Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 39

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← (Page 40) Replacement filing cabinet.svg Good article reassessment (archive) (Page 38) →


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: delisted. The article has serious neutrality and verifiability problems. The consensus reached here was to delist the article. I also added {{POV}} tag to it. Ruslik (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
To add the POV tag, you need to raise these issues on Talk:Dianetics. Otherwise, per the tag, there is no discussion, problems to fix, and finally, to remove the tag when they're resolved. AndroidCat (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This article has a good deal of problems and issues which do not conform to WP:WIAGA. Much of the article is written in in-universe style, making it difficult for a lay reader to understand whole chunks of the article. Parts of the article have poor formatting, using large blockquoting when selected quoting within paragraphs would be better, including a blockquoted portion of text in the WP:LEAD which looks awkward, as does the list at the top of the Procedure in practice subsection. The article has an overreliance on primary instead of secondary sources to back up multiple points throughout, which borders on WP:OR. Primary sources could be enough to satisfy WP:V in certain spots, but overweighting on primary sources is not something we should have in our WP:GAs. Article is not stable, having undergone some massive changes since its initial GA listing from 17 May 2006, which may explain some of the formatting problems, hyperlinks within article text itself instead of properly formatted citations, etc. Listing here for Good article reassessment - in order to solicit and gain input from a wider variety of editors as far as the article's current quality status rating. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be much easier to read if some of the redundant wordiness was cut out. For example, first sentence: "Dianetics is a set of ideas and practices" -- those are practically redundant. The wordiness turns me off from spending my time reading it. In addition, I think this discussion would go better on the talk page, where people would see it much easier. ImpIn | (t - c) 01:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, there is naturally of course a notice at the top of the article's talk page for this ongoing WP:GAR. Cirt (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist -- due to significant problems with the article as laid out above. Cirt (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. Prose, neutrality, sourcing are all valid concerns. Quite frankly, the article is an embarrassment as it stands. Geometry guy 21:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Burger King legal issues[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Keep. A consensus has been reached that the article meets GA standarts. All minor isssues mentioned by reviewers have been addressed. Ruslik (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this article was recently elevated to GA status by LimetoLime. Another editor, JimDunning, who was helping me with the article felt that LimetoLime had failed to properly vet the article before its elevation to GA. I partially agree, however I believe the changes I made to the article during the discussion with Jim more than qualify the article for its current rating. We would like to have a neutral party take a look at the article and give their opinion and determine if its rating is appropriate.

GAN discussion is archived here.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 20:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment, I don't have time to look over the article in full right this moment, but one small thing did catch my attention when I skimmed it just now. The citation numbers need to be in numerical order. For example, [20][17][21] --> [17][20][21]. This isn't a reason to delist by any means, but it would be nice for it to be fixed. I'll be back later (probably tomorrow) with my full opinion. Nikki311 04:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Out-of-order citation numbers are usually caused by ref name. It's not a problem; the alternative would be to introduce duplicate citations, which is clunky. Majoreditor (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the ones I could find. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, I've read through the entire article now, fixing very minor things as I read. The article is very informative, well written, and sourced where appropriate. Nikki311 22:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, the article is interesting, well-written and informative. -epicAdam (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I still have concerns that assertions in the article are unsupported by the cited sources and statements in the Lead are unsupported by material in the article body (see WP:LEAD). For example, in the Lead it says, "Depending upon its ownership and executive staff at the time, its responses to these challenges have varied from acceding to demands to refusal to concede its position regardless of the outcome." The source article used to support this statement (a statement which implies recklessness and fiduciary irresponsibility) includes a comment from Fast Food Nation author Eric Schlosser which says, "makes the behavior of Burger King ... seem completely unjustifiable." The Lead statement does not seem to be a fair characterization of the situation, especially since it is based on statements made by a source known to be biased against Burger King. It seems for a statement saying Burger King has been uncaring about the outcomes of business decisions, an objective source, such as a well-known business analyst, is needed (and the opinion needs to be presented as such, not fact). Also, the word "recalcitrant" is used to describe Burger King in the relevant section; again, this presents the company in a negative light when the sources do not support such a characterization (perhaps "reluctance" would be better?). See Wikipedia:NPOV#Attributing and substantiating biased statements for relevant guidelines.
Another statement in the Lead ("Several legal decisions have set contractual law precedents in regards to ... ethical business practices") lacks similar support in the body. The word "ethics" appears only one more time in the article, and it isn't applied to Burger King. Also in the Lead is the statement, "many of these decisions have helped define general business dealings that continue to shape the entire marketplace." The two cited sources ( and, however, are merely summaries of a single case and provide no context or analysis about the subsequent effect of the court decision on the "marketplace". Additionally, in the relevant section in the article body there is no treatment of the decision on later business practices, thus nothing supporting that Lead statement.
Similarly, in the section on the Hungry Jack's case, it says, "The case introduced the American legal concept of good faith negotiations into the Australian legal system". Neither of the two sources provided support the assertion that this case "introduced" the concept to Australian law. The relevant source certainly supports that the case is evidence that its use may be growing or survives, but using the word "introduce" gives it more importance than the source seems to state.
I cleaned up that statement, it reads more accurate of the courts decision. Jeremy ( Blah blah...)
I am still concerned – despite solid, significant improvements as these and other issues have been raised – that not all statements in the article accurately reflect their source material and the Lead does not accurately reflect and summarize the body material. More work needs to be done to rectify these issues.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment The lead is meant to be a general overview of the article and not specifically address in detail issues in the article, as per the issues you have had with the article, Jeremy has seemed to add the appropriate citations. This review isn't for an FA, it is for a GA and the article currently fulfills all of the current requirements for a GA article. I also think that you might be dealing with prose issues by talking about words like "introduce" (with the Hungry Jack's issue) which aren't sourcing issues, they are language issues, which again fall under the FA criteria, not the GA criteria.--Chef Tanner (talk) 03:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the Lead does not go into detail, but it must accurately summarize the key points in the article. This applies to any class of article, B to FA. One of the examples I cited is not supported by anything that says Burger King has acted without regard to the consequences of its actions. For that statement to be made, someone has to either be reading the minds of the key decision makers or it has to be presented as a quote of from a reliable source's analysis of the case(s). I don't see either anywhere in the article (or buried in the source articles, for that matter). The other statements about cases setting legal precedents about ethical business practices and helping "define general business dealings that continue to shape the entire marketplace" are not supported by copy elsewhere in the article (whether summarizing a number of passages as a group or specific ones). No matter the class of the article, what's in the Lead must be reflected in the body and vice-versa.
As for "introduce", it's not a prose issue. The case did not introduce the concept of good faith to the Australian legal system. Moot, since the issue has been resolved.
Jim Dunning | talk 20:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
RE: Burger King has acted without regard to the consequences of its actions.
I am speaking of the whole Coalition of Immokalee Workers morass outlined in the Labor section v. the actions of the company outlined in the Nutrition and Animal welfare sections; with the CIW incident the company behaved in a way that brought scorn, public protests and unfavorable press. It continued to do so until the mass of the situation caused everything to crash down upon them in April and May of this year.
You assertions are problematic to me as we have discussed the issue at length. As I have stated in our other conversations, it does not have to be spelled out in specific terms in the sources as it is implicit in the tone of the articles and the facts stated that are presented in those publications which I have cited, and in the behaviors of the company outlined in the body of the article itself. The sentence refers to the pattern of behaviors and outlined as a whole in the "Controversies" section. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 04:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter any way, I reworded it. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The article has a good level of writing which is well written and well sourced and seems to fulfill all the requirements for a GA.--Chef Tanner (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am unable to read it completely at the moment, but I think the article should be renamed. Aside from the fact issues is vague and fluffy, I think the use of "legal issues" is misleading. Much of the article is not related to legislation, or legal disputes of any kind, and instead deals with controversies and protests (e.g. the "Animal welfare" section). Maybe the article would be better titled Burger King controversies and legal disputes. - Shudde talk 09:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Please read the lead, only those controversies with legal concerns or outcomes, such as binding agreements or violations of said agreements, are included. The Islam ice cream issue relates to Shariah, or Muslim canon law. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it's completely pushing it, the animal rights section hardly touches on legal issues at all. The use of "issues" still sucks regardless, it's fluffy and vague. I would rather it be replaced with "disputes", which is much more descriptive. - Shudde talk 23:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture studies[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Delist. Unsourced material, original research, unencyclopedic bias and prose, and a weak lead. Although there are inline citations, these don't cover the opinionated material adequately. Geometry guy 20:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I am reviewing all of the "Society and Culture" articles for GA Sweeps and am undecided on this article. The article has been tagged with "This article or section is missing citations or needs footnotes." since August 2007, and it uses Harvard referencing, which the criteria allows. However multiple parts are unsourced and some of the statements may be considered original research. I found parts of the article hard to follow, but I would like to see if it's just me that couldn't keep up with the content. Hopefully a community consensus can be determined to see if it should remain a GA. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delist. For so many reasons:
    • No in-line citations in key sections.
    • Underdeveloped lead.
    • Poorly-composed prose. The first person plural cracks me up.
    • POV and OR issues.

This one isn't even close to GA standards. Majoreditor (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Concur with Majoreditor, although I think if Harvard refs are used, the inline citation criterion should be flexible. However, the sourcing is wholly inadequate for GA, the prose reads like an essay and needs thorough copyediting, especially for editor commentary (which I think is also the cause of the impression of POV), and the lead is not WP:LEAD compliant. EyeSerenetalk 18:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. The article does indeed read like an essay and needs some work. However, I am somewhat disappointed to see reviewers concurring that this has "no inline citations". It has frequent inline citations. That these inline citations do not use the cite-php footnotes method is irrelevant. Citation by author and year is perfectly acceptable for a GA. Geometry guy 23:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I recognize that the article has inline citations, be they Harvard referencing. However, multiple questionable statements throughout the article are not covered, and that is why I believe the tag was added. Of course, I'm sure it is possible the person who tagged the article had done so hoping that the citations were converted to cite-php footnotes. Anyway, the article needs to be rewritten, and references expanded. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
      Yes, I agree, my remark referred only to the two subsequent posts. I just want to be sure that my much esteemed colleagues, who play a vital role in keeping GAR working, are on the same page as we are regarding this issue. Geometry guy 00:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
My apologies. I meant to say that certain key sections lack in-line citations, and have modified my original comments accordingly.
I started adding {{fact}} tags but threw in the towel because the article is, as Geometry guy states, more of an essay than an article. This article needs more than de-listing; it requires significant pruning. Too many assertions smack of personal opinion. Majoreditor (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Gguy: yes indeed we are. As usual I was less clear than I should have been :-( I, too, thought Majoreditor was saying there weren't any inline cites, and intended my opening sentence to be read to say that, just because the citations don't use the <ref>...</ref> format, it doesn't mean there aren't any. Apologies EyeSerenetalk 18:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
No worries both. In any case, it looks like this article needs to be delisted. Geometry guy 22:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. Poorly-written and far from comprehensive essay, with some strange biases and emphases. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 16:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist Lack of inline citations is big here. Also, the "essay-style". Mastrchf (t/c) 13:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Delist. The article has a great deal of in-universe and game-play material, as well as poor prose, and citation issues. There was some disagreement as to the extent to which these are GA issues, but there is consensus that the article doesn't currently meet the criteria. Renomination would be one way to get a fresh review. Geometry guy 21:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is very in-universe, and reads like a game guide. It also has sections that does not relate to the rest of the article, and would greatly benefit from a cleanup. Tarret talk 20:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. I disagree with the assessment that the article is too in-universe. It has a well-developed sections on "History and development" and on "Reception". Certainly there's room for expansion, but this article has more out-of-universe information than most gaming articles which land here at GAR.

