making a joke of it. I hope GA is doing considerably better in 2008 than it was in 2006. Geometry guy 19:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: List as GA. Consensus is that a building under construction, at least in the late stages of construction, does not present a GA stability issue. Other GA issues were fixed. Geometry guy 21:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason given for failing the article is that it is under construction. I have had two previous buildings under construction passed. This is not a valid reason to fail an article that a review describes as detailed and well-referenced.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I agree, the article is certainly detailed and well-researched. However, the reviewer clearly thought the building being under construction means the article, as it says in the tag at the top of the page, is likely to "change dramatically and frequently as construction progresses and new information becomes available." This does appear to come under both article coverage (it "specifically addresses a currently unfolding event with a definite endpoint.") and instability criteria. Perhaps it would be better to wait until construction work has finished before before renominating, although I'd be interested in what other reviewers think. EyeSerenetalk 10:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Question. Does anyone know if the topic of unfinished buildings nominated for GA status has come up before? I'd like to know if prior discussions resulted in a consensus on the matter. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I would too. While the article can't be said to be 'complete', I believe it qualifies as a GA in most other ways (there are one or two examples of prose that need tweaking, eg "In 2006, Donald Trump's children began to shine as top executives in the Trump Organization." my italics). My only reservation is awarding GA status to an article that is essentially still under construction (pardon the pun), and may - with all respect to its author(s) - no longer be GA by the time it's finished. EyeSerenetalk 07:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Are you worried it will be promoted to WP:FA before the construction ends? That should not keep you from supporting it for GA now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm not not supporting, if you follow me ;) I don't have any real problems with GA listing the article and wouldn't argue against it (I believe the original assessment was a little harsh). However, I wouldn't argue for GA either until I'm clearer about whether or not this really does fall under quickfail criteria - as Majoreditor says, has this come up for discussion before, and if so, is there consensus? EyeSerenetalk 07:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
          • It is the general consensus that something that is in constant flux due to changes in the subject are not considered unstable. I guess that fact that the Featured articleBarack Obama article survived 3 times at WP:FAR (2 times officially and once unofficially) and the Hillary Rodham Clinton article survived 2 times at WP:GAR in 2008 are good evidence of this. Also, John McCain was just promoted in April. Instability is based on edit warring not a highly dynamic subject. That is a clear precedent.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
            • It's not so much instability as coverage that I'm concerned about, though the two are related. If the article was called "Construction of...", I'd say it covers its subject very well, and we'd expect it to be in a state of flux, but as it's about the building - which is unfinished - the article is by definition also unfinished (and yes, I know we can't really ever call anything 'finished' on WP!). The construction has a 'definite end point' per the quick-fail guidelines here (no. 5). Substantial new content will be added before that point, and unless we're prepared to constantly revisit the article, it seems premature to award GA now. This is in no way a reflection on you, as with your experience I'm sure you can maintain the article quality as it develops, but no-one can guarantee that the 'final' version will still meet GA standards. Again though, I want to stress that this is a subjective judgement call, and I certainly don't want to give the impression that I'm being too rigid with the criteria. If consensus is to list the article, I won't stand in the way ;) EyeSerenetalk 17:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
              • In all honesty, what you are saying makes so little sense, I am not sure if you are pulling my leg. Let me understand your point. You are saying that the ratification of the most famously dynamic articles on wikipedia (Featured articleBarack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, & John McCain) at WP:GAC, WP:GAR, and WP:FAR does not provide a precedent that ongoing dynmaics of subject matter does not make an article incomplete or instable. I read this as a precedent that Completeness today is judged by the article's coverage of the subject matter today. WP:CRYSTAL potential future content is not relevant. In addition, you are saying that the fact that three Chicago buildings under construction (Chicago Spire, Joffrey Tower and 108 North State Street) are GAs does not provide a precedent either. Thus, since you don't see any precedent anywhere to rely on you are not sure what to do. If you are not pulling my leg and really believe that there is no clear precedent and so you are relegated to making a subjective judgment call, please tell me what you would consider a clear precedent.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
                • OK, I'll try that again ;) The building articles you've cited above do indeed provide a precedent of sorts, which is why I've said I won't oppose listing your article as a GA if that's the way consensus here goes. However, I'm not going to actively support listing it at present, because I believe it may, as the original reviewer thought, fall under one of the quick-fail criteria. As you know, standards and their application change over time, GA criteria are unevenly applied, and for what it's worth I have the same doubts about the assessments of those other building articles. One of their GA reviews is rather unsatisfactory, in another the reviewer mentions stability concerns, and none are recent (so can really be cited as guides to current practice). I also don't think we can compare the situation to articles about people; it's hardly like-for-like, and presumably the 'definite end point' mentioned in the criteria would be death, which plainly defies common sense. Hence, in my view, it's a subjective criterion which depends on the article and the circumstances. If the completeness criterion really did mean "Completeness today is judged by the article's coverage of the subject matter today", we would have no problem GA reviewing articles on current sports tournaments, on-going court cases or anything similar, but these are routinely quick-failed on both stability and coverage. Regular, substantial content changes would lead to the article needing constant re-reviewing, which is beyond our resources at present. I accept that you disagree with my interpretation, but essentially you're objecting to my not objecting to your article being listed ;) Maybe we need to look at clarifying the criteria further to avoid these misunderstandings in the future. EyeSerenetalk 19:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