That said, the article is in need of cleanup. Does anyone want to have a go at it? Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If you could highlight specific aspects of the article which are due improvement, I'd try to fix them. There are others I'm sure who'd like to try. Someoneanother 14:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks like most of the issues I spotted, such as capitalization and fact tags, have already been addressed. Majoreditor (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Anything else? I see a few citation needed tags and (as always) some copyediting would help... I'd be happy to do what I can. —Giggy 11:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The two remaining tags are the biggest issue; I'll see if I can copyedit the article this weekend. Majoreditor (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I feel that the article advertises at the moment (hence it is not neutral). Therefore, in my opinion, it does not constitute a good article. PeterA (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
    • As was asked on its talk page, how? Writing about a product is permitted. —Giggy 04:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Having edited this article pretty much since I joined Wikipedia 2 years ago, I would say that this article is one of the most unstable game article around here. It is so often that someone (but not the same individual) added citation needed tags, advertising-like, etc. I checked the history and found that 250 edits to the article are done in 2 months, that comes to about 4 edits per day! It's so unstable that the article was almost rewritten in just those 2 months. I have no objections or hesitations to see that it will get delisted because it is, ironically, long overdued. I even gave them a warning in December 2007 regarding how bad the article deteriorates after being promoted to GA.(see here). Sidenote: I want to point out is that this article is promoted by User:FunPika in March 10, 2007. But while we were doing GAC backlog elimination drive in July 2007, serious issues came up regarding FunPika's review skills[1][2] I want to question whether he knew and be familiar with the criteria before passing this article as GA. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not familiar with and don't wish to comment on the FunPika situation. What's done is done; at GAR we should only look at the current article, not rate it based on who passed it way back. Would you please give some more concrete suggestions as to what can be done to help the article maintain its GA status here; my reading of your comment is that you believe it fails the stability criterion, and that you think I (and others) should stop editing it. This is a bit oversimplified, obviously, but could you please clarify my confusion? Thanks. —Giggy 09:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The tags are still there. The article's prose still needs attention; I've copyedited several paragraphs but much more work remains. Unless someone tackles these issues shortly we should delist this article. Majoreditor (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying that people should stop editing it. I'm merely pointing out its instability history. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist, I would agree with the above: the article is not encyclopedic and has many related prosed issues. Geometry guy 22:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    One example: "Players die when their hitpoints are reduced to zero. Hitpoints lost during battle can be recovered by eating or drinking. Players can use potions and prayers to boost their combat ability and defences. Players who die reappear at one of three respawn points with their hitpoints, and any other reduced skill levels, restored; however, they drop all but their three most valuable items. A special prayer allows the retention of one more item." Players die? Respawn? To whom should I pray? Geometry guy 21:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Gregory R. Ball[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: No consensus. Like the nominator and Majoreditor, I'm not convinced that this article is neutral, but no clear failings of the GA criteria have been raised in the last month, so there is no reason to delist the article or continue this GAR. The article might benefit from a fresh GAR if someone is willing to initiate it. Geometry guy 22:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is a blatant political advertisement for Greg Ball. It does not give the controversies he has been involved in even-handed treatment and it meks it seem as if he has accomplished far more than he's actually done. The Courage Cup controversy is entirely white washed (read the sources for the real story). And the spitzer section is no better.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Datawants82 (talkcontribs) 23:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy close. WP:SPA nom during a campaign season. Having similar troubles on his opponents article as well, with childish vandalism and glowing tributes from both sides. Several other SPAs have been blocked for 3RR/edit warring on both, and it may be time for a SSP/RFCU. This article was reviewed by one of the best GA reviewers, and also underwent Wikiproject Peer Review and Peer Review. MrPrada (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article merits a closer look. There could be some NPOV issues. It contains a lengthly quote from Ball in the "USAF service" section, giving it the appearance of a campaign brochure. I'll need to re-read the article, but at first glance I was surprised by the lack of critical material. Are we sure that the article is as complete and even-handed as it should be? Majoreditor (talk) 05:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually I got that idea from Calvin Coolidge after finding an additional source of biographical information during comments from an A-class review that the military section was too short. I thought it was an interesting and relevant quote, seeing as a lot of his post-military career deals with immigration. It never hurts to have another reviewer, but enough of the meatpuppets and vandals already. I have been commended at ANI for the extreme level of patience and willingness to work with these people that I've shone, even though they've leveled some very visceral, baseless and extreme anonymous criticism towards me. The Ball article reads very similar to the Barack Obama FA, and the criticism is worked into the article per the standards. Right now I am more concerned with their efforts to insert advertising and whitewash the article of his opponent in a WP:TEAM effort between the two articles, but I will continue to try and work with these editors, I know that eventually reasonable editors will step in and correct the issues. MrPrada (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The WP:SPA argument is generally better used on persons of questionable notability and for accounts created by the SPA. This article would have passed any notability test prior to the involvment of the SPA because it When the article looked like this, it was not a great article, but it was an article that a person interested in the subject could greatly improve. I have done similar duty for my congressman (Jesse Jackson, Jr.). This article may need some balance for WP:NPOV concerns. Any article short of an WP:FA (i.e. about 99.9% of all articles) probably needs some work. The idea that this is a single purpose account is also not appropriate. The primary author (MrPrada) is a person who is interested in Hudson Valley politicians and politics. his edits reflect as much. He has made 9338, 476 of which were for the article in question. I think an SPA argument is invalid when less than half of the edits are for the article in question.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The USAF service references a Sports Illustrated cover and the source only references the magazine in general. Can you ref the exact issue and cover at (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I got that sentence from the Courage Cup's website (which is all messed up right now), but from google I'm starting to be convinced that the cover article was about the Work to Ride charity and not the Courage Cup it self (although there was a SI article about the Courage Cup as well). I will spend a day or two looking into this further and make sure the information presented is accurate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPrada (talkcontribs) 01:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • My guess is that on the cover the article may have been mentioned in text. I imagine the cover truly featured another story. However, if we can get the date of the cover that would be helpful. I can't find either Work to Ride or Courage Cup in the SI cover archive. Please see my other suggestions below.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • A couple other suggestions.
    rm the word prestigious (POV)
  • link first instance of David Patterson and delink later instances.
After re-reading the article I lean toward Delist. This is more of a haliography than an evenhanded assessment of a politician. There's barely a peep of criticism in the article, despite Ball's strong stands on iessues. While I'm not a fan of "Criticism " sections, I expect that there's been noteworthy criticism of him and his actions in office. Yet I see little to nothing of the sort in this article. Majoreditor (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your rationale. We should delist based on the assumption that there may or may not be some criticism written about a politician thats been in office for a year and a half?. Remember, this article has been Project Peer Reviewed and Peer Reviewed. Where were these concerns then? I think you need to list some specific concerns before we consider delisting, as the article features less hagiography and more criticism then FAs such as Barack Obama. I've basically listed 230 articles from local papers as references. If you can find anything in addition to that that may contain some noteworthy criticism, you're welcome to add it to the piece, however for a thirty year old local politician whose been in office for 18 months, I doubt you'll find much more. In the meantime, I have never voted to list/delist based on an assumption. MrPrada (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised that you didn't notice published criticism like this article from the 2/10/2007 New York Times. To quote part of it:
But others were displeased. Keith L. T. Wright, a Harlem assemblyman and a Democrat, said that if Mr. Ball believed the Legislature to be so dysfunctional, he should step down. “He should probably get to know what he’s talking about before he opens his mouth,” Mr. Wright said. “He just seemed to paint a broad brush on a legislative body that he probably ran very hard and spent a lot of money to get into.”
  • I certainly believe that there is always room for improvement. However, I'll need you to cite some examples, as I really don't see this article as being criticism-free. Your point is not clear at all. The NYT quote you cited-interesting, however, you'll note that the "most dysfunctional legislature in the nation" comment echoes a report by New York University's Brennan Center for Justice report which spends 60+ pages describing the the legislature as dysfunctional. A google search for dysfunctional and legislature returns 100 out of the first 100 articles about guessed it... New York Legislature. There is nothing that impressive about the Ball quote, other then that he said it on his first day, on the floor of the assembly. Governors Eliot Spitzer, and David Paterson, also call the legislature dysfunctional on a regular basis, as stated in their articles. The New York Times also calls the legislature dysfunctional. Ball's opponent in 2006, Ken Harper, called the legislature dysfunctional, as described in the article. The wikipedia articles on the State Legislature describe them as dysfunctional. What exactly is there to balance? Wright's quote is in the realm of WP:FRINGE. MrPrada (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The point is clear: Mr. Ball, like most politicians, has come up for criticism. That's the nature of the job. I find it bizzare to have a criticism-free article on a polical figure who has garnered as much attention - both positive and negative - as Mr. Ball. In contrast, please see the FA-class articles on Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan, both of which weave criticism into the articles where appropriate (for example, on abortion and "trickle down" economics".)
That's not to say that the article should be 50% criticism. However, the article in its current form has veered to another extreme by incorporating no dissenting views, despite the fact that reliable sources such as the New York Times have published such material. Please, try a bit harder to strike a proper balance. Failure to properly balance an article results in a non-neutral point of view, which violates GA criterion #4. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The immigration and gun control sections are the areas where he has drawn actual dissent, and that is already described in some detail, weaved into the article as your examples with the Reagen and Obama FAs. It is rather telling that Jackyd, or one of the Wikiproject peer reviewers and Peer Reviewers who checked this over before it became a GA, could have mentioned this as at least a minor concern to be addressed, and they did not. There is always room for improvement, as this is not an FA yet, but to delist based on a bad faith nom, when no examples of what needs to be fixed have been presented seems to be WP:GAME to me. When actual examples are cited, they can be fixed during the GAR process, and then we can decide whether or not to delist. MrPrada (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Funny, I spent a grand total of one minute on Google and found the New York Times article which clearly points out that Mr. Ball has come in for criticism from fellow legislators. I'd not be so quick to dismiss an assemblyman's comments - or the NYT's coverage - as "fringe". Why omit it from the article? I also differ with your assessment of whether the immigration and gun control sections contain critical points of view toward his positions; I see nothing at all in the gun control section and nothing in the immigration section other than a journalist disputing one of the statistics Ball quoted.
  • I think my point was that the commonly accepted view is that the legislature is dysfunctional, and the idea that it isn't is a fringe view. The NYT article does not go into detail on criticism from fellow legislators, outside of the context of the dysfunctional legislature quote on the floor of the assembly. MrPrada (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
This article is well-composed and needs just a bit more work to ensure that it meets GA standards for NPOV. Majoreditor (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought the Schimel seciton did a good job of presenting the opposing viewpoint. As for the immigration, outside of opinion pieces and letters to the editor, there are really three articles which go into detail on criticism of the immigration stances. However I think they misrepresent to some degree the nature of his position, which is a bit more nuanced (And I think is well reflected in the article's current format). Nonetheless I will get to adding the sources tomorrow. MrPrada (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I would certainly expect that a biography article of a politician of sufficiently marginal notability that he only appears in the national press a few times would include all references in the national press. I would include both articles at (as they are). I would also continue to watch Time, Newsweek, Washington Post, U.S. News, USAToday for any and all mentions of his name. If no negative press can be found, surely his political opponent had some arguments against his candidacy. Try to mention them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Russia[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Delist The article has an insufficient number of citations and fails WP:VER, it also fails WP:LEAD (the lead is too short) and WP:Weasel. Ruslik (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


  1. 5.2.2 Ukraine
  2. 5.2.3 Belarus
  3. 5.2.4 Tajikistan

seems to be ful of WP:OR andWP:Weasel (a antisemtic university with 50.000 students in a country of 45.000.000 people does not proof that a country is antisemtic). Mariah-Yulia (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I notified WikiProject Judaism of this discussion; perhaps an editor can join the discussion. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, the thing is that the article fails to meet it's scope (hardly any info about other post soviet states only a lot of info about Russia), a rename to History of the Jews in Russia might do a world of good. And the way the article got a Good article status looks fishy since it seems it was reviewed by only a view people... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The sections in question are very short. They are under-referenced and underdeveloped. They should either be expanded and brought up to standard quickly or removed from the article. Majoreditor (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist, with regrets. This article contains several well-crafted sections. However, it doesn't meet GA criteria. The most significant issue is that it's very underreferenced. I spotted about a dozen statements needing in-line citations. The lead is under-developed, and there are some MoS issues such as improperly-formatted citations. I have removed the sections on Ukraine, Belarus and Tajikistan; they were incomplete, under-referenced, POV and likely synthetic. Perhaps someone, someday, can help this article reach GA quality. Majoreditor (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist, the article in question has been moved. Assuming that we are now talking about History of the Jews in Russia, I'm in agreement with Majoreditor. Needs in-line citations in various places, MoS copyediting, a more adequate lead, to solve the peacock problem, templates for the web references, etc. Nikki311 04:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Mammoth Cave National Park[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: delist. The article needs more citations and a copy-edit. Ruslik (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Notices left on the following talk pages: WP:CAVES, WP:WHS, WP:KY, WP:PAREAS, Alan Canon, Vsmith, MONGO

This is one of the better articles I have brought to WP:GAR. It is Jan 2006 GA promotion that needs to be brought up to current standards. As I prepare the current WP:CHIFTD, I spent part of the morning comparing articles in the following sections of the WP:GA page:

  1. Public parks and zoos,
  2. Recreational areas, sports venues and stadiums
  3. Nature reserves, conservation areas and countryside routes

This is the only article in those sections that fails section 2 of WP:WIAGA. There are no clear standards on what a properly cited article should be. My opinion is that a new WP:GAC should have at least one citation for every paragraph since each paragraph is suppose to present a new idea. For a current GA, I would I think an appropriate standard is that every section or subsection should have at least one citation and the majority of the paragraphs should have at least one citation. I did not actually count paragraph by paragraph, but I get the feel that it has more uncited paragraphs than cited ones. However, without counting I see several sections and subsections without citations. The article is a good article that hopefully will get a little attention and be refreshed to current standards through this process.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment, after a quick look, I saw at least one citation needed tag, an uncited quote, what looked like an advertisement ("Interested members of the public can join an sponsored field survey of the history of Mammoth Cave."), and some statements that definitely need a source of some kind ("Attempts to rescue Collins created a media sensation."). There are also quite a few MoS problems and the other notes is nothing but trivia. Nikki311 23:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist, it's been awhile, and there are still unsourced statements and weak prose. Nikki311 03:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment...The article needs expansion on the biological systems...especially. I suggest looking at some related National Park FA's to get some idea of structure, and scope since the history section seems to overwhelm the entire article. I'm not advocating removing the history section, but balance needs to be achieved by enhancing other areas.--MONGO 00:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well SFI (So Fix It) :-) Fixed a bit, Vsmith (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are a few assertions in the article which need in-line citations. I've tagged a couple of them. There's also some MoS problems, most of them minor. One of the bigger issues is that the "Park superintendents" section isn't much more than a list. Majoreditor (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. I don't know why there is all this discussion about what should and what need not be cited. There is absolutely no GA requirement to provide one cite per paragraph, or a certain number of citations per section. Citations should be provided to meet WP:V, period. But just a passing glance at this article reveals uncited sentences which need citation e.g. "The 'Kentucky Cave Wars' were a period of bitter competition between local cave owners for tourist money." According to whom? There are also uncited quotations, e.g., "the 'One small step for a man' quote for 'conquering the Everest of speleology' was his exclamation to the others 'I see a tourist trail!' "
That sentence is also an example of unencyclopedic prose. There is plenty of poor prose here, e.g. "An historical irony results in that although the name was applied before the cave system's true extent was fully known, modern discoveries have well established the appropriateness of the older name." Geometry guy 22:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist per my comments above. The article hasn't improved. Majoreditor (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Max Mosley[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Renominated at GAN.Giggy 23:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Max Mosley was delisted by user:Sceptre on 12 July. The reasons given were:

  1. the Nazi orgy section taking approximately half the page up is unacceptable - what is he more famous for? Formula One, or the orgy?
  2. I think it would be impossible to fix these objections in the timeframe alloted by GAR, so I'm skipping the process because it would, most likely, see reason to delist.

In response to 1, the section referred to takes up just under one sixth of the article (1093 words out of 6461 for the text) - which suggests a rather cursory reading by Sceptre. He didn't identify which of the GA criteria he felt was a problem, but the only one it can be is 3b - staying focussed on the subject. In response to his question about notability, rather unfairly Mosley is far better known at present for the orgy allegations than for his role at the FIA. Even so, the section is too long, a problem recognised on the article talk page.

In response to 2, it's actually a rather trivial task to cut down the length of the section. I have already drafted a much shorter version in my sandbox. It probably took me about half an hour, but I have not yet added refs. The problem could have been dealt with easily within the timescale of a GAR, and to be honest, it would have been even more sensible just to deal with it on the article talk page.

I am asking for views on three points:

  • Does the article in its current state fail GA?
  • Would the article fail GA with the section in my sandbox substituted?
  • Did Sceptre take the most appropriate route to improving the article here?