                  • I personally have never seen a sports tournament in the WP:GAC queue, but since the sports queue is about a month long, by the time something is reviewed the subject matter would be complete. In the case of this building it is far less unstable than an ongoing court case, a sporting event, or any of the political people I mentioned above. In this case, the article today as the building is 80 floors high and the article a month from now at say 90 floor high would essentially require no change. All of the above would require significant change over the course of any month of elapsed time while they are ongoing. I edit Joffrey Tower every two or three months and it is considered current. None of the types of articles you are mentioning above evolve slowly enough that they could be left untouched for two months. This is far less of a problem than any of the other types of issues we have discussed above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
                  • P.S. If someone nominated the Tour de France or 2008 Stanley Cup Playoffs for GA during the first week I would concur with speedy delete. I think those are very different animals from the subject here which does not change overnight (at the encyclopedic level). If I promise to leave this article untouched for 15 days it would still be complete. The two examples I just gave would not.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • List as GA - I agree with Tony's reasoning; the article is just as "complete" as an article a living person would be. The article meets the stability criterion: it is not the not subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute, is not subject to frequent vandalism reversions, and does not have proposals to split or merge content. The fact that it is still under construction under construction doesn't make it fail this crierion; note that One Bayfront Plaza, a proposed building in Miami that won't start construction until 2011, is a GA. With that article, which I nominated, the reviewer, Argos'Dad, stated: "I admit the speculative nature of this project threw me for a loop, but in the end, it is not OR and as long as the sources are reliable..." The same applies here; all of the sources are reliable, and that is what matters. This is just another incident to show that there is a precendent that allows articles about not yet completed buildings to meet the good article criteria. But I definitely agree that we should "look at clarifying the criteria further to avoid these misunderstandings in the future", as EyeSerene stated above. Cheers, Raime 22:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC) (text alteration made by Raime at 22:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC))
  • Comment. I think this is an area where a distinction can be made between GA and FA criteria, and I propose we make this more explicit. An article such as this one is stable enough to be a good article, but we should ask for more at the FA level. Geometry guy 11:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply I hope you do not mean more stability. Yes for an FA I would expect constructive feedback that would dramatically improve the article. I will contact you directly in hopes that you will provide some. Due to limitations on WP:FAC concurrent nominations and the current Chicago Featured Topic Drive This building may be much closer to being complete when it becomes a WP:FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • List as GA - I too agree with Tony. Although, I do feel that if the construction of a building is still at an early stage (so it is just earthworks as opposed to concrete and steel coming out the ground), then editors should be more wary. There is more potential for a building to be put on hold or even be cancelled when it is at this stage. If rumours start to circulate about it being put on hold, edit wars are almost guaranteed on that article. This should be taken into account by a reviewer. Even if it meets the stability criterion at that time, it should be anticipated in the future. If a building is well into construction, such as the Trump Tower in Chicago, then the likelihood for the details to change does get smaller. I agree that the criteria needs some further amendments to reduce confusion amongst reviewers over what to do with buildings that are under construction. - Erebus555 (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, reviewer consensus seems to be to accept the article, so I'll be happy to switch from neutral if those prose tweaks I mentioned are dealt with ;) To be honest, Tony's earlier point (about the frequency and magnitude of changes likely to happen with this article) had me tending in this direction anyway, although I too think we need to revisit the criteria. If there were likely to be substantial changes tomorrow, I certainly wouldn't support listing as GA today... and there does seem to be a grey area involving completeness that's related to both stability and coverage, but not really covered by either. EyeSerenetalk 13:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
(addendum) Oops, forgot to state what the tweaks were...
Citations needed in the Height section for the statistics quoted there and the assertion that that the Trump Tower will break the record in 2011.
cited 1362 ft and 2011 record.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Citation needed for "Those involved with the construction referred to the day as the 'Big Pour'"
That whole paragraph is cited by an article with Big Pour in the first three words in the title. I added another citation in the paragraph to the same article for your pleasure.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
"In 2006, Donald Trump's children began to shine as top executives in the Trump Organization." began to shine is a rather non-neutral phrase - I think if it's a quote, it should be given as such, otherwise a reword might help.
Wording has been changed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
That's all from me! EyeSerenetalk 13:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • List as GA; all nitpicks addressed. EyeSerenetalk 16:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • List. Majoreditor (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • List as GA. I had a look through the article and didn't see any other GA issues. I suggest reconsidering the need for so many image galleries, but assuming the images are all free (I checked a couple), this is not a GA issue. Regarding stability/coverage, the current criteria only refers to instability caused by edit war/content dispute, while reviewing good articles additionally refers to ongoing events. The criteria (not WP:RGA) determine the decision here, but I think we need to harmonize the two pages to reflect the current consensus. Geometry guy 18:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment As far as larger than usual numbers of images, I think before, during and after images are particularly informative and thus encyclopedic for a building under construction.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      I agree, but this is done multiple times from multiple viewpoints. I don't think all these views are necessary. Geometry guy 20:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Matsuo Bashō[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Keep. While the article did not meet the criteria when it was nominated, it was brought up to standard during the review. Geometry guy 19:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am asking for a reassessment/delisting as it fails section two of the good article criteria, "It is factually accurate and verifiable." More accurately, it fails 2b, "at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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". With virtually no inline citations I don't see this as a GA. Wizardman 13:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Every statement in this article is verifiable by checking the References section. Inline citations are not and have never been necessary on Wikipedia. Shii (tock) 04:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. While Wikepedia doesn't require in-line citations for articles, it does requires them for GA listing. Please examine Good Article criteria, specifically 2-b. It states that a Good Article "provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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". Majoreditor (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Where exactly are those statements in this article? Shii (tock) 05:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • The following are quotes that need to be inline cited:
"at one time I coveted an official post with a tenure of land"
"there was a time when I was fascinated with the ways of homosexual love"
"the alternatives battled in my mind and made my life restless." Wizardman 05:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, cited. Shii (tock) 06:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
There's a couple of assertions in the article which also need to be supported through in-line citations -- I've tagged them. The lead also needs to be better developed per WP:LEAD. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Citations provided. As for the lead, WP:SOFIXIT, it couldn't hurt for you to write three or four sentences about this article you have scrutinized. Shii (tock) 22:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, Shii, but I help repair lots of articles at GAR. Let's see if someone else wants to work on the lead for this article. Majoreditor (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for my rudeness. I've added a lead. Shii (tock) 21:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I have have stricken my recommendation to delist. Shii has addressed all of the issues I raised. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
That's good: I was worried I was going to have to find time to improve the lead :-)
I will check over the article very soon, help if I can, and make a recommendation. Geometry guy 22:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. This article is fairly close, but I don't think it's there yet. There are still a number of citations missing; in Influence and literary criticism, for instance, we're told that it was blasphemous to criticize Bashō's poetry, something that I think definitely needs to be supported by a reliable reference. The prose also needs some work. For example:
  • "On his return to Edo in the winter of 1691, Bashō lived in his third Bashō hut ... He continued to make a living from teaching and appearances at haikai parties until late August of 1693, when he shut the gate to his bashō hut".
  • Japanese words are not formatted consistently, sometimes being italicised and at other times not.
  • Some awkward phrasings, such as "He was even conflicted over whether to become a full-time poet".

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    • I have followed all of your suggestions except where you were too vague for me to understand. You said there were a "number of citations missing" but you only provided one example; I cannot fix all those missing citations you have in your head, only the ones you tell me about. Also, I do not understand what is so awkward about my phrasing. I beg the Good Article Gods not to delist my article just because I can't understand the criticisms being made. Shii (tock) 07:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • That's what an example is, an example. I've been a native speaker of English for more years than I'd care to admit to, but I've never come across the word "conflicted" before. Americans do have a habit of inventing odd words on the other hand. :-) Bashō is obviously an important figure though, and so I'll try to help with this review if you deal with the content issues. Deal? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
        "Conflicted" is the past participle of the intransitive verb "to conflict", which, according to my Oxford dictionary and thesaurus, means "clash, be incompatible", or "struggle or contend" (with). I've seen it used before in this sense of inner conflict. In the quoted example, it is the word "even" which is more problematic (in my view): this suggests an editorial opinion, and is not encyclopedic
        I hope Malleus's deal will be accepted: it is a very generous offer. Geometry guy 18:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
        FWIW, I have no problem with the word "conflicted." Indeed, I am absolutely not conflicted about it. ;) --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 02:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
        Bizarre. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

After looking over improvements since, I'll change my stance on this to neutral for now, since it has gotten better. Wizardman 22:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments Some comments from a quick peruse:
    • What's a haigo? It should be explained or linked.
    • I don't think you need the link to Help:Japanese every time a Japanese word is used, especially if there's also a version in Latin script.
    • Most importantly, many more citations are required. For instance, "Rise to fame" has but a single references; and the following two sections have none.
    • But the sources should be good ones: the Columbia Encyclopedia doesn't cut it.
  • In its current state, I'd be forced to say delist. However, there's an active editor or two, so hopefully it can be saved. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 02:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
What's a haigo? It should be explained or linked.
It is.
You mean where the articles states "haigo, or haikai pen names"? This isn't clear, probably as a function of the grammar. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 01:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay... that's perfectly clear to me, feel free to rephrase it. Shii (tock) 06:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Precisely because it's not clear to me, it's hard for me to rephrase. Is "haigo," then, simply the Japanese for pen name? --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 07:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
More specifically, a pen named used in haiku. Shii (tock) 20:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you need the link to Help:Japanese every time a Japanese word is used, especially if there's also a version in Latin script.
This is the result of using the standard Japanese template which was endorsed by the Japanese WikiProject.
I don't understand this; perhaps you could show me the relevant discussion. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 01:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Japanese_terms Shii (tock) 06:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, though it's clear there that the usage is optional. I'd use it the first time only. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 07:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess. People who have screen readers, for instance, could benefit from the metadata labeling of Unicode text as Japanese. Shii (tock) 20:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Most importantly, many more citations are required. For instance, "Rise to fame" has but a single reference; and the following two sections have none.
The references are at the bottom of the page.
But the relationship between the text and those references is unclear, because of the lack of citations. From which book (and which part of that book), for instance, is the information in the "Later life" section taken? --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 01:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The entire biography is provided by Ueda who is Basho's only English biographer, and that's why this is a Good Article and not a Featured Article. Ueda provides two chronological biographies in his 1982 and 1992 books which you can look up yourself on Google Books. I do not see any other statements in this article which are so controversial that they necessitate a citation. Shii (tock) 06:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I've added a citation for a direct quotation that didn't have one; and checking on the source, as per your advice, discovered that the article was wrong about some of the information provided in the previous sentence. This is why citations are needed. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 07:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. I will go to the library and take a look. Shii (tock) 20:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
But the sources should be good ones: the Columbia Encyclopedia doesn't cut it.
Someone else added that reference. Should I remove it? I wouldn't like to claim I own this article. Shii (tock) 00:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I would remove it; but it should be replaced by a better one. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 01:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I found a better citation from Ueda. I note with some amusement that this article is being used as a primary reference for a couple of books published after 2005. It's a good thing I rewrote it when I did. Shii (tock) 06:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact that there are lazy researchers out there shouldn't mean that we should copy them! I still think this article could be much better sourced. NB what about doing something with Haruo Shirane's Traces of Dreams, to avoid the reliance on a single author? That's also a much more recent publication, and as such probably more reliable. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 07:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately that book like most books on Basho are mostly a commentary on his poems. It might be nice if we are aiming for a featured article to have a bigger section for that, taking steps of course to ensure cross-cultural NPOV, but it doesn't verify/invalidate any of the biographical information. Shii (tock) 20:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I downloaded some articles about Basho from JSTOR. Email me if you want them... Ling.Nut (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • At a (not overly in-depth) glance and based on the work done so far here, I'm leaning towards keeping GA status here. Any other thoughts? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've looked at this several times now, but have felt unable to comment. In my view, this is a example of a real issue about GA: how can non-experts evaluate content? The issue raised by the nominator was verifiability, but have any reviewers actually gone to the library to check that the sources support the sense of the article (there's a suggestion that Jbm has). Also, how can non-experts evaluate whether the article is sufficiently broad? Unless these questions are addressed, my instinct is to close this as "No consensus", which means keeping GA status by default, but without any endorsement of that status. Geometry guy 16:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I had a little two-year fling with haiku several years ago, and still love the art form. I'm unsatisfied with the article. I think it's too lite and too litely sourced. Basho deserves much, much better. Basho, it bears repeating, is the man. When you think haiku, you think Basho. That point is definitely brought out, but not developed at all. There are whole realms of criticism, history, etc etc that could be explored... However, my objections may not be enough to prevent it from being GA. I.. would kinda very reluctantly consider holding my nose and saying Retain GA. I dunno. Am on a fence. My heart says fail GA; my head says but GA standards are supposed to be more lax... I think there is fertile soil for FA here... has anyone asked for a translation from the Japanese Wikipedia? I don't actually know, but I bet their article is excellent... Ling.Nut (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Delisting - throwing a list of books at the bottom does not make up for the almost complete lack of inline citations giving specific page numbers. Whole sections are basically unreferenced due to the lack of inline citations. Fails all requirements for verifiability, and Wizardman's quick delisting was fully justified (while the reverting of it was not appropriate). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Collectonian, please take a good look at the article. Thirteen out of the article's 14 in-line citations give specific page numbers. Majoreditor (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
That's good, but that doesn't address the major issue: whole unreferenced sections (as a side note, 14 refs should not be using a 2 column format). Delisting still fully justified. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Unreferenced is not the same as no inlines. It is pretty clear that almost all of the article is sourced by the two books of Ueda. Counting inlines is lazy reviewing, and I don't support it. Instead reviewers should point to material (such as quotations or controversial material) which needs inline citation per the GA criteria. Such comments are actionable: other editors can add inlines where necessary. "Not enough inlines" isn't, and is not a GA criterion, neither are page references. Geometry guy 19:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry, but no, that does not cut it. You don't get to just say "well, the whole article is sourced from these two books, go find it all in them yourself, because I don't want to tell you what came from where." That is lazy and inaccurate, not saying the article is lacking in inline citations, and therefore it is badly referenced. Just throwing two books at the bottom and leaving it at that is not a valid citing technique. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that one should try to be as helpful as possible to the reader and that this article could be much improved in respect of providing more citations and more page references. But that does not mean that delisting decisions should be based on anything other than the good article criteria. Hackneyed phrases like "that does not cut it", inaccurate statements like "throwing two books at the bottom and leaving it at that", and delists of the form "I am delisting this article as a GA because on the fact that there are inline citations" fail to improve the encyclopedia. I much prefer an article which has 14 inline citations to reliable sources than an article with 200 inline citations to a bunch of unreliable websites. Unfortunately many old GAs have this problem because of an unhealthy historical focus on counting inlines. I wish the article were much better, but I don't see a clear case for delisting it in its present form. At all times I encourage GA reviewers to concentrate on evaluating the sources rather than counting the inlines. Geometry guy 22:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Please show exactly how the entire article is properly sourced without the use of inline citations? You can't. There is absolutely no way to show what information came from the two claimed sources, and what came from neither. It is not verifiable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you, as a reviewer, check that every inline citation supports the sentence it cites? Do readers? How can you show that this article isn't properly sourced, when you haven't read the sources? How does it help to add a footnote to every sentence; those footnotes could all be wrong (and sadly, in many articles they often are)? How does it help to add page numbers to books you will never read?: I could add a random bunch of inlines and page references to this article, and you would be satisfied. Does this show the article is properly sourced? Try to be a reader, not just a reviewer.
Ask yourself what kind of reader wants to check the sources for this article. Perhaps someone writing a term paper. Such a person is lucky, because by searching on Wikipedia they have found a couple of decent books. If they are a crap student they will cite the Wikipedia article and get a C. If they are a good student they will get the sources out of the library and read them. Horrors, there are two main sources here, one a biography and the other on the poetry and its interpretations. Go figure which source is more likely to support which parts of the article. You'll find the inlines match this. Any reader who wants to consult the sources is probably au fait enough to realise this. That's why inlines aren't a GA criterion here. At FA level, I would expect much much more, but the article is clearly attributed. Geometry guy 00:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Geometry Guy makes a valid point. It's also important to note that citation policy does not require in-line citations for each sentence or even page numbers for each in-line citation. Read the policies; examine prior policy discussion on talk pages. Majoreditor (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. I think this is just about there now, especially with that ugly "conflicted over" phrase gone. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delist; Although this is a fascinating and well-written article, for me there are too many statements that still need explicitly citing. A couple of examples: "...it is believed that Bashō gave up the possibility of samurai status and left home." Believed by who?; "Apparently this poem became instantly famous." According to..? I think it's rather impolite to fact-bomb someone's hard work, so I haven't added citation needed tags, but I am happy to go though and do this if it would help. EyeSerenetalk 09:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    That's the kind of actionable comment we need! I've pinged the author. If no interest is shown, I'm happy to interpret "no consensus" as "delist"; otherwise, I hope these minor details can be fixed, and we can interpret "no consensus" as "list". Geometry guy 10:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    The "apparently" is the opinion of Ueda, which is sourced in the next clause of the sentence. I have provided an additional reference for the other statement. Shii (tock) 22:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Good. If EyeSerene and Shii can work together in the next 3 days to fix minor issues like this, then I will list. Otherwise this GAR has gone on way too long and I will delist. Geometry guy 23:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    If consensus isn't clear in a protracted GAR, past procedure has been to archive as no consensus and keep the article listed as GA by default. That said, I believe we should keep this article - it may be short and sweet, but it covers its subject well. My main concern is the reliance on Ueda's two books, but I can accept that Bashō may be a niche topic. -Malkinann (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it is difficult to find other books on the subject. Using JSTOR has been suggested and I will verify from those additional academic sources over time. Shii (tock) 05:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • OK, I'll take that as permission to annotate the article - if I've misread the sentiment above, please feel free to revert my tags! I've tried to stick to the minimum required, in my view, to meet the GA factual accuracy criterion. Also, that "Apparently" is still causing me concern - was it 'instantly famous' or not? Maybe we could get round this by saying something like "According to Ueda, this poem became instantly famous."? I hope this helps, EyeSerenetalk 09:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Does the 1985 paper have a title of its own, or is it just untitled in the journal? -Malkinann (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The actual reference for this is the cover flap of a translation of Oku no Hosomichi. Obviously you cannot cite that. When you search Basho and "600 ri" on Google Books, there are two other references-- one is the untitled reference which I transliterated, and which is sadly unavailable in my library, and the other is a 1948 reference which I suppose we could use instead. Come to think of it, that's more sensible and I'll substitute it now. Shii (tock) 01:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep due to major improvements in citations. Given the dearth of reliable sources covering a subject like this, I think it does an admirable job with sources. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's a lot better than it was. I do think the sourcing could be better (I mentioned at least one source above), but I feel I've been at FAC recently a lot more than GAN or GAR, so I feel a little out of touch with the GA standards. Though I'm not going to vote "keep," as I do hope that the improvement continues, I wouldn't protest at all if it were kept. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 07:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as GA, and much credit to Shii for his hard work. At ease ;) EyeSerenetalk 07:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article has improved, particularly the referencing. Thanks to Shii and everyone else who pitched in to help. Majoreditor (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thelema[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Procedural close. Content dispute with no associated stability/coverage issues. Geometry guy 19:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I put forward that the Thelema article be reassessed for its GA status. Under Wikipedia's own criteria the Thelema article is unlikely to be factually accurate for a very long time due to the subjective nature of Thelema and the contradictions it presents. Also some of the sub section articles are poorly written and just create more confusion. I have put forward the motion that a clean up is needed, but this has been met with resistance. A neutral second opinion is needed. Thanks.--Redblossom (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

And I propose that this nomination be declined. The article is supported by reliable sources. The problem that Redblossom has with the article is entirely subjective. He or she simply has a narrower view of Thelema than that of the broader Thelemic population. One of the guidelines on Wikipedia is to present a broad rather than sectarian view of a topic. In addition, while this user opposes some of the cited views presented in the article, s/he has not bothered to provide any reliable sources support his or her views, or proposed the addition of material documenting these views. If the user is simply unable to support their position with reliable sources which allow the addition of his/her views to the article, then this action is simply an abuse of Wikipedia processes. Will in China (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree: this is primarily a content dispute, and a GAR will not help to resolve it. The issue seems to be a misunderstanding of the meaning of "factually accurate": it does not mean that the article tells The TruthTM, but that it reports and attributes accurately what reliable sources say. I would urge Will in China to assume good faith, and try to reach compromise. For instance, although it he is correct that articles should present a broad view of a topic, different viewpoints should be given due weight: thus if one particular variant of Thelema is more significant, then that viewpoint needs to be given more weight.
Regarding GA issues, I noticed some sections containing points of opinion and analysis which are not cited, and have tagged them with comments in my edit summaries. These need to be cleaned up. If this is done, then I will close this GAR, unless disinterested editors believe that a GAR would be worthwhile here. Geometry guy 11:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
In this case, due to the nature of Thelema, it is the broad view which is actually more common, while various "orthodox" views are held by small but vocal elements of the population. Some of the assertions that Redblossom has been making are to me quite dubious...that is, I've not seen the positions s/he takes in any of the literature. That's why I've requested sources. Unless the positions are documented somewhere, how could they be added? Will in China (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, that's fine. I hope you can clean up that remaining section. Geometry guy 19:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I concur with Geometry guy's assessment. Content disputes are better fought negotiated out on the article talk page. Unless there is a serious coverage issue, which I don't believe is what's being claimed, this doesn't really fall into GAR's turf. I believe it's already been mentioned on the article talk page, but disagreements regarding content are often a function of the article prose - all major viewpoints should be represented, and if there are differences of opinion in reliable sources, these differences should be reported as such, with appropriate weight, in the article. EyeSerenetalk 16:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Mali[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: listed. Article met GA criteria miranda 04:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC).

Recently, Epicadam failed Mali due to these reasons. I personally feel as though this article was not assessed fairly per these reasons:

  • For example, the first sentence in the history section "Mali was once part of three famed West African empires which controlled trans-Saharan trade in gold, salt, and other precious commodities" is taken directly from the Library of Congress source text without indicating so. While it is not a violation of copyright (because works of the U.S. government do not have copyright protection), it is by all definitions plagiarism; please correct any instances of such behavior.
Under public domain, Wikipedia can use content from the public domain. However, they have to be attributed to the source, under WP:V. The citations should suffice for attribution.
  • Even though more citations are better than too few, it is not always necessary to cite each sentence. If a group of facts come from the same source, then that source need only be cited once.
Under V and NOR, attribution is required in order to decipher facts from fiction.
  • Sections of the article are rather slim as well. They could definitely be fleshed out to meet GA standards... not too long, but a little bit more than a few sentences per section.
Under the GAC, I don't see any assessment criteria regarding length requirements. The one section that has the fewest paragraphs is the "Regions and cercles" section.

I applaud this user for taking the time out of his schedule to assess this article. But, I feel as though this user did not evaluate the article per GA criteria and would like to request a full re-assessment from an experienced user. Thanks. miranda 05:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have gone and taken a second look at the article and would like to reverse my own review and list Mali as a GA. First and foremost, I really must apologize and say that I was unaware that Wikipedia policy did not require quotation of public domain material; I was relying on policies from other academic communities. As a teacher, I expected students to quote all material taken from other sources, even those in the public domain; however, after reviewing Wikipedia's guidelines at Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Plagiarism that does not infringe copyright, it appears that this academic community does not require quotations of public domain material, only citations. As citations are indeed more than fully provided, the article does fulfill its obligations to supply proper references.
My alternate concern, which I did not make clear, was that since portions of text were taken from public domain sources, it was possible that text from other sources, potentially those that do have copyright protection, may have been used without quotations. Reviewing the article further, the text from sources likely to be covered by copyright is little and conforms with the rest of the surrounding text; it is therefore unlikely that there is any such infringement. Since "Mali" does reflect GA standards I would be happy to reverse my review and list it as such. Best, Epicadam (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reassessment. I think we can close this now. miranda 18:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sphinx Head[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: No action. Gosgood has kindly offered to provide a proper review of the article. Geometry guy 17:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Disputed quick-fail; listed here following objections raised at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. Below is a copy/paste of the post there. EyeSerenetalk 16:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If the Good Article nomination and evaluation process is to be taken at all seriously in the larger community, then, as a first step, it should conduct its affairs in a consistent, orderly way; in the absence of such then one cannot conclude anything about this project other than that if fills up talk pages in a rather noisy way, for an irregularly conducted process cannot be evaluated by any metric whatsoever and it becomes unclear if the program is capable of distinguishing good articles from the run of the mill.

Noble Story removed Sphinx Head from nomination (see reference) because it is list-like, rather than prose like, in much of its composition.

  1. However, I see no quick fail criteria permitting a summary failure of a list-like article.
  2. Furthermore, in relation to published quick-fail criteria, Sphinx Head: appears to pass. It is not:
    1. completely lacking in reliable sources. A bit of measured reflection leads me to question the use of one reference, but that is a measured reflection. A quick glance of the article finds many citations in play from a number of references
    2. treat it's topic in a non-neutral way. Again, measured reflection may lead some editors to conclude that it deals with the topic in a sympathetic way, but that is not immediately obvious to this editor; it is a conclusion that follows only after some contemplation
    3. have any cleanup banners
    4. have an ongoing edit war, or
    5. cover a rapidly unfolding event with a definite terminating condition in the offing.
  3. I'm aware that the article has a rather large, embedded list. Indeed, I've opined that it make the article read rather like a telephone directory. I'm also aware that the good article criteria has a clause excluding lists, portals and images from nomination. However:
    1. the exclusionary language has not actually been incorporated into the quick fail criteria. Perhaps it should be, but that is another discussion for another place. In any event, it is not the business of reviewers to add quick fail criteria on the fly. That is a matter of deliberation and consensus.
    2. for sake of argument, even if there were a sixth quick-fail criterion barring list-like composition, I would argue that the article could not be quickly failed on that point. It does start off with a decent bit of prose that is sufficiently developed to consider the article a prose piece, at least in part. Since this can be argued, and since I'm obliged to assume good faith regarding the nominators, I can only conclude that the nominators had read the exclusionary language but concluded that their article was more prose- than list-like.
  4. Finally, small points perhaps, but necessary to note: Noble Story did not sign his action statement on the talk page, nor did he perform any action with the {{GAN}} template, leaving the talk page out of sync with the Good Article nomination page. One gets the impression that the editor was working in haste and was growing a tad careless.

Since:

  1. the article has been nominated in good faith, and
  2. appears not to violate any of the five published quick-fail criteria

the only fair and equitable step to take is to reinstate the nomination and subject it to a standard nomination evaluation. Sadly, professional matters will draw me from Wikipedia for the balance of the day, but, in the absence of a compelling argument to the contrary I plan to reinstate the article to the nomination list, and possibly even review the article, though such effort will in the wee (UTC-4) hours of tomorrow morning at the earliest. I or another reviewer may conclude in the context of a nomination evaluation that the article is too list-like in its composition, failing 1(b); it is out of process to simply pull the article from the nomination list, denying review, as if there was a quick-fail criterion barring such articles.

I confess sadness at subjecting Noble Story to this sharp rebuke. Noble Story has been rightfully commended for the number and quality of his or her reviews and I admire the bits that I've seen of them. If this had been the work of a new or inexperienced reviewer I would have contained my remarks to the reviewer's talk page. Alas, this is one of our good practitioners, one that I admire, and one that I hold to higher standards. I hope that Noble Story continues to review with the care and thoroughness that he or she has demonstrated in the past. For the present case, I trust that the Back Log Demon has led Noble Story to a temporary lapse — a good faith effort to quicky remove 'obvious fails' from the nomination list. Be that as it may, I hope that I've made abundantly clear that even so-called 'obvious fails' have a right to be evaluated in accordance with the published process and only through the published process. I need not remind editors who have observed the various and sundry debates concerning the Good Article marque that there are those who hold the project in deep and profound contempt. Let us not hand that community a verifiable basis for their contempt. Yes, there is a backlog. To those alarmed by such, don't panic. If the Good Article nomination and evaluation process can be demonstrated to be erratic in its application, then there arises a proper and justifiable basis to shut the project down. That, of course, would neatly deal with the back log in a very short order. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I did act somewhat hastily in removing it, having fallen to that demon, and afterwards I didn't update the templates or sign (a double cardinal sin). So, please, accept my full apologies.
To make up for the errors of my ways, if you want to take it back to GAN, I will offer to bring my full reviewing power into force, and (hopefully) give you a lot better review than I did the first time. thank you for your patience, Noble Story (talkcontributions) 00:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd like to see "quick-failing" deprecated, and this case illustrates why. Failing an article without giving a review is already discouraged, and rightly so. Every article should have a review. The further the article is away from meeting the criteria, the less detailed the review needs to be, but a review there should be nonetheless.
Concerning this case, there is very little that GAR can do about a disputed quick-fail, other than recommend renomination (which nominators are free to do anyway): about the only thing is to endorse reinserting the article in its original place on the list rather than adding it at the bottom, but that is unlikely to be opposed anyway. Since the reviewer agrees with this course of action, this GAR can be closed.
However, I personally would not recommend renominating it until reliable secondary sources can be found. At the moment, apart from a couple of references to the New York Times for historical facts, the entire article is sourced to self-published Cornell University material, which is hardly independent of the subject. This is fine for basic factual information, but is no good for supporting assertions like "reserved for the most respected" and "retained an aura of mystery", even if these are given as quotations: at the very least they should be presented as opinions, but it would be better to source analysis of the society to a secondary source. Geometry guy 07:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. You may accuse me of splitting hairs, but I was not 'disputing a quick-fail'; I was protesting this article's removal from the nomination queue in what to me seemed to be an arbitrary fashion and became alarmed because it is through such arbitrary actions that the Good Article program has earned its strongest criticism. I did not envision this article becoming a Good article review topic. Now that it is here, here is what I propose: rather than re-enqueue this on the nominating page, I'm inclined to pull together the various remarks that have been made about this article, map them to the criteria, and constitute the results as the talk sub-page that supports the Good Article evaluation. Critical observations include the article's essentially list-like character, its grounding on a narrow range of references, and misconstuing a 79 year old New York Times reference as a present-day endorsement by that newspaper. There may be other issues as well, but these are, to my mind, sufficiently documented to establish a fail state. All that remains is to enumerate these observations along with suggestions and present them to the editors as a belated Good Article evaluation. I concur that quick-fail criteria should be deprecated: what began as an advisory has become a parallel process and a bane to those of us who champion uniform procedures. Further remarks on that topic are best placed on the talk page of review process discussion, I suppose, but first, I must walk the dog. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I've apparently misread Gosgood's original comments, and listed this article here unnecessarily, for which I apologise; I read the post as a dispute over the review outcome. However, no-one seems to be arguing with the GA fail, just the manner of it. I have no objection to Gosgood's suggestion above, and if we're all happy for him or NS to expand on the existing assessment, then yes, we should close this GAR. On a related point, the discussion on the Reform page linked above has moved towards a proposal that will ensure every article gets a full review, and will indeed deprecate both quick passes and fails. EyeSerenetalk 10:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I am undertaking the review. If there are no objections, I will revert your edit, EyeSerene and reinstate the {{GAN}} tag for purposes of creating the evaluation subpage. Since the discussion here is now a part of the article record, I'll retain the {{GAR/link}} tag. I think this discussion is closed now; thank you all for your time and take care. Gosgood (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
      You're welcome. Thanks for your help and forbearance. Geometry guy 17:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)