Thanks in advance. 4u1e (talk) 09:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The answer to point 3 is no. That isn't the point of this GAR though, and I hope those involved don't spend time focusing on that non-issue. Trout Sceptre and be done with. :-) I haven't looked over the article (yet - I will!) so I can't answer 1 and 2; I just think it important that we get 3 out of the way and drop it sooner rather than later. —Giggy 11:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Re 3 - OK.I was thinking of the words "whether former good articles have been improperly delisted", from the intro above, which indicated to me that this was one of the things reviews were for. However, if I've misunderstood, I'm happy to leave it there.
Since we're here now, though, any and all comments about this article's suitability for GA status will be gratefully received. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
You are quite right about the intro, but discussions here should focus on the article and the criteria, rather than individual editors. I would however, make two general comments.
  1. Reviewers should always give article editors a chance to respond before delisting articles.
  2. Delisting decisions should be backed up by a review, just like GAN actions.
To this end, {{subst:GAR}} now has a facility to allow reviewers to create a review subpage just like the one used for good article nominations. I hope this will encourage good practice and have commented further at WT:GAN. Geometry guy 13:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments. The section on the sex allegations is a very bad case of recentism. "Mosley is far better known at present for the orgy allegations than for his role at the FIA" says it all: whether that is true or not depends whom you ask, but in any case, it has nothing to with encyclopedic notability. As such the article does not currently meet criterion 3b. The issue can easily be seen by comparing the article to Prince Harry, where the Nazi costume controversy gets two sentences: in contrast, in July 2005, when this was recent news, we have two long paragraphs. One can also compare this section to the FISA-FOCA War, which is controversial enough to have its own article, yet only gets a paragraph in the present article. There seems to be a reluctance to elaborate on incidents in which Mosley's contribution was generally beneficial. In contrast the tobacco section goes into matters which have more to do with Ecclestone and the Labour governement than Mosley: "Ecclestone and Mosley, both Labour Party donors," certainly needs clarification and a source.
One should not be able to tell from a Wikipedia article what are the views of contributing editors, but there seems to be a negative undercurrent here, which is a neutrality issue. There are also some sourcing issues: for example
"This training led some national English newspapers to link him to the French right wing Organisation de l'armée secrète (OAS), which was involved in the Algerian War at that time."
is sourced to, which provides no evidence for the assertion. In "The name March is a contrived acronym...", why "contrived"?
"Many insiders believed that Mosley's announced retirement was just part of a well crafted plan to strengthen his and Bernie Ecclestone's control over the sport,"
is neither sourced nor neutral. The word "believe" is also used to cast doubt on Mosley's views in a couple of places.
Concerning the sandbox replacement, it is certainly better, but is still more like the state of Prince Harry in 2005 than 2008. Two specific points: the illegality of pimping etc. is not really relevant; also since the question of whether the incident involved Nazi roleplaying is the subject of a court case, the article needs to be very careful not to give preference to the newspaper account over Mosley's.
I recommend that the article remains delisted. Checking the article against WP:BLP would be a good idea before renomination. Geometry guy 14:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, Geometry Guy. I would argue that this incident is far more important in relation to Mosley than the Harry incident was for him. Yes, the tabloid coverage is about the same, but Mosley came very close to losing his job over this, and may still do so. I will certainly review again for negative stuff - although I was, for example, surprised to find that almost all mentions of him in two histories of March Engineering, which both predate his position as FIA president, tend to be negative in the details. The positives tend only to concern his legal and diplomatic skills. The pimping stuff is an attempt (probably unsuccessful) to cover prostitution's slightly odd legal position in the UK: it's not illegal, but many activities around it are, and it is generally perceived as being illegal. I'll have another go. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you that the Mosley incident may end up being more important than the Harry incident, but the question is, how important? Geometry guy 17:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, quite a lot more important. In an F1 context, it's more similar to the hypothetical case of the current monarch being caught in highly inappropriate situation and being asked to abdicate by, say, several prominent cabinet members and a couple of the UK's leading companies. Without of course, quite the degree of tabloid hysteria that would entail. ;-) 4u1e (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Mosley has shot into wider 'fame' because of the Nazi incident, so it has drawn a lot more attention. There is a general acceptance, I think, on the talk page that it had gotten too long. I think the agreement was that if we waited until monday or tuesday (When summations occur and the jury are sent out) there would be easily sourced summations we could use as the court case ends. Papers, in many ways, end up deciding what parts of controversies have lasting impact and until then it becomes difficult to do more than compress the information. As it is, I'd like to see what 4u1e can put in there in terms of a compressed section. It strikes me that the dates on it are quite irrelevent, providing some kind of chronological order is kept. I'll have a poke around for some cites on Mosley donating to labour. That Ecclestone does shouldn't be too hard, there was a huge row over him giving a million to labour back in..97? Narson (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    Sure, Ecclestone is not the issue: his donations to Labour are well known and relevant to the tobacco advertising story. The question is whether Mosley donated, and whether any donations he made are relevant here. Geometry guy 17:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    Well, if he did (The Observer lists him as a financial supporter of labour). It is certainly fairly interesting, when he has had links with the far right, the right and then the centrist party. It indicates the shedding of his past, or an attempt to rather, perhaps? I'll add in the observer article as a source for that bit unless I can find a more concise and detailed one. Narson (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: the acronym is 'contrived' because there is no reason for the letters to be in that order, it could as well have been CHARM, for example. It's not intended to be a negative thing, btw. 4u1e (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    Just to further that, see Acronym#Contrived_acronymsTommy turrell (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    It seems then that "March" is no more contrived than "Charm" would have been, so I've removed the adjective. Geometry guy 20:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    That's rather the point, isn't it? You contrive an acronym if you pick the word you want, rather than following some other natural scheme, usually the order of words in an existing phrase. March is certainly contrived, but this is an extremely minor point, so I'll not argue the point further. 4u1e (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    I don't really want to argue it further either, but an acronym is contrived when it is set up so that the word has significance, as in PATRIOT. In this case, no one has argued that the March acronym was created because "March" is a significant word in the industry. Instead, the suggestion is that it is simply a readable word involving those five letters and beginning with "M". If that is "contrived", then so is almost every readable acronym. Geometry guy 22:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    Going by the very strict - but unreferenced - definition given on our page for Acronym, you're correct. I'll agree to disagree, or we'll be here forever:) 4u1e (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
    • re teh text "Many insiders believed that Mosley's announced retirement was just part of a well crafted plan to strengthen his and Bernie Ecclestone's control over the sport," it should be referenced by turrell (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
      Opinionated prose such as "just part of a well crafted plan" needs to be attributed. As it is a direct quote, I've quoted it. Geometry guy 20:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: As of 16 July, the "Nazi orgy" section that was the reason for the original delisting is now down to three paras (plus a one sentence para) from the previous nine (300 wds vs 1093). Although it may be possible to cut it down further in future, the current content seems to me likely to remain relevant.
I have also reviewed against WP:WTA and revised wording accordingly - lots of 'claims' have gone, and a few 'deny's and 'reported's as well!
I've done a general review of the text and cut some stuff that had negative sounding implications, but didn't really follow through on them. This includes the OAS story, Mosley's parents' wedding (with Hitler present!), and Alan Rees's departure from the team. I've also rearranged the lead, so that Mosley's parents and early life aren't the first thing presented, since they are less important than his career in motorsport.
Next up is a review of the sources to see if we've (unconsciously) filtered out more positive stories about MM. I think it unlikely but, hey, that's the point of checking!
Geometry Guy, you said above that there was a reluctance to expand on MM's positive contributions. It would be helpful (for me, anyway!) if you could specify which ones you feel don't give enough coverage. Thanks.
Finally, it occurs to me that the section on FIA presidency might be more neutrally structured if it were split by his presidential terms, rather than by (mainly controversial) topics as at present. This would follow the model taken by several articles on politicians that I've looked at. Views on this are welcome. 4u1e (talk) 06:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks a lot better, thank you. While the controversy section should be merged into other parts of the article (article structure), it does look a lot better than my delisted version. A question too: didn't Mosley admit on his part to participating in S&M during the orgy, or was that another NOTW allegation? Sceptre (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
He admitted to being involved in S&M activities (though, I think it was 'such activities' or somesuch in response to a question about S&M) for 45 years. I don't think he has denied the orgy in any part, only the conclusion that it had nazi connotations. Narson (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Sceptre, thanks for taking the time to comment. Yes, he did admit to everything other than the Nazi element. Question is, how much detail do we need to go into? The current wording is intended to make the situation implicitly clear. 4u1e (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That's me done for the next week or so, btw, so unless others want to have a stab at it, the article will have to stand or fall in its current shape. Thanks to all for the comments. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other issues/problems with the article? I think the specific problem that Spectre brought up was dealt with and a few other things have been fixed. What more needs to be done to see the article retain its GA status? Narson (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. This section has much improved: good work! My tentative view is that it would now be more efficient to renominate the article, especially if e.g. Sceptre is willing to act as GAN reviewer. Otherwise, we need to wait for other reviewer's comments, and this is a quiet time of year. Geometry guy 21:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article looks fine to me now after the work that's been done on it, and I agree with Geometry guy. The best thing to do now is to renominate it at GAN and close this GAR. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I've closed it out as per these comments. —Giggy 23:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Ta guys. Thanks for all the comments, but I really do wonder if an eventual three (count 'em!) GA reviews is really the most efficient way of maintaining the article at GA level. No very difficult changes have been made: a severe pruning such as the offending section received proved, as I suggested at the start, to be a simple job. ;-) 4u1e (talk) 06:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
      • It seems wrong, and against the spirit of wikipedia, that one person can act as a vigilante de-lister, circumventing procedure with obviously farcical arguments and the result is that editors who use the process have to go through two assessments in order to undo the damage that the one vigilante caused. If the article is up to scratch and this re-assessment shows that, why is the unliteral de-listing not simply undone without us doing again exactly what was done here? Narson (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

As a note, after reading the article today, I am in agreement with the above that this is once again a GA, and have relisted it. Resolute 20:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Impalement arts[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Delisted. There are still numerous unresolved issues. When you believe the article meets criteria, you can renominate at GAN. —Giggy 06:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The article was recently listed by a reviewer who, at the time, had fewer than 200 edits. I believe the listing to have been a mistake. The article suffers from poor sourcing and too much of the content is in list format. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Delist per the following:
    • 1A: Poor grammar. Sentences should not start with "Because", "This" or "And"; subject should be properly reintroduced. Don't editorialize (e.g. "Perhaps the most notable...", etc.) Missing punctuation (e.g. "The precise origins of the impalement arts remain unknown but there are", etc.)--Nemonoman (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • 1B: Heavy use of weasel words (e.g. "It has been asserted by several sources", "some point to overtones", etc.)
    • 2A: First paragraph of "Noted impalement artists" section is unsourced and "Disciplines" section is unsourced. ibid, et al. should not be used (WP:FOOT)
    • 2B: Numerous unreliable sources, e.g. - what makes this reliable? - what makes this reliable? - "club" website - 132 members - what makes this reliable? - what makes this reliable?
      Note 5 of "Extensive evidence of the debate on this topic is to be found in various online forums including the Dangerous Circus Acts groups on Yahoo!" is entirely inappropriate sourcing.
      IMDB is used heavily - this is not a reliable source for anything other than basic release dates, etc.
    • 2C: Concerns related to lack of sourcing (see 2A). Numerous other instances (e.g. "In some ways the Tell legend can be seen as one of the earliest inspirations for the impalement arts" has no source; "Another important aspect" - important to whom?)
    • 3B: "Noted impalement artists" and "Fictional or artistic representations" sections are unnecessarily long; the latter, especially, is essentially nothing more than a trivia section. Why is such detail and minutia necessary? Does knowing, for example, that two henchmen in a Bond movie were knife throwers really provide any substantive contribution to our understanding of the topic. Given that these sections comprise more than half of the article by length, WP:INDISCRIMINATE seems to be a concern; see also list incorporation requirement of 1B.
    • 6A: WP:IUP requires verifiable sources. Claim that copyright holder has allowed free license needs means of verification/substantiation (e.g. OTRS ticket).
    • 6B: Period should be used (see WP:CAPTION) and we shouldn't be using an external link. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: point 6A, I've added attribution text to the license template for that image. This includes a link to copyright holder's website, which provides a means to contact him should anyone need to verify he licensed the image. I will look at other points as and when I have time/inclination.Circusandmagicfan (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
  • Not bothered either way Delist: While I disagree with some of the criticisms made above there are others that I concede. Clearly the article requires work. One of the problems I faced in the discussion preceding GAR nomination was that critics were unhelpfully imprecise about what needed to be done where. The comments from User:elcobbola are at least a bit more specific. Addressing all these issues will take time (especially as, having been the main contributor so far, I may now be devoting much less energy to Wikipedia). It seems the best way forward is for the status of this article to be changed to an appropriate category and for work to proceed as and when possible with a view to returning to GA status once appropriate.10:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
Thanks to Nemonoman for balancing things up a bit. My vote to delist was made in a moment of depression and frustration at the sort of criticism that was occuring. It's difficult to judge how to defend one's work in this situation because I feel these reviews ought to be objective processes. For that reason I had nothing to do with GA nomination and review (which was one of the few pleasant surprises I've had while working on Wiki). However, given the nature of criticism, it would have been remiss of me to let it go unchallenged. Nemonoman has now said much of what I was feeling. I will now shut up and go away and return to the article from time to time to make what improvements I can. I leave it up to others to express views on whether the article is best developed at GA status or some lower designation.Circusandmagicfan (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
  • Keep: This is a good article when measured against the Good Article criteria as stated. There is a tendency by some editors to demand near-FA quality for a GAR. I advise them to follow the GA criteria more exactly. There is no doubt that this article could be improved by tighter writing as suggested. But the writing is at this point Good (and it is a rare article indeed where the writing is perfect.) I disagree that the article is too listy or trivia prone. The editor(s) provided an abundance of examples (with references) that demonstrated (to me) that this unusual topic, which I assumed would be sort of dead end worthy of speedy delete when I turned to it, was in fact a fascinating and pervasive part of popular culture. The critics who complain above about unreliability of sources beg the question: Given the breadth of examples and the arcane topic, a bit of latitude should be accepted. The critics appear to be challenging some cites provisionally based on the name or nature of websites. They Can't or Won't name specific examples of doubtful content. The article's discussion pages show no challenges to facts as presented. The editors provide numerous examples article, with citations -- the large number included appears to be the basis for 'list' or 'trivia' critiques above. Clearly these elements are not notable enough for individual articles and would be speedy deletes; but as components of this comprehensive article, they provided through their number and variety an unexpected and fascinating glimpse into an area of entertainment that I personally had not considered. I think this article deserves to be on any list of Good WP articles. My very sincere compliments to Circusmagicfan, who very much deserves praise. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. This interesting article failed to convince me even that its title is more than a neologism. There's plenty of unsourced opinion too e.g., "It is arguable that some sharpshooting acts fall into the category of impalement arts when they involve a performer holding up targets for a marksman". So who is doing the arguing? Geometry guy 22:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Although I concede there are aspects of the article which need improving, I have to take issue with any suggestion that the title is a neologism. The term "Impalement arts" might not be much used outside the business but, as stated in the article, there are sources dating back to at least 1871 which support its use as the technical or umbrella term for these types of act.Circusandmagicfan (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
May I apologize for my rather terse and unhelpful assessment. I normally try to provide more thorough and helpful review contributions than this. I'm going to be away for a few days, and won't be able to make amends until the weekend. I appreciate the reassurance that the term is not a neologism, but this is not very clear from the article. The 1871 quote does not say what the feat is, as far as I can tell, and use of the word "impalement" is not the same thing as demonstrating that "impalement arts" and "impalement artist" are well-established umbrella terms. It is important that WP articles clearly demonstrate that they are reporting on a notable topic and are not original research (e.g. synthesis). I do not wish to doubt at all what you say, but could you find a way to make the article demonstrate this more clearly? That would help a lot. Thanks, Geometry guy 21:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep As per Nemonoman. The points from ЭLСОВВОLД are applying very stringent criteria beyond whats called for. I'm not saying Wiki shouldn't be thorough but that's too much. Grammar in the article is actually pretty good in most parts, theres loads of sources and ones like IMDB aren't used to justify anything contentious, in fact nothing really contentious in it (and I speak as a knife enthusiast). OK it needs work if its gonna develop to the very highest class of article but its a fine and comprehensive read as is.Kid Zed (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Kid_Zed
    • My points cite precisely the GA criteria that are not satisfied. Good articles need to meet the GA criteria; please identify the "very stringent criteria beyond whats [sic] called for" I am supposedly using. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist per Elcobbola and Gguy. The makings of a good article (in the GA sense) are there, but there are too many issues with prose and referencing for me to be comfortable retaining this as a GA. To take perhaps the most significant example, the Noted impalement artists section seems to be a directory of names, with little indication as to why they are notable. The inline citations often direct to the performer's own websites - this is not adequate in referencing terms, which requires non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources (and gives the unfortunate and unintended impression of spamlinking). This section should probably be drastically trimmed or removed altogether, with perhaps a few truly notable artists written about in well-referenced prose. My concern about inappropriate external links is a general one: the External links section could also do with a trim; per WP:LINKS, only links that further expand on content are really necessary. I see no reason to include a promotional link in the opening image caption either. I could go on, but I really don't want to contribute further to Circusandmagicfan's demoralisation. Please don't take these assessments personally - you've produced an interesting and informative article, but not GA standard yet. EyeSerenetalk 13:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Right -- for further advice, see Illegitimi non carborundum--Nemonoman (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I've often thought that should be on the front page. I think sourcing is going to be the biggest issue here, but if you'd like a prose copyedit from one of the illegitimi (in this case at least), and don't mind my often sporadic editing pattern, just shout ;) EyeSerenetalk 14:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Keep. Since the article improved considerably and a consensus has formed that it should remain in the GA list I am closing this discussion as Keep. Ruslik (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Massachusetts Institute of Technology - rather surprising to see that this is a GA. The article is very long, has quite a few cleanup banners, and has rather mediocre prose - as well as meeting the quick fail criteria it fails some of the real ones. giggy (:O) 03:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Overall, the article isn't horrible. It's stretching matters to call it very long. It needs wordsmithing and copyediting in places. The article's biggest problem is that two sections (Research accomplishments and Alumni) are woefully undersourced and may suffer from synthesis issues. Additionally, the History section is somewhat underdeveloped compared to most other university GA-class articles I've seen. With some work this article can be brought up to par. Majoreditor (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist, per nom. The prose is rather mediocre, several citation needed tags, cleanup banners, and there are several sentences with stats and/or demographics that need to be sourced. The article can be brought up to par, but delist for now unless someone is willing to work on it. Nikki311 19:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I've looked back through the article, and here are some more specific changes that need to be made, IMO: Nikki311 22:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In Challenges and controversies, every paragraph begins with "Article + date".
 Done Madcoverboy (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Almost every paragraph in every other section begins with MIT.
 Done Madcoverboy (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Small one or two sentence paragraphs need to be merged with surrounding paragraphs or expanded.
 Done Madcoverboy (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "MIT's on-campus nuclear reactor is the second largest university-based nuclear reactor in the United States." - needs a citation
 Done Madcoverboy (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The following stats need sources: "MIT enrolls more graduate students (approximately 6,000 in total) than undergraduates (approximately 4,000). In 2006, women constituted 44 percent of all undergraduates and 30 percent of graduate students. The same year, MIT students represented all 50 states, the District of Columbia, three U.S. Territories, and 113 foreign countries."
 Done Madcoverboy (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Quite a few of the references need to be properly formatted.
Not done Madcoverboy (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Doing... Madcoverboy (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm one of the more active editors on the article and probably responsible for writing the Research and Alumni sections over a year ago. For such a major university, I've been continually underwhelmed by the community and activity surrounding the article and its daughter pages -- so nothing has improved since my initial attempts. I've already put a lot of work into it so I won't be leading the charge to have it un-GAed, but several of the aforementioned concerns are valid. I believe there is only one cleanup banner in the alumni section owing to an editor's liberal interpretation of affiliation when calculating Nobel laureates, but this is apparently par for the course at Nobel laureates by university affiliation even though it is synthesis and/or citing WP as a source. Per the concern about page length, there have been extensive discussions about this and the consensus is there is no more than a few sentences here or there that would be removed because the article largely follows WP:UNI outline. If anyone would mind throwing up some fact tags and pointing out specific instances stilted prose, I'll try to address low-hanging fruit. I noted that someone blanked many of the recent controversies, so I reverted even though this section certainly warrants better integration. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I added quite a few fact tags to the sections in question. Hopefully some editors can pitch in and help. Majoreditor (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The remaining citations needed in the research accomplishments I don't believe need citations because I used easter-egg links showing the invention and linking to the scientist. I did this to keep it from becoming unwieldy, but each of these discoveries won the scientist a Nobel Prize. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks as if you and other editors have made some progress, Madcoverboy. I've removed the synthesized research tag from the Alumni section. The other issues I mentioned still need addressing but it's not hard to imagine that some dedicated editors can set matters right. Majoreditor (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I've gone through and thoroughly referenced everything in the Research accomplishments section as well as updating some data as well. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I skimmed the article and found it much improved. While I should give it a more careful re-reading, I'm leaning toward Keeping its GA listing. Majoreditor (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
All of the {{fact}} tags and banners are now gone. Majoreditor (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It is looking better, but there are still issues. Referencing formatting, length, prose. I suggest a delist unless someone is actively working on it (doesn't really look like it). —Giggy 08:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll get to it since it appears that no one else pays attention to this marginal school. Can you identify specific passages besides those already mentioned? Madcoverboy (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
      • The length issue is repeatedly raised, but 33kB and 5,041 words of readable prose, it is coming in well under the 50kB and 6-10k word recommendation. As of this July 14, 2008 revision, the article length breaks down thusly: File size - 297 kB, Prose size (including all HTML code) - 70 kB, References (including all HTML code) - 105 kB, Wiki text - 94 KB (13434 words), Prose size (text only) - 33 kB (5041 words) "readable prose size", References (text only) - 26 kB. The same analysis of any other university FA reveals articles similar or greater length. Please stop attempting to penalize this article for being well-referened and consider article length a settled issue. Regarding reference formatting, citation templates are thoroughly used though some cleanup in almost 200 may be necessary, but again this in of itself is not grounds for delisting. Otherwise, I have addressed the specific issues raised by User:Nikki311. I recommend that thie review be closed and GA status kept. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe this article should be a GA. I've been watching this article for about a year now and I think it is a good article within the specified parameters mentioned. Length of an article for a historic institution such as this one will undoubtedly run a little bit longer. Please refer to similar articles of universities of similar length of history. - Jameson L. Tai talkcontribs 23:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Spent a while looking over it again. I believe it is now GA quality. Well done. —Giggy 10:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Erm. I wanted to close this far-too-long-open GAR. As usual, I checked the article first to make sure it was okay, only to discover that the lead completely fails to summarize the article per WP:LEAD. For a well established article like this, such a failure usually indicates deeper problems (why doesn't an introduction summarize the article well?) and sure enough, there are quite a few.
The article contains a fair amount of OR (e.g. by synthesis), the last sentence of the lead being one example. Other examples include "Given the scale and reputation of MIT's research accomplishments, allegations of research misconduct or improprieties have received substantial press coverage." and "As MIT's school of architecture was the first in the United States,[90] it has a history of commissioning progressive, if stylistically inconsistent, buildings.[91]".
The History section does not summarize the main article per WP:SUMMARY, which is a WP:LAYOUT issue. Again, I'm not blandly quoting policies here: this failure has resulted in a mess. Whereas the (much better) History of MIT has a broadly chronological basis, the history section here has "Initial years and vision", "Expansion" and "Challenges and controversies". The last of these in particular has become a magnet for all criticism, with the rest of the article remaining largely laudatory. Should a History subsection serve this dubious role?
There are other weaknesses also. The Organization section relies on external links in a "See also". The Campus section mixes discussion of the architecture with the architecture school (this can be done, but it needs to be done well). The "Academics" and "Faculty and research" sections are not clearly delineated: why are collaborations with government, industry, Harvard, etc., discussed under "Academics", while "UROP" is discussed under "Faculty"? Finally, is the "Housing" section about architecture or student culture?
I am somewhat sympathetic with Madcoverboy here, in that an article which should have had greater attention has not received it, and reviews (including this one) have largely focused on superficial issues. Even though I agree with the point of view of the article, I'm not convinced it is neutral; this is largely the result of structural weaknesses. Apart from one subsection, the MIT publicity department might well be quite happy with this article. Wikipedia should not be so satisfied. Geometry guy 22:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Doing... I'm actually relieved to get this kind of feedback since I haven't been able to look at this article with new eyes since forever, so thank you for addressing some more substantive issues (not to demean previous criticism). I will try to address these concerns in the coming days. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I've made some substantial edits to MIT in response to this feedback, especially with regards to the lead and history. Can editors give it a once over to see if it's heading in the right direction? Madcoverboy (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It looks like it to me: both the lead and history section are getting better. One general comment on this edit: the point is not that there is undue weight in the article as a whole, but that the criticism is marginalized and inappropriately placed in the history. Just cutting back the criticism in the history section is not enough; it should be integrated into the article, so that balance is maintained throughout. The gender imbalance should be covered under Student Demographics and Faculty, not history. Tenure issues should be discussed under Faculty, and research misconduct should be discussed under, well, Research, as should technology transfer overseas. Student deaths and health could be discussed with FSILGs and student activities.
Regarding the lead, here are some specific comments.
"MIT is one of two private land-grant universities and is also a sea grant and space grant university." Is this explained in the article?
"...the university adopted the German university model..." Is this explained in the article?
"MIT researchers lead the efforts to develop computers, radar, and inertial guidance in connection with defense research during World War II and the Cold War." The two parts of this sentence are developed separately in the article under research and history. This seems a bit detailed as a summary of the history, and a bit selective as a summary of the research.
"In the past 60 years, MIT's educational programs and reputation have expanded beyond the physical sciences and engineering into social sciences like economics, linguistics, political science, and management." Is this developed in the article? It seems to be largely implicit.
One suggestion (not a GA requirement): try to reduce the number of citations needed in the lead, by using those citations elsewhere in the article, so that the lead simply summarizes material elsewhere. Geometry guy 20:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I made some more substantive edits in an attempt to address the concerns regarding the imbalance/over-concentration of criticisms in the history as well as introducing more content to fill out themes from the lead. I'm hesitant to reduce or strip the references out of the lead only because they serve as anchor refs for subsequent refs as well as dealing with the inevitable verifiability fundamentalists demanding a footnote for every sentence should this article ever go up for FAC. Keep the much-appreciated criticism coming or lets wrap this thing up so I can get back to History of Northwestern University (end shameless self-promotion :). Madcoverboy (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Good work. I've now cut the critical material from the history section: it doesn't need to be discussed twice. I've made quite a few other changes. Please check them to see if they make sense. One brief sentence about controversy/criticism in the lead would probably be a good idea for balance, but other than that, I'm ready to support keeping this article at long last. Geometry guy 19:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh one more thing: the MIT logo in the infobox needs a fair use rationale. Geometry guy 19:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Done. —Giggy 00:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
No, not done: the problem image is Image:MIT_logo.svg, not the seal, which had a rationale already. Geometry guy 08:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay now done, thanks! :-) I think I've justified the use of an SVG, and maybe examples like this will help to refine policy on the use of SVG logos. Geometry guy 17:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment OK, I just started reviewing some of the references and I noticed Reference 212, 216, and 217 are the same (possibly more). Might want to just give it a ref name and just refer to the same one three times instead. I'll have other comments probably later on. - Jameson L. Tai talkcontribs 04:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 Done Madcoverboy (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as GA. I believe this discussion can be closed: as far as I can see all issues have been addressed and the article is well on its way to FA quality. Many thanks to Madcoverboy for appreciating that even a minor Boston tech college deserves a good Wikipedia article :-) Geometry guy 17:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as GA Just in case it wasn't obvious before :) Madcoverboy (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Delist. The length has been improved considerably by a helpful spinout, but it is going to take some time to bring the article up to GA standards, with multiple issues remaining (e.g., WP:LEAD). In the meanwhile it can't be listed as a GA. Geometry guy 19:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm nominating this page because there are several citation needed tags, as well as cleanup banners asking for more references and a worldwide view of the subject. These sorts of banners usually lead to Good Article nominations being quickfailed, so I don't think they are appropriate for a Good Article. Nikki311 19:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ay! I had no idea this article was here. I'm in the middle of an FAC, and a huge project. If I work a little bit at it are y'all going to keep the article to a deadline? --Moni3 (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I can get to it today or tomorrow, Moni. Finally, a subject I know something about, if only as an amateur and not a professional :) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, what I need. A gay superhero. Thank you, Dank55! --Moni3 (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for bringing this to WP:GAR, Nikki, it's clear that there are some things that can be improved.
  • Moved See also endsection up, per WP:MOS and WP:Layout.
  • Added some links in the See also section. We may want to make an argument when this gets to WP:FAC to reduce the number of links, but at the WP:GAR level, it's more important to be clear about which things belong in which articles. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I grabbed some information from LGBT parenting concerning the European Union and Canada and removed the "not global" tag in the parenting section, but this section could use some work. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 10:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Regarding the short section on religion, I put this on the talk page:
I think an alien just landing from Mars would say, "Love and compassion, except when they have sex? Whaaaa?" But this position is both the official position and where many heads are at (or at least, where a lot of people say their heads are at...I can't quite make sense of it), and that's as good a way as any to report it in this article...if we try to make sense of it in one short section of this article, we'll get stuck in a quagmire.
  • That's generally true for this article; there are very many spinoff pages that treat specific topics in more depth, and those are the pages where the effort should be made to try to make sense of nonsensical things, when possible. There's a difficult balance on many of these issues between treating all people and positions with respect, and reporting them accurately, and WP:SPADE. I hope you guys won't delist this article over its cursory and apparently odd treatment of, for instance, religion...from long experience, I know that you just have to treat this stuff lightly and move on, unless you've got a lot of time on your hands. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know what to do with Homosexuality#Middle East, South and Central Asia. I changed the tag to "refimprove", since there was one citation in the section and I added another. I poked around in related articles, but couldn't find any sources that were online and that I felt comfortable with importing; the information might not be representative, for all I know. The tag asking for references had been there since April of last year; perhaps it's time to remove some of this material, either for being unreferenced or off-topic, but I'm uncomfortable removing material about other cultures and times just because I don't know anything about it and can't find out quickly. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I've left the "worldview" tag for now in Homosexuality#Sexual orientation and the law, because I'm not sure what people want to see in this section. There are two good articles on the subject given in the "See also" hatnote in this section, and certainly information could be pulled in from those articles, but when we have perfectly good articles devoted to the subject, I'm not personally a fan of copying a lot of information; my preference would be to make the section shorter rather than longer. Discussion? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I added two sentences to the lead, but more work is needed. There's a discussion on the talk page about keeping the first 3 paragraphs roughly as they are, and if we want to do that, that doesn't leave a lot of room for the kind of material that usually goes in the lead, a summary of the main points of the article. Again, I'm not happy about radical changes in an article like this without talking with a lot of people first about what they're looking for, and I don't have the time to devote to this. The folks in WP:GAY may have a better sense of what to do with the lead.
  • I didn't copyedit the article, because there's a lot of editing going on every day. Someone on the talk page said that meant the article is not "stable", the implication being it should be delisted, but I don't see why lots of activity is a bad thing. It just means that I should put off copyediting.
  • That's it for now; is there any particular section someone wants me to address? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I just wanted to add some bold font to the discussion in case any shy reviewers feel this is forbidden :-) I'll try to look at the article more closely soon and add more substantive comments if I have any. Geometry guy 23:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Bold font comment (;-)) the banner at the top stands out; something should be done about that if this is to be kept. Actually, the banners on the article generally cover well what will need to be done prior to my being able to vote keep. —Giggy 09:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Which, on reflection, makes my comment somewhat useful. So get to work! —Giggy 09:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment People have responded to these points on the talk page, but the editing is still very active and the article is still going in several directions at once. I'm not sure what you guys want to do on this page; anything would be fine with me, but I don't want to step in and insist that certain arguments on the talk page be settled one way or the other. I'll wait til things calm down a bit. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    I intend to comment at length shortly. Geometry guy 20:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. Tremendous work has gone into this article and it is a great resource for readers. However, it has a number of deep-rooted problems which convince me it must be delisted, restructured, worked upon, and renominated. One of the fundamental issues here is the fact mentioned above that the article is too long. Length per se is not a GA issue, but it usually reflects other problems. Basically, this article tries to do too much, which leads to issues with the broadness/focus, encyclopedic tone/neutrality, the lead, list incorporation, and so on. This deserves a long review. For an executive summary, a good place to start is the policy on lead sections.
    • "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." It could equally say "The lead serves both as an introduction to the topic, and a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article below." It is impossible to write a lead that does both unless the rest of the article is good. I suggest to those working on the article: write an article for which you could write a good lead.
I agree with the view on the talk page that homosexuality covers at least three aspects: same-sex attraction, same-sex relationships, and homosexual orientation, and that the last of these, like the first two, needs a separate article. Fixing this would change the article substantially and editors need the freedom to do this.
However, this is not the only substantial problem and so I will detail others below, which I sincerely hope will help in developing the article.
  • The current lead does not meet WP:LEAD at all. It discusses little more than etymology and usage, demographics, a touch of history, a couple of issues from society, and animals. Causality gets no mention, nor does art, literature, sex, religion, or even psychology. Instead the lead gets stuck on what homosexuality is and what it isn't. For instance, the last two sentences of the third paragraph ("In a narrow sense...") don't seem to be summarizing anything at all — a waste of precious lead space which no newspaper editor would tolerate :-) The lead is also quotation heavy.
  • An overview section should not be necessary in an article on a general topic like this. It seems to be trying to make up for the weak lead. Some of it (e.g. the first sentence) really belongs in the lead. The rest should be integrated into the rest of the article: a lot of it is history and psychology, which is not developed elsewhere.
  • The history section is very mixed. The whole labeling issue is irrelevant here and I suggest cutting it. The idea that homosexual behaviour did not exist before 1869 is as absurd as the idea that electrons did not exist before 1894. The argument over whether modern terms such as "gay" and "lesbian" make sense in a historical context can easily be avoided by not using them. Ironically, the rest of the section shows how prevalent homosexual behaviour has been throughout history. Indeed it may focus too much on prevalence at the expense of other historical aspects. There is also an underlying suggestion that homosexuality is a natural behaviour which was wiped out by Christian colonials; I am sympathetic to this viewpoint, but I still see it as a viewpoint. The sections on Africa, the Americas and the South pacific illustrate both these issues. There are also sourcing issues: several sections contain uncited opinion, not just the Middle East section, and even there, not just the tagged sentences. The Europe section develops a more rounded history, but still contains uncited opinion. (I realise that the Europe section is undoubtedly better due to the easy availability of source material.)
  • Beyond the history section, there are issues with global viewpoint. This is already present in the lead "trend towards acceptance" sentence. The religion section concentrates largely on U.S. issues connected with Christianity and Judaism, and the tag on the legal section is justified in my view.
  • There are several broadness issues. The demographics section only discusses prevalence, spending most of its energy on the difficulty in collecting demographics. There's a hint of gender differences, but nothing more. Possibilities include variations by region, ethnicity, social class and so on, although this section shouldn't be very long. I found no material on the teaching of homosexuality in schools, even though this is an issue that has generated controversy. Material on the psychology of homosexuality is also scattered and a bit patchy. The Prenatal subsection is extremely brief: it could at least mention the hormones involved (testosterone and estrogen, I believe, but this needs to be sourced) and the links with the lists in other subsections (finger-length ratios and so on).
  • More important, given the length of the article, are focus issues. Does Military Service really need a section unto itself? Some of it could be integrated into history, the rest into employment issues. We also get the Knights Templar story twice, on this occasion with unsourced presumption. The Causality section is rather long and the table in the Anthropology section suggests OR to me.
  • Some savings could be made by restructuring. I have two suggestions.
    1. The article really needs a "Biology and psychology" section in my view, incorporating the mental health, causality, malleability, pathology (this is the wrong word in a medical context!), and some bits of the history and overview. I don't think it is helpful to separate biological and non-biological causes, as many aspects of causality involve both, and the question of a genetic influence needs its own subsection. The causality material could be shortened (it is rather long with listy sections; also why does Peter Bearman deserve an explicit mention? - his views seem overrepresented in one subsection).
    2. A section on homosexual issues in the workplace might be a more efficient way to handle material about equal opportunities, workplace discrimination, modern military, and corporate attitudes.
  • The Law, politics and society section is too long with listy subsections. The restructuring above may help. The opening paragraphs editorialize twice, reflecting weaknesses in the lead. The law section is clearly listy and overlinked. The prejudice section is loaded and the term "scapegoat" is misused. The first example is the Knights Templar story; here homosexuality is not being used as a scapegoat, but as justification for an action with other motives. In the case of Nazi Germany, homosexuals were used as a scapegoat for the ills of society, but the article does not explain this; instead it concentrates on masculinity and racial issues. In the Politics section, all but the last two paragraphs are uncited, and the Parenting section presents no opposing views whatsoever: it deconstructs an issue without constructing it first.
  • The above and the examples below raise questions over neutrality and encyclopedic tone. A good rule of thumb is that in a neutral article one should not be able to guess the viewpoint of the editors. This article does not pass that test! The article on Freemasonry is one of my favourite examples of what not to do. Freemasonry is undoubtedly misrepresented and misunderstood. However, the solution is not to try to set the record straight, as "Freemasonry" does, but to present the reader with facts and information. The key phrases are "show, don't tell", and "let the reader decide". This approach is far more effective at communicating issues than telling readers what to think and criticizing prejudices.
  • There are prose issues related to this. The phrases "has stated that" and "put out a statement" are ugly and raise distrust: if the statements are out-of-date, provide a date. Per WP:WTA, "However" occurs 14 times, and "(al)though" occurs 11 times: some, but not all of these uses, need to be removed. Scare quotes should be avoided as far as possible. Also initials such as LGB and MSM are not defined, but, in my view, their use should be minimized; LGBT is a cultural construct, and is best used when discussing cultural issues, not, for example, medical ones.
  • Finally sexual practice. The article avoids this to a large extent, and that may be justified. The facts about numbers of sexual partners could be used to present a more neutral approach to stereotypes about promiscuity, i.e., rather than say "there's no basis for your views", say "your views are understandable because of X, but are an oversimplification because of Y". Regarding AIDs, I think the article has an obligation to mention that (receptive, unprotected) anal intercourse has a high transmission rate (which is hardly surprising). This not only gives a medical rather than a prejudiced (promiscuity/religious) explanation for the prevalence of AIDs amongst gay men, but also provides valuable health information.
Phew! This review took me nearly all day, and may take as long to read, but now I'm done. Geometry guy 17:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
PS. Given the length, please reply below, and leave this review self-contained. Thanks, Geometry guy 18:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Very nice work, and I've brought up and linked this discussion on the talk page. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Broad in coverage? There should be a section which explains religious views about Homosexuality.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
At present it has focused on Christianity and Judaism. I think it should expand to coverage other religions. --Seyyed(t-c) 16:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Delist. Issues raised by the reviewing editor have not been addressed, and the article does not meet the criteria. There is plenty to fix, and then the article can be renominated. Geometry guy 21:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

As a part of Good articles Sweep I reviewed this article and put it on hold. However nothing has been done. Now I don't know what to do: to delist or not. Please, review the article and express your opinion. Ruslik (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Delist. My biggest concern isn't the numerous citation problems. Nor is it the slapdash prose in the Criticism section. Nor the lead. No, the biggest problem is that the article barely scratches the surface of Google's core product: paid search advertising. Neither it nor the daughter article, List of Google Products, describe Google's advertising products and services. This shortcoming produces a Criteria 3-a failure. Majoreditor (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles, California[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: delisted. The article has lots of maintaince tags in it, many references lack author/publisher/year/date infromation. In addition, there has been no progress since this GAR began

This article has not been reviewed in any manner for over 2.5 years. There are areas which need significant improvement and sourcing, especially paragraphs in the history section, nearly all of the culture section, demographics (family, age, and wage data all unsourced), government, and transportation. I'm not calling for the article to be delisted at this moment, but rather would like to bring rather obvious problems to the community's attention. However, if some of these flagrant errors are not addressed, I do not believe the article continues to adhere to the GA criteria. Best, epicAdam (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Just my opinion, but this article doesn't meet WP:CITE in several sections. Either [citation needed] is used or there is simply no or few citations.
As big as LA is, I assume there are many reliable sources out there. Calebrw (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist, for the citation needed tags that have been left un-addressed. Nikki311 04:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist, primarily due to citation issues. The article sports more flags than the U.N. Building. While some of the citation flags are overkill, many of them are legitimate. There's been little progress to bring the article up to par. Majoreditor (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist, a lot of bare refs here. Many cite needed tags.--Loodog (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Delist. There's a lot of good work going into this article, with further expansion taking place, but GA issues remain, e.g. with the lead. This is a clear case where it is best to delist, allow improvements to stabilize, and then renominate at GAN. Geometry guy 20:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

it does not meet the following good article attributes.

It is not well written: (a) the prose is not clear. For example it says": "Hinduism is often presented as the "oldest religious tradition" among the world's major religious groups, or as "oldest living major tradition" in the lead section. Therefore creates confusion about Why is it said as "often presented"? Who is presenting it as such? Or is it only a few people are presenting it as such and others do not agree? Is there a controversy around this? This is complicating a simple sentence which could have been simply written as "Hinduism is one of the oldest living religious tradition"

(b) it does not comply with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation For example it has two of the following sentences in the lead section : Early forms of Vedic religion are seen not as an alternative to Hinduism, but as its earliest form and there is little justification for the divisions found in much western scholarly writing between Vedism, Brahmanism, and Hinduism.[4],[5] Historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India, is at its roots. This is a clear attempt to imply a POV and to introduce an unnecessary contradiction. It is not factually accurate and verifiable: For example : Other major scriptures include the Tantras, the sectarian Agamas, the Purāṇas, and the epics Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa. The Bhagavad Gītā, a treatise from the Mahābhārata, spoken by Krishna, is sometimes called a summary of the spiritual teachings of the Vedas.[14]

There is a implied POV that Tantras are more prominent than rest of the scriptures, which is incorrect. Bhagavad Gītā and Ramayana are the most prominent of other scriptures. In fact Tantras are not even considered holy and are vieved as notorious by most hindus because their purpose is for witchcraft and are used by a very small cults. It is given prominence over other major scriptures inorder to imply that Hinduism can be equated to witchcraft and fits into the Christian definition of Heathen religions. There are a lot of other similar inaccuracies which need to be corrected.

It is not broad in its coverage: (a) it does not addresses the main aspects of the topic properly because it appears to focus too much on Hindus and controversies surrounding Hindus rather than the theology of Hinduism (b) it does not stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail For example "Other countries with large Hindu populations include Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Mauritius, Fiji, Suriname, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom, Canada and the USA."

What does this have to do with the topic of Hinduism and how can this be justified in the lead section of Hinduism.

It is not neutral: it does not represent viewpoints fairly and without bias. For example it saysThe Grihastha Dharma recognize four goals known as the puruṣhārthas. They are:kāma: Sensual pleasure and enjoyment Artha: Material prosperity and success....

Please note that the tone and the way in which this is presented makes it look like the most important goal in Hinduism is "Sensual pleasure and enjoyment " followed by "Material prosperity and success" which is diagonally opposite of how Hindus interpret this important aspect of their religion. First of all the order and meaning of these goals are delibrately being misrepresented. In the Hindu sources the order and interpretation is as

  1. dharma - ethics,
  2. artha - securities,
  3. kama - pleasures,
  4. moksa - liberation.

One of the most respected Hindu saint Swami Dayanand Saraswati explains Purusartha’as following “Dharma occupies the first place in the four categories of human goals, because the pursuit of security, artha, and pleasures, kama, need to be governed by ethical standards. Artha, striving for security, comes second, because it is the foremost desire of everyone. Everyone is obedient under the doctor's scalpel precisely because everyone wants to live. Granted life, one then wants to be happy, to pursue pleasures, kama. I want to live and live happily; and both pursuits, the struggle for security and the search for pleasure, must be governed by ethics. The last category is the goal of liberation, moksa, ranked last because it becomes a direct pursuit only when one has realized the limitations inherent in the first three pursuits.[3].

Therefore this seems to be an implied POV with intent of bringing disrepute.

The article is not stable: it has changed a lot in recent times and lot of implied POV with malicious intent are added.

Please see the talk page of the article. Sindhian (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Note This was appended onto another reassessment, which I have fixed. So this page was created by me even though Sindhian is the editor seeking reassessment. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist: On stabliity criteria alone, this article fails GA. 2500 edits since April 2008, involving enormous changes to content and tone. The article many not be the site of an edit war, but the skirmishes are never ending. The text is a hodge-podge as result, full of sudden shifts of tone and substances, and crazy with POV writing and OR. I sadly vote for delist; this topic is so meaningful to so many who want to put in their 2 cents that careful and legitimate editing has been overwhelmed. My sincere sympathies to the caring editors who have been doing their best to maintain this important article. In its current state, however, no one could point to it as an example of a 'Good' wikipedia article. Typical, yes -- all too typical of high-emotion articles, but no longer Good. With regret, I vote 'delist'.
  • Delist. In amplification of the above, the article fails to meet WP:LEAD, e.g., the beliefs section is not covered. Geometry guy 23:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. As per above, beliefs not covered in the Lead. Sentences like Other countries with large Hindu populations include Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Mauritius, Fiji, Suriname, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States. are not at all necessary. Too. much emphasis on scriptures in the Lead. The lead doesn't prepare the reader. The reader will surely be confused. A lot of text is uncited in Pilgrimage and festivals and Conversion. All personal opinions in Conversion. Being a core topic on Wikipedia, this article fails GA criteria. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 14:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Australian Ringneck[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: No consensus. After several arguments, it became unclear whether to fix or condemn, and very few editors bothered to take up a position. Thus a borderline article languishes on the edge of being good, and is presumed so for now. At least, however, the article has improved during the process. Editors are welcome to reopen a new GAR if they have a clear case. Geometry guy 21:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Criteria 1a - Headings - conservation issues are in the "Taxonomy and naming" section.
  • Criteria 2a - There are relatively few citations in the "Description" section.
  • Criteria 3a - The calls of the parrots are not mentioned, relevant to the name of the Twenty Eight Parrot.
  • Criteria 6 - Not well illustrated, there are four subspecies (and intermediates) but only two images. Snowman (talk) 09:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Note previous GAR here
1a -you could move the text
2a - Agree
3a - Agree
6 Images not required at GA
Week keep subject to further comments jimfbleak (talk) 11:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Failing with criteria 6 (not well illustrated) is seen in the context that there are four subspecies that at one time were considered to be separate species, and the article has a whole paragraph of text describing differences between the subspecies. There are a range of photos on commons and suitable ones could be used to provide better illustration. Snowman (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I have raised problems with this article that were not raised or considered in the previous GAR, and I regard the comments in the old GAR as largely irrelevant to this new GAR. Snowman (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • If you agree that criteria 2a and 3a are not up to GA standard, then I do not understand your comment to keep this article as a good article. Snowman (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, the original GAN when the article gained GA status lasted less than 6 hours from 06:52, 15 May 2006 to 12:30, 15 May 2006 and no discussion took place. Snowman (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Its was review over 12 months ago why is the time an issue. Gnangarra 23:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I have seen the previous GAR and a there is a link to it above. Snowman (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • repsonses I'll work on he splitting the conservation out that easy,
criteria 6 says It is illustrated, if possible, by images:, if possible the available images on commons are of two species only.
2a How many citations do you want?
3a it explains the naming of twenty eight in relation to its call, what else is required?
Can you explain what your looking for with the rest of it Gnangarra 23:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
2a - You are correct about the name of "Twenty eight" being in the article - my mistake. But 2a is still a problem because it is light on other details, such as; calls of other subspecies, number of eggs in a nest, pair bonding, predators, threats (besides the Rainbow Lorikeet), and their longevity. Snowman (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
3a - Depends on the sources; if it is all in one source, then one ref is enough. I find the description section not easy to read. Also, the Forshaw reference should have a page number or chapter to make verifiability easier.
6 - Commons uses the old classification and has two species, so this is a bit confusing. There are images in both of these species categories on commons. Some of the images on commons show the red on the front of its head much better than the images on the page. I am not exactly sure, but there may be images of two subspecies as well as the intermediate in the infobox. Snowman (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Criteria 1a - There appears to be an internal contradiction or it is due bad wording: "all of which have been described as distinct species in the past" (the section on Taxonomy and naming indicates four former species were recognised) differs from "Traditionally, two species were recognised in the genus Barnardius" (in the introduction). Snowman (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I have added a "Conservation status" section as suggested above. I feel the resulting section could be expanded - quantitative indication of population numbers, the extent and dates of the invasion of the Rainbow Lorikeets. Snowman (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd say that you wouldn't need many references in the description section - any good field book has a pretty full description of birds. I've added one of mine. It treats the Mallee Ringneck and the Port Lincoln Parrot as separate species within a "Ringneck complex", and treats the Conclurry Parrot and the Twenty Eight as subspecies of the Mallee and the PLP respectively. Otherwise, the descriptions are pretty on the mark. -Malkinann (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. Can the field guide also be used for references for the ranges of the subspecies? Snowman (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
It does have map splodges for the Mallee Ringneck and the Cloncurry Parrot, but the Twenty-eight and PLP's ranges are conflated. I'm a bit iffy about my ability to adequately translate the splodges to a description of their actual ranges, though. The splodges were taken from the contemporary ROAU atlas. -Malkinann (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Criteria 3a - Aviculture is not mentioned. Snowman (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I've begun a section on "In captivity", which seems to be the accepted name. I'd appreciate some help expanding and copyediting it. -Malkinann (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Some of the reference in the "In captivity" section are from 1997, and so I think that the information sourced might be out-of-date. Snowman (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about that - legislation rarely changes, and the bit about the bird being traded worldwide is also supported by the CITES bulletin of 2002. The bird being traded domestically is also suggested by the SA information from 2003. I can't find an update on the 1997 stuff, so I'm assuming it's still current. -Malkinann (talk) 05:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Very clearly, images not required at GA. Will look at other details now. Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 04:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Changed my mind; this GAR should be closed. I'll let someone else do it 'cause I was involved in the past GAR and got a barnstar for it. Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 04:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. I merged stubby subsections. In addition I think 'Conservation status' and 'In captivity' should be merged as they are about the same topic: threats to this bird species. Please, pay attention to the refs: some of them are bare titles. The refs should have publisher, auther, dates and other relevant information. The tags should be also dealt with before I can say Keep. Ruslik (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. This drawn out reassessment is a bit of a mess, as is the article. This is probably a case where delisting and renominating would be the best idea. Geometry guy 20:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I believe this should be closed as being "no consensus" - all comments on the state of the article (which have been mixed) are significantly outdated when compared to the current version of the article. -Malkinann (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
That's certainly an option. If there is sufficient interest (Nikki has now also commented below) perhaps we could do a restart (close as "no consensus" and open a fresh reassessment). Geometry guy 19:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, I'm late to this GAR, but I did notice something: "it has been placed in that genus by some authorities." - This is way too vague. Which authorities? Nikki311 19:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Horses in warfare[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Kept- Reasons for putting the article up for review were sourcing, citation, and MoS issues that have been resolved over a month-long revision process. Article now meets standards to maintain GA status. -epicAdam (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I have reviewed this article as part of GA Sweeps and had a few problems with it as listed at Talk:Horses in warfare/GA1. Most are pretty minor but some are more serious. Given the size of the article, its importance and the nature of what I perceive to be its problems I would prefer to obtain community consensus on this article before making a decision on it. My personal feelings are that it would probably only take a small amount of cleaning up for this to be a GA but I am interested in other people's views on the subject.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Delist: There are a number of sections and paragraphs that require citations (there are even some maintenance tags on the page)... I just went through and edited the article to take care of some basic WP:MoS issues. Further, the web citations provided are formatting improperly.

I just ran this semi-automated javascript programthat has some additional items that could be considered beside the problems you mentioned:

  • You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • arguably
    • are considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”

There are also other problems that I have listed below:

  • Reorder the sections to present the history of horses in warfare first. A history of the subject is almost always provided first so that readers can gain a background before delving into technical details like horse size, breeds, and training.
  • "800 to 1000 pounds (400 to 500 kg)" What??? 1kg does not equal 2lbs!
  • Does measuring horse height in hands add to the article? Just because its a customary unit of measurement for horses does not mean that it's appropriate to use it in an encyclopedia. I would mention that "hands" is a customary unit equal to yadda, yadda, yadda... at the first instances, but then use standardized units (feet/meters) for the rest of the article.
  • The article also has "pseudo information", i.e. text that's not necessarily false, but typically uninformative (like filler). Often times the information is met with a "Tell me something I didn't know." Even worse than that is having uncited pseudo information. For exmaple:
    • Conversely, a warrior or soldier also required some degree of protection from enemy weapons, and an overemphasis on light equipment could easily prove fatal in some situations.
    • Weight carried affects both speed and endurance.
    • Other Equids: the entire section is great for articles on donkeys and mules, but it goes too far off topic here. Unless there is some type of magnificent war donkey, which I would definitely be interested in.
    • The details on various methods of training horses, and war horses in particular, vary as much as the cultures and historical periods that produced them.
    • In addition, some war horses were trained for specialized uses. A horse used in close combat may have been taught, or at least permitted, to kick, strike and even bite, thus becoming weapons in the extended arsenal of the warriors they carried. Other horses, used for raids or reconnaissance, were taught to remain quiet at all times, to avoid whinnying to other horses or otherwise betraying their presence.
    • Periodically great leaders or changing conditions would organize several tribes into to one force, and create an almost unstoppable power.
    • It is most likely that the decline of the knight was brought about by changing structures of armies and various economic factors, rather an obsolescence caused by new technology. By the sixteenth century, the concept of a combined-arms professional army first developed by the Swiss had spread throughout Europe, and was accompanied by improved infantry tactics.[61] These professional armies placed an emphasis on training and paid contracts, rather than the ransom and pillaging which reimbursed knights in the past. This situation, when coupled with the rising costs involved in outfitting and maintaining knights’ armour and horses, probably led many members of the traditional knightly classes to abandon their profession.[62] (This isn't an article on knights. Unless this article is trying to make the point that horses somehow aided to their decline)
    • Horses are trained to be able to reenact historical battle scenes today. Examples include the Battle of Hastings reenactment and assorted American Civil War reenactments. Due to changes between ancient and modern horses, equipment and materials, it is sometimes difficult to create reenactments that are fully authentic with original equipment and horse phenotypes of the represented time. However, to the greatest extent possible, many reenactors attempt to accurately reflect details of equipment, training, weaponry and battlefield conditions.
    • Equestrian competition by definition this doesn't belong in an article on warfare; even the reenactments are a stretch.
  • Don't just leave things at "though this claim is disputed." Explain why it's disputed, and by whom.

I am going to add maintenance tags in areas that need help. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Best, epicAdam (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep: The article has undergone vast improvement. MoS, sources and prose look good and should keep its GA status. Best, epicAdam (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

KEEP At least, don't panic and give us a couple weeks (not a couple DAYS) to get this tuned up. None of these problems are major, however, please be aware that the GA team at Wikiproject Equine is busy and we would appreciate your patience. At least two people who have helped extensively with this page are on vacation, one internationally. To answer a couple of your questions:

  1. 1 There is no real infobox for the project, though I did add the Equidae template to the bottom, if that works.
  2. 2 Horses are always measured in hands in English-speaking countries, it's a term of art.
  3. 3 Some of the comments on relevance of content do point out some fill, but other material is in there because it is of historic significance (say "war horse" and most people think of Knights, the original article was exclusively about the knight's horse and expanded from there. We can work on making it read better, but this is by its nature a long article and many other GA articles are just as long, if not more so.
  4. 4 We can tune up the footnotes, but this may take some time, as one of the people with the hardcopy books is the one who is out of the country.

I certainly appreciate constructive criticism, but keep in mind that this article is maintained by some experienced editors, and though the GA standard appears to have tightened up, the article easily passed when it was nominated the first time. So give us a chance to fix it. Montanabw(talk) 03:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Response Hi Montanabw. I apologize that you feel like the article (and the editors who work on it) are being attacked by a slew of reviews. I just wanted to dissuade your fears of "Horses in warfare" being immediately delisted. A request was made at WP:GAR for a community review, to determine whether or not an article at present continues to meet GA standards; I felt that "Horses in warfare" did not. However, as per all community GA reassessments, no action is taken on an article until a consensus is reached and the primary editors have a chance to both respond and correct any flaws with the article. This process can often take weeks to complete, so there's no worry about the article being immediately delisted. To respond to some of the points you raised:
  • Simply because there is a customary unit of measurement does not mean that it's appropriate for an encyclopedia. The entire point of providing the information is so that people unfamiliar with a topic can understand it; hence why it was recommended that the use of "hands" be explained as a primary method of measuring horses, but then stick with units more familiar to readers for the rest of the article. However, again, this is only a recommendation. I am unaware of any WP:consensus on the issue. If there isn't, then it may be a good time to propose that a consensus be found.
  • I am not at all worried about the length of the article; in fact, I think it's a good size. However, as far as achieving good (not professional) prose, there are many redundancies in the text, which make the article difficult to read; a situation of which I'm sure you are aware.
  • Editors with sources: that's fine. Like I said, there's really no rush. Nobody wants to delist articles; that's not the point of the entire GA system. But, until User:Jackyd101's GAR recommendation, there had been relatively little work done on the article at all. Think about a GAR more as a method by which to bring attention to an article, as opposed to an all-out assault. :-)
If you have any other questions, or would like additional help with the article, please let me know and I'll see what I can do. Best, epicAdam (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Some answers to the assorted questions raised, whoever raised them:

  1. Horses are measured in hands. That's an absolute. And it is wikilinked (though we can wikilink it more, certainly) We are not going to change over 1,500 horse articles on this. There are other things with odd measuring systems, the nautical mile, the troy ounce, etc., though there is certainly no objection to someone adding conversions as well if someone wants to do this. (A hand (length) is 4 inches and then one-inch increments. i.e a horse that is 15 hands is 60 inches at the withers, a horse that is 15.1 is 61 inches, 15.2 = 62 inches, 16 hands = 64 inches, etc.)
  2. Any other inaccurate conversion stuff can be fixed, obviously (Bad lb to kg stuff, for example, isn't there a template for this??)
  3. Reordering sections is up for discussion. The current version was intended to first provide an overview to make the rest (i.e. the history) make sense by providing a set of parameters and basic principles more or less common to all eras (i.e. form to function, for example, or when/why did the saddle start to matter?) Beyond that, it is pretty much ALL history after than, starting with antiquity and coming up to the present day. There may be an improved way to rearrange things, but this is an article where blind adherence to a set template is not necessarily the solution
  4. The table of contents seems suited to the length of the article, redundant things can be combined, but good subsections make it much easier to find material. I really don't see a huge problem with this.
  5. I see no reason to respond to a cut and paste template of suggestions not customized to the issues with this specific article. Some apparent "weasel words" simply reflect that a situation (such as the debate over the size of the knight's horse) are discussed in extensive detail in a footnote or at a wikilinked article. One must choose between a who/what/when discussion that becomes irrelevant and endless when one is also complaining that the article is too long. Make up your mind which problem you want to fix, eh, don't just apply rules out of context.
  6. I am cool with fixing redundancies. However, finding them is an issue - when you see an article too much, you know how one's eyes can blur. It WOULD be very helpful if you could create a separate section on the article talk page and give a short list that we can use strikeout on as we fix them, or discuss if they are a problem.
  7. Feel free to slap on the fact tags, but be aware that some sections have a source at the end of the paragraph that covers the entire paragraph. I never know quite how to handle those -- do we REALLY need five footnotes to the same page of a book in one para???
  8. I am not sure who put in all the suggestions as to what's relevant and what's not. There was a stable consensus on this for quite some time and I for one am reluctant to throw out a lot of material that does not in fact have much in other articles. For example, modern competition at the Olympic level is ALL derived from warfare. Equestrian at the Summer Olympics points out that civilians weren't even allowed to compete in the Olympics in Equestrian competition until the 50's. That's quite relevant. Historic reenactments may not be warfare, but they educate people about how horses were used in warfare (at least the better ones do). That's relevant.
  9. Calling material pseudo-information" is a but much. Just slap on fact tags.
  10. The material on medieval knights was already cut down a ton and transferred into Horses in the Middle Ages, but this was the core of the original article and most certainly relevant
  11. Mules and donkeys won many a war by preserving the supply line. So are you saying that supply isn't part of "warfare"? Ah, but the folks who wanted this material added were quite vehement that they were...and consensus of the time agreed.
  12. There is some stuff in the South Asia section that needs work. It does need to somehow be saved, though, as it helps provide a worldwide perspective to the article. I wish we had more on the Mongols, too.

Hope this helps! Montanabw(talk) 18:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - just note that I am actively working on updating references, etc. The web references have been cleaned up, and I'm slowly working through the sourcing issues. After those are taken care of we'll work on weasel terms, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the article has a new lead, which is much longer. Much of the missing citations are in now. Dodgy refs are gone (we're still waiting on a few page numbers, but nothing spectacular.) Some expansion of topics covered has taken place, but we're still good with 42K of readable prose. Considering the scope of the subject, that's not bad at all. Just updating on progress. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
So can we keep GA status, now, pretty please?? Montanabw(talk) 01:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION: We have, for the most part, completed the re-edit of this article and would appreciate it if all who weighted in here will please comment and close this reassessment. Several editors, Dana in particular, have worked VERY hard on this update and it would be nice to get this article out of limbo. Can someone please explain how we can wrap this up now? Thank you. Montanabw(talk) 01:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

And if a vote is needed, I vote KEEP. Montanabw(talk) 01:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

GoldenEye 007[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Delist naerii 16:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Consensus appears to be to delist, the article has had little work done to it, for example the lead is still sparse. naerii 16:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated this article to GAR because there are three "citation needed" tags. David Pro (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not a good reason for GAR. Take it to the talk page. --haha169 (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that there is still reason for it to need reassessment. The easter eggs section is starting to read like a trivia section, which indicates that there may be more edits that were made between now and when it was last reviewed that have gone unchecked. It has been almost a year since the last time it was formally reviewed, and the last peer review seems to address only general problems instead of article-specific problems. I think that a reassessment would benefit this article. — OranL (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, the lead is also not up to par. It is far too short for an article of this size and doesn't adequately summarize. Nikki311 04:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • Lead, as noted above, is not long enough (needs information on reception, et al.) and should not have citations.
    • Gameplay doesn't adequately introduce readers to the game, and is too focused on minutae (i.e., easter eggs.)
    • Citations, in addition to those already marked, should be added for some dubious claims.
    • "All Bonds" section suffers from undue weight. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist - the article needs many things to fix. David Pro (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. The article is not well written. It focuses too much on trivia and doesn't really explain the game adequately at all. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. Failure to meet WP:LEAD is particularly clear. Geometry guy 23:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I lean toward delist. There's no one major problem; rather, there are numerous low-level issues. The lead isn't terrible but could be better developed so that it provides a more complete encapsulation of the article. The prose is often cluncky and some paragraphs are stubby. The article also contains a small number of {{fact}} tags. Majoreditor (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Nastia Liukin[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Article listed. Clear consensus shown by all comments being in favor of listing. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Reviewer has agreed that everything in the article is in good shape. Everything is cited, everything is formatted, there are illustrations, it's NPOV. However, it has been claimed that the article does not meet stability requirements, resulting in the fail, because it is protected from IP vandalism and because the subject is involved in a current news event.

  1. IP protection is not, and should not, listed as a criterion to fail GA. The article is protected so it will remain stable, and because the subject is a visible sports figure who attracts a lot of media attention, and, thus, a lot of visits to her Wiki page. I note that many current GA and FA articles need to be protected for the same reason.
  2. Many BLP subjects are involved in current events, and will need their pages updated from time to time. Again, not a reason to fail.
  3. No edit war has happened; there's simply been a surge of vandalism that has been caught and corrected immediately.
  4. The original agreement was to wait until the end of the Olympics to pass/fail this; the reviewer has changed his or her mind for some reason.

I very much thank the reviewer for the input and help they've given. However, there's no reason this should fail GA, especially for the given reasons. DanielEng (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

  • List. I really think this has been failed due to a failure to read, or a misinterpretation of, the good article criteria.
  • "5: Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. <footnote>(Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.)<footnote>
  • As such, this hasn't been failed under any vaild criterion. BLPs will constantly evolve, that is part of their nature and is a product of the wiki model. In terms of semi-protection, numerous BLP FAs are semi-protected, see Barack Obama, for a GA example see Hilary Rodham Clinton. This should be listed as it passes the Good article criteria. Woody (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

List. Stability is a measure of the degree to which there are legitimate disputes over an article's content. An evolving current event in which an article has to be updated often does not count as instability. Also, repeated vandalism that prompts protection status of an article does not count as instability, as vandalism is not a legitimate dispute (i.e. edit war) over content. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  • List per above. -MBK004 01:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • List per above. no content dispute.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • List. There have been fifteen edits in the last two and a half days and no signs of edit warring or structural instability. Majoreditor (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Alicia Sacramone[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Article listed. Clear consensus shown by all comments being in favor of listing. The issue was the exact same one as in the Nastia Liukin GAR. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This article was failed for GA by the same editor who failed the Nastia Liukin article, for the same reason: it was claimed that it was not stable. The editor had originally agreed to wait until the end of the Olympics to assess the article and then went back on his or her word, with no warning. The rationale here was a NPOV tag which was added by IP vandals, and was taken away by registered editors as soon as it was found. The editor admitted s/he hadn't even read through the most recent copyedits before failing the GA.

This article should not have failed GA. I would like for it to be reassessed. I would also appreciate it if perhaps someone could ask the assessing editor about what s/he is doing--it seems as if s/he is constantly misreading the GA criteria and failing good articles as a result. DanielEng (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

LaRouche conspiracy trials[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Renominate for GA. The article was promoted by a user editing in violation of a community ban, and therefore never has been properly considered for promtion. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The article was passed GA by a confirmed sockpuppet. Other editors have expressed concerns that this article, as it stands, has deficiencies which should have held it back from GA. The implicit accusation is that GA was passed inappropriately and should be revoked pending improvements. Jclemens (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This article was never reviewed for GA. No one signed up to review it. There is no past GA review. It was promoted by removing it from the nomination page and placing GA passed code on the talk page. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, the banned user did post what was purported to be a review on the article's talk page. I agree that no one ever signed up on the GAN page. Speaking only for myself, I have no strong feeling about whether the article is reassessed here, or placed back in the nominations queue. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
A real GA review is not posted on the talk page but is transcluded on to the talk page from its own review page with the {{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}} template. For example, {{Talk:Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument/GA1}} is a current review page —Mattisse (Talk) 19:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, which which why I phrased that as I did. Although, the subpage's use on all GA reviews is a recent development. Do you feel the more appropriate course is relisting? I have no problem with closing this and getting Will Beback to re-nominate. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
My first instinct would be to simply relist it, since it really has not had a real GA review. Take the GA off the talk page and proceed as you were going to do when it was originally listed for GA. It has never actually been a GA so GAR doesn't fit. But I am not familiar with all the ways of GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Taking this back to the talk page :) Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Jurassic Park (franchise)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Consensus was to delist, issues not addressed. Malkinann (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The article has numerous references tags, and I believe certain sections such as the critical reception and development sections could be expanded to give a more in-depth view of the entire film series. The development section is especially important in a film series article. See the Halloween franchise for an example of this. The critical reception could have individual critic's opinions of the films and compare it to the others. I also belive the article could use a copy edit.--EclipseSSD (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Too many requests for citation, and I agree with the need for a copyedit throughout. Parts don't even seem to make sense to me:
  • "Before the book was published, Crichton put up a non-negotiable fee for $1.5 million as well as a substantial percentage of the gross. Warner Bros. and Tim Burton, Columbia Tristar and Richard Donner, and 20th Century Fox and Joe Dante also bid for the rights,[2] Universal further paid Crichton $500,000 to adapt his own novel,[3] but Universal eventually acquired them in May 1990 for Spielberg." Apart from the fact that it's poorly written, it seems to be saying that Crichton paid someone $1.5 million before he'd even had his book published?
  • "Many rumors have surrounded the project since it was first reported, many surrounding plot and script ideas, and new logos." Surrounding the surrounded?
  • "Spielberg himself told him that he would direct the sequel, if one would ever occur." Sequels occur?
  • The Reception section needs to be fleshed out.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Delist. A lot of work is needed to bring this to GA standard. The lead is a disaster; even the first sentence is disastrous. Deep copyediting (aka a complete rewrite) is essential for many sections. After the opening sentence, the last paragraph of the lead would be a second example. For a third, how about "Michael Crichton originally conceived a screenplay around a pterodactyl being cloned from fossil DNA." – that's poor sentence order and no punctuation. Here is one interpretation: After being cloned from a fossil, Michael Crichton's first pregnancy was a screenplay caused by walking around a pterodactyl.
Plentiful "very successful"s need to be more specific and reliably sourced.
The dinosaurs table is not a good way to present this information (the cast table is only just bearable). The continuity section is listy. Critical reception by table is unacceptable for the same reason. The video games section seems no better, with the unsourced and unreadable "There was also a game available on the Microsoft Xbox console and also the Playstation 2 as well as the PC called Jurassic Park: Operation Genesis where the goal of the game was to create and manage their own version of Jurassic Park, in a manner somewhat similar to the Zoo Tycoon games." Geometry guy 21:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. It's not even close to GA standards. The article suffers from weak prose, as highlighted by MF and GG above. There are stubby sections and too many poorly-crafted embedded lists. Further, several sections are under-referenced and underdeveloped. Majoreditor (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. Wow, a whole lot of {{fact}}s. It also contains a lot of trivia, section-stubs like "Comic series," etc. -- King of ♠ 19:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Milton Friedman[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Keep listed as good article. Patrick (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have requested a reassessment of the good article status due to the severe lack of neutrality. Similarly, I have also flagged the article itself to dispute its neutrality. This article reads as a hagiography and only mentions criticisms and failures of Friedman's ideas in passing. Paul Krugman's criticisms are dismissed as if he is a lone quack.

There definitely should be more information about the application of Friedman's free market principles, by his disciples (the Chicago boys), in South America (Argentina, Chile, Bolivia), and the catastrophic effects they had on the economies of that region. Friedman's tacic support of brutal dictators such as Pinocet to advance his theories should also recieve attention. Naomi Klein's recent book "The Shock Doctrine" provides ample specifics and references. Historical evidence that refutes Friedman's theories should also be added (eg deregulation debacles like Enron; environmental, legal, and labor abuses following privitization of national industries; historical failures of tax cuts to stimulate economic growth (low taxes preceded the great depression, and have often preceded drops in unemployment in the US); the association between freer market policies and greater income inequality in the US, etc... Jdstany (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment I would expect that the biography of a Nobel Prize-winner would be much more positive than negative. Thus, the relevance of neutrality should be judged in this context. The depth of the article is more than sufficient for a WP:GA, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment I don't think that a Nobel Prize should grant its winner limitless immunity from valid criticism; Yasser Arafat and Henry Kissenger, for example, are both Nobel Prize winners who are regularly and strongly critised in mainstream conversation. Milton Friedman is known for his ideas, and the consequences of his ideas are therefore part of his legacy. Just as Marx has been rightfully demonized for the consequences of communism, Friedman should not get a pass on the consequences of his ideas simply because he won a prize or because he never fired a shot or implemented a policy. Ultimately, the application of Friedman's principles has destroyed economies throughout the world (particularly South America); Friedman-inspired privitation and deregulation has nearly always resulted in total disaster; and here in the US, Friedman's ideas are directly responsible for rising government debt, rising income inequality, increased poverty, and weakened social support systems. Saying that Friedman is all good because he won a Nobel Prize, or because Reagan and Bush like him, is an inadequate defense. The depth of the article may be adequate, but the failure to legitimately address any criticsm or failure of Friedman and his ideas indicates that the breath of the article is far from aqequate. Jdstany (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I have asked you twice on your userpage to make the proper notifications and denote it above. Please give some sort of response.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry about that. I'm new to contributing and I wasn't aware of the protocol. I'll send out the notifications ASAP. Thanks for letting me know. Jdstany (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's worth repeating the process, but for things like this it's very helpful to include a link to this discussion in your message. CRETOG8(t/c) 03:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Have you notified any of the projects yet?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article could certainly do a better job presenting critical views. For example, a short (1-2 sentence) encapsulation of criticism in the lead would enhance the article. However, it's hyperbole to say that the article suffers from a "severe lack of neutrality." Majoreditor (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article passes GA criteria, but I agree with Majoreditor that it needs some work. --Patrick (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've engaged in some of the POV-conflicts on the Friedman page, and I do still think it could use POV improvement. In spite of that, I do think it's a very good article. CRETOG8(t/c) 05:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am not a friend of criticism sections, neither on the Friedman nor the, say Chomsky entry. The article should stick to the facts, present the main ideas, and if the person was controversial, that should be mentioned, too, and in fact is, in the article. Of course one could add more criticism, but then, one could also add more praise, and ultimately that will open a Pandora's box as for some Milton Friedman is a saviour, and for some, see above, his ideas are responsible for almost everything bad in the world today. Also, I don't think that anything more than a passing mention of Naomi Klein is not appropriate. Just because she is popular today, does not make her criticism notable. Better to include criticism of contemporary figures, such as Orlando Letelier, which is much more relavant to the article. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 05:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep no valid reason seems to have been presented to delist, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep listed Article needs POV improvements (and some aesthetic improvements) for FAC, but it is fine for a GA. Protonk (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Lou Gehrig[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: No consensus to list. Suggest renomination. Geometry guy 11:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to request community review of this recent GAN. It was failed, in part due to confusion about the reviewer's asking for a second opinion. See my comment at GAN/talk. As the article seems to be fully sourced and otherwise comply with MOS and use of images, etc., the wider community's assessment would be helpful especially as the prose question raised by the reviewer was unresolved. Using WP:FACR as a measuring stick, I believe the article's prose is "engaging and professional", as well as presenting the content comprehensively, factually accurate, and reliably sourced. JGHowes talk - 19:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. I don't think this article is ready, and I agree with the decision not to list it. I do not share the nominator's view that the prose is "engaging and professional", but more importantly, I do not agree that it adequately meets the far less stringent GA criteria.
  • "... including a 450-foot (137 m) blast on April 28". Blast doesn't seem like appropriately formal language.
  • The first three sentences of the fourth paragraph of Major League Baseball career all start off with "Gehrig ...".
  • Too much peacockery, like "... Al Simmons made an amazing leaping catch ...". Amazing to who? Me?
  • "On June 1 1925, Gehrig was sent in to pinch hit for light-hitting shortstop Paul "Pee Wee" Wanninger." Too many statements like that one, which mean almost nothing to someone like myself who isn't familiar with the sport's jargon.
  • "Gehrig accumulated 1,995 RBIs in seventeen seasons ...". RBI needs to be explained in this article, instead of forcing the reader to follow a link.
  • ... chiefly remembered for his prowess as a slugger ...". Is slugger an official baseball term?
  • "Earl Whitehall beaned Gehrig, knocking him nearly unconscious". Beaned might be OK for a sports page, but not for an encyclopedia.
  • The list following: "Late in life, X-rays disclosed that Gehrig had sustained several fractures during his playing career" does not appear to have anything to do with any fractures.
  • Shouldn't use pullout quotes ( {{cquote}} ) in the body of the article.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks very much for looking this over. I've gone through the article and corrected the points you raised. JGHowes talk - 04:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to speak to the confusion regarding the second opinion request, the reviewer requested a second opinion because there were a lot of statistics given in the article and a lot of focus was given to the sentimental aspects of Gehrig's diesase and death. I looked through the article and replied in the review section that there didn't seem to be too many statistics (certainly not more than some of the other baseball articles I have read) and that the article captures how Gehrig is remembered. I said that I didn't believe that either of the concerns were serious enough to prevent the article from reaching GA level. The reviewer was satisfied with that answer, and the request for a second opinion was removed, as one had been provided. I am not sure where the confusion came in. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I concur with the decision not to list the article in its present form. Malleus has summarised the major issues very well; the presence of so much jargon, idiom and so many statistics render it meaningless to some one unfamiliar with the sport, and the article comes across as a tribute to, rather than an encyclopedic treatment of, its subject. In addition to the above, the tables towards the end are confusing, the stamp image has no caption and is seemingly irrelevant (the related text is nearby), and the notes section would be better divided into Notes and References, with perhaps a parenthetical referencing system for the books cited. EyeSerenetalk 18:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Renominate. I agree with some of the above issues, but I think it is a pretty good article, and comes close to meeting the criteria now. I recommend renomination and will close this reassessment, which has been unattended for far too long. Geometry guy 11:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

John Marshall Harlan II[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Keep. This was effectively an individual reassessment and the issues raised were fixed. Geometry guy 11:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Notified: WP:WPBIO, WP:ILLINOIS, WP:CHICAGO, WP:LAW, Lord Emsworth (inactive leading editor), Ruslik0 (2nd leading editor)

Upon review of the article history at Talk:John Marshall Harlan II this article was not properly nominated and passed. However, the article has previously survived a WP:GAR nomination and is outside of my area of expertise, so I did not delist it myself. The article is very poorly cited.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. The article actually contains lots of case citations, which, in my opinion, enough for the jurisprudence section. To solve the problem with some {{cn}} tags, it is necessary to convert some refs in Additional reading section into inline citations. Ruslik (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I like this idea. Ruslik (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I think now the article is properly cited. Ruslik (talk) 10:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I saw at least three cases where the {{ussc}} template was not used. I think each case should have this template if you don't want to go with inline footnote citations. Great work otherwise though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 Done. Ruslik (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Keep I think this now is pretty much up to standard. I am not sure whether law articles should have the {{ussc}} template inside <Ref></ref> tags. If anyone else has an opinion on this matter that would be useful. I am pleased to see everything tagged with the template. Now, everything is verifyable for the reader with WP:RSs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Wait a second Brown (maybe because it is the second reference of this case), Adderley v. Florida (1966), Carrington v. Rash (1965) still not converted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think I cited all cases. Can not find anything uncited. Ruslik (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep Thanks for helping. Now a reader can really verify things.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I would still appreciate an opinion on whether some of the template case citations should be in ref tags.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
They can be, but I don't think it is necessry in this article. Ruslik (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Winston Churchill[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Speedy Keep. This article meets GA criteria and the nomination offers no legitimate reason to de-list. Majoreditor (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC). }

The article is heavily skewed with Britonic POV. Most of the Churchill's life was concentrated orientally and he was quite a egoistic person weak in understanding the oldest civilization and craved on his dominating mentality with motives like Divide and Rule. He was the only person in the history to have opposed Mahatma Gandhi throughout his life and made disastrous moves althrough ultimately resulting in partition of nation sitting in the other part of the world.

Recently Nobel committee admitted Gandhi missed Nobel on 5 occassions and it becomes obvious who was behind Nobel committee and what is the real value of that so called honour.

  • Speedy Keep. The nomination to delist doesn't state a valid reason why the article should be de-listed. Please see the Good Article criteria for details. Let's be frank, this is a pointy nomination. Please try to settle content disputes through discussions on the article's talk page. Majoreditor (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Nomination is scurrilous. Nominator has failed to push his point of view on the article, as a result, he seeks to retaliate against the article itself. See Talk:Winston Churchill RayAYang (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Nominator has a strong bias about Churchill which he is trying to push at the article, while attacking other editors. This nomination is just part of that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep The article is neutral and still passes the GA criteria; the nominator is trying to force his POV into the article. Nev1 (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Get off your soapbox. Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep as per all above. This nomination is ridiculous. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep truly fantastic article. -epicAdam(talk) 01:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Very nice article. If I were doing the initial GA review there are a couple of areas that I would like to see better referenced, but on the whole it is a very nice article that does a great job in balancing the criticisms and praise available about Churchill. His disapproval of Ghandi is mentioned (and referenced with reliable sources), and this GAR appears to have been initiated simply to prove a point. Dana boomer (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Oops, just realized that this had already been closed. The nom shows up on the GAR main page as still open - is this just my computer being funky, or a bug, or something else? Dana boomer (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Todd Manning[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Not listed. While the article is good in many aspects, there are issues that need to be resolved before the article can be listed. These issues have been detailed and acknowledged. Jennavecia (Talk) 02:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I made intense improvements to this article after it was failed during its first GA review. I did not nominate it that first time for GA and saw the flaw in it having been nominated that time. Once I read the GA review, however, I took care of most of the concerns that were basically implied to be all this article needed in order to be listed as GA. There were only three concerns the GA reviewer had a problem with that I did not completely change. What were they? The GA reviewer had a problem with the first quote, feeling that it may be copyright infringement. I stated that I felt that the first quote was appropriate, and not really going against policy; there are other decent articles that have quotes of that length and are seen as appropriate by experienced Wikipedian editors. The GA reviewer also had a problem with two of the references (really four, but the reliability of two of those references was never in question; it was rather the other two). I explained that those two references are primary sources.

After further improving this article, I nominated it for GA for a second time, and I waited for quite a while for it to once again be reviewed. I came to Wikipedia today, checked on it, and saw that it was failed without even having been put on hold to suggest improvements and without an explanation on the talk page as to why it was failed (though I saw this reviewer's reasons in his GA review). I addressed that much to this GA reviewer. This is simply not a B-Class article anymore, and is hardly in any worse shape than many GA articles I have seen on Wikipedia. I feel that the GA reviewer was mistaken to fail it. It is not so much that he failed it but rather quick-failed it due to what he sees as sploppy prose. I feel that it should have been put on hold asking me to improve the prose, especially since it only has a minor problem regarding that. In fact, I am off to go improve the prose now. Flyer22 (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My comments on the article in the state it was in when I reviewed it are at Talk:Todd Manning/GA2, and some further conversation on my quick fail at User talk:Jclemens#Todd Manning. I have no objection to being overruled, especially since it looks like Flyer22 has been busy making improvements to the article. At the time I reviewed the article, I thought the prose was failure quality, rather than hold-and-give-detailed-feedback quality. If I was being too hard on the article, my sincerest apologies. I've only been doing GA reviews for a few weeks, and if the community consensus is that I should have placed the article on hold, I will humbly apologize for not doing so in this case, and do so in similar cases in the future. Jclemens (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
No need to apologize for your review. The three examples given in the second GA review show that the article wasn't ready to pass GA. That said, I bet that Flyer will be able to bring the prose up to par in short order. Majoreditor (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have taken care of the three examples Jclemens pointed out in his GA review, as stated on his talk page. As I stated there: "Sure, I was lazy with the prose and did not read over the article as much as I should have before nominating it, but going back over the article, I still saw few problems with it. The prose you pointed out in your GA review I just took care of not too long ago. It was that simple. I noticed other prose problems along the way. It was that simple." I also improved a lot more of the prose since his GA review, and added a new section (the latest one to the Controversy section) that I feel is decently written. Any other tweaks needed for the prose, or not so much needed but that would help improve this article, I would definitely appreciate hearing, and would take care of as soon as seeing them mentioned here. Right now, though, it seems like I will just have to nominate this article for GA again. Flyer22 (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The article is informative and well-cited, but still suffers from uneven prose. An example: Making the character Victoria Lord's younger brother gave the writers a significant amount of story to work with. Majoreditor (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll take care of that later today or tomorrow. But the bad prose has been taken care of. As for any more uneven prose (which I don't see as bad), I will be sure to take care of that as well very soon. But, really, parts of this article can still be cited as having room for improvement. I mean, we're not talking about whether this article is ready for Featured Article status, of course. Though, honestly, even some of those articles can still be improved. We're talking about whether this article is now good enough to be given Good Article status. I feel that, besides more needed tweaking, it is. I've looked over enough listed good Wikipedia character articles, like Harry Potter (character), to know that I am not that far off, or even actually off. I've been studying a few good and featured character articles as well, not just looking over them. I am definitely for improving this article as much as it can be improved. Flyer22 (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment this is probably a case for listing it again, noting the recent changes, rather than GAR, but that's just my thoughts. It doesn't look like the backlog on either page is going away. Protonk (talk) 03:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse fail. After reading the above comments, I was hoping to be able to copyedit this and recommend listing, as suggested by Protonk. Sure enough, the prose does need work, for which a good tonic is User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a and Strunk's maxim: "Vigorous writing is concise". There are some long noun phrases, some sentences that try to do too much, and some overly complex language. A couple of examples:
    • Initially designed to be a ruthless, cunning and one-dimensional villain, throughout the years Todd has evolved into a complex character, often selfish and acting the villain but also passionate about protecting his loved ones and even showing kindness and a conscience.
    • As Todd's popularity with viewers grew, and as a solution not to have to kill off what had become perceived as a monster, executive producer Susan Bedsow Horgan and head writer Michael Malone chose an option that was highly controversial at the time — the decision to complicate their character, ensuring that he was not a one-dimensional rapist.[8][13] When, after attempting suicide, Powell confessed to raping Marty and was publicly forgiven by Marty herself, Todd was set for revenge when he and fellow rapist Zach received eight-year sentences behind prison as compared to Powell's three months of jail time. Todd made a vow that he would be out of prison in three months as well.[8] To carry out this vow, Todd was written to escape by "drugging himself, waking from a coma to leap from a speeding ambulance, and then reviving himself again by stabbing a knife through his hand while rolling his eyes heavenward and exulting, 'Pain. Pain is good'".[8]
This would be not too hard to fix, but after reading the article, I share the unease that that the reviewers express about the unencyclopedic style. For instance, people rarely "say" anything in this article; instead they "relay", "elaborate", "detail", "relate", "cite". The prose has the linguistic dexterity of a thesis, not the factual directness of an encyclopedia. This would also be an easy problem to fix, were it not for the cause: large portions of the article have not just the style, but the character of a media studies thesis, and are analytical. More precisely, this analysis is taken from a media studies paper of Jennifer Hayward (reference [8]), which is cited 36 times, without once mentioning her name. That's a big no-no on Wikipedia and goes against WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.
For instance, the section on "Specific writing", which should be the character equivalent of a plot summary, is almost entirely sourced to [8], and packed with analysis. It is great analysis, and I actually think the article is a fantastic piece of work. It is just not encyclopedic.
This can be fixed too, but it requires reworking the article significantly. Wikipedia can (and should) cover scholarly analysis, as long as it is presented as such. That requires a section on "Critical analysis" (or something like that), which reponds to the sentence "Todd has been... alluded to and studied in books" in the lead and attributes the opinions and analyses to the scholars who have written about the character. Such a change is too substantial for a GAR, so I endorse the fail, and recommend renomination once the article is reworked. Geometry guy 14:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse fail. The last fail was appropriate, evidently, and once the article is ready for another review, a new nomination (ie, GAN not GAR) then will be appropriate. --Una Smith (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I did not write the entire lead of this article, which is probably why I did not feel it needed any more work. I am far more critical of myself. In regards to using words like "relay", "elaborate", "detail", "relate", "cite" is because simply using the words "say" or "said" over and over again, without substituting anything else in place of those two words, is quite redundant and rather one-note. In writing, we are taught to change it up. It does not have to be "Howarth said" or "St. John said" every other line, nor should it be. There is nothing unencyclopedic about using the words "relay", "elaborate", "detail", "relate", and "cite". If anything, that is more encyclopedic. It is not like I never use the words "state" or "stated". And the Specific writing section? I would have that be a plot section, except that I do not really see it as one (though it crossed by mind as being plot); it is more of an insight section, about how Todd went from a monster to a not-so monster. As mentioned (and as the title suggests), it has more to do with writing than plot. And as I stated on the talk page of this article, I already have plans for a sourced plot section. It will also be written in real-world fashion, with insight into certain storylines, but it will be more like a plot section than some analysis one.
  • As for everything else Geometry guy said, I get his point. I'm completely okay with the fail of this article being endorsed until I have reworked this article as Geometry guy has advised. Thanks for saying that it is "a fantastic piece of work"...I suppose. Flyer22 (talk) 09:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a procedural issue and really no big deal. The article didn't meet GA, it was failed, it is being improved, when you are ready it will receive a fresh review. No problem, right?. Everyone's goal here is to get articles up to GA, and sometimes fail is a shorter route to that goal than on hold. --Una Smith (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that the article needs a bit more time and attention. I have confidence that editors like Flyer will eventually rework the article so that it meets GA criteria. In the meanwhile, I endorse fail. Majoreditor (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Habbush letter[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: delisted Ok. I've looked at this one for a little while and it is high time to close it. On review we had a few problems. One, pretty innocuously, a typo resulted in a failed nomination with no apparent review. Two, the review itself appeared perfunctory and didn't fail the article on a listed Good article criteria. Simply put, vandalism and IP POV pushing are not what is meant by "unstable". Ongoing edit wars between major participants on the page changing the meaning and scope of the page are what we mean. But, a review which failed the article on incorrect grounds doesn't mean that the article should be passed automatically. I am going to delist this article and suggest that it may be renominated at any time. Protonk (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC).

The article was rejected for good article status, but the reviewer did not even indicate how to improve the article as seen on the very blank review page. It is apparent that the reviewer committed the review in bad faith, considering his/ her track record in other Wikipedia-related activities such as this. Starczamora (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the assessment was performed here, but I agree that the reviewer could have given more information as to how the article was inadequate. I feel that questions of WP:NPOV are important when reviewing this article. When was the article nominated for GA? It might help us shed some light on the "unstable" clause. Some of the references need to have better formatting. -Malkinann (talk) 07:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Starczamora's very blank review page is due to a typo, "GAn" instead of "GA1". The review is exactly where it should be, Talk:Habbush letter/GA1, and has been there since September 8th. --Una Smith (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
It was rejected due to the fact that there are many vandalism just with a quick look on the history, meaning it was unstable.Eduhello (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
What kind of vandalism did you see? Simple cursing does not count for this consideration, it has to be a content dispute. -Malkinann (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Here it is:(cur) (last) 23:42, 25 August 2008 EdJohnston (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Habbush letter: Edit warring. If the dispute still doesn't settle down, full protection is an option [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 23:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC))) (undo)
Got it?Eduhello (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Let's keep it cool, ok? Did you look at what the edit war was about or if it had been resolved? -Malkinann (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm almost always cool. Here is just a partial taster of the dispute. [[4]]. There are still many others once you look at the history. Happy Editing! 04:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Guys, i spent a few hours editing this page, and i think you should hold off before you call it 'good'. there are still a lot of unanswered questions about this situation.... someone should really triple fact check every little word in the article. imho
  • Comment. The article did receive a GA review. However, the review is unhelpful at best. The reviewer provided few comments on his reason fail the article due to stability/edit war concerns. The reviewer's concern has some merit as there is evidence of edit wars taking place up until August 25. Since then the article's edit history has stabilized. Majoreditor (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the review is not satisfactory, being too short, but has anyone asked the reviewer to expand it? Given his response here, he is willing to expand on it, but I think (a) he needs some coaching and (b) his native language is not English. --Una Smith (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I did a new review to the article. In my opinion it is more satisfactory. Here is it.

Please tell me if it is more satisfactory or not.

Thank You!Happy Editing! (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Du battant des lames au sommet des montagnes[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Delisted. Unanimous consensus in the 9 days that it has been here; article hasn't been worked on since then. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the arguments given on the talk page are about merging and renaming the article, not about its quality. Thus, the withdrawal of the Good article status is not motivated. Thierry Caro (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Endorse delisting. I needed a machette to blaze through the prose. Here are some examples:
  • But on Réunion, throughout its history, it has clearly been Parisian customary law that has guided the rights of succession.
  • The task of dividing plots perpendicular to the coast was made much easier by the fact that numerous ravines, difficult to cross, cover Réunion, starting from the heights and striating the sides of this cone-shaped island.
  • Thus, a judgment of the Conseil de contentieux administratif, issued 2 August 1853, defined the first as designating the high point as seen from several successive places, while the second referred only to the crest as seen in the foreground.
Wikipedia readers expect and deserve concise, well-composed prose. Please, dispense with the meandering sentences. Shun the passive voice. And consider using English where possible ("Conseil de contentieux administratif"?) Majoreditor (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The references are insufficient, as there are 16 references for this moderately sized article, needs much more. Also, merge or kill some of the one-two sentence paragraphs and this could be a GA again. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 19:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist - I disagree with Malleus's reasons for delisting, but agree with the overall delist. The article is severely under-referenced, with several sections being completely or almost completely unreferenced. What references there are need work on the formatting. Web references should all have publishers and access dates, books should have publishers, and everything should be formatted consistently. The Use since the 1970s section has three very short sub-sections, which should be combined and expanded if possible. The section names tend to be long, especially in the Consequences section, and although this isn't a GA requirement, I would like to see them trimmed, if possible. Dana boomer (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I should perhaps have gone into more detail in the GA Sweeps Review, and also raised the issues you quite properly raise, I accept that; no excuse for cutting corners. I remain convinced however that this article is not a credible GA candidate. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Delist. There are no signs that the GA concerns raised will be addressed in the near future. Geometry guy 21:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Major problems of this article:

  • entire paras missing references
  • too long see also indicates the need of expansion
  • external links in main body
  • refs with nondated elinks

And that's just after a cursory scan of the article. There is a general copyedit needed template at the top of the article as well. This is not a Good Article quality. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Rocketmagnet and I have been guiding the discussions in this article for a while, but both Rocket and I have been mostly reactive rather than proactive. Talk:Robot is a watering-hole, even sort of a wikiproject, and we didn't want to step on anyone's ideas. But we've recently decided to start pushing robotics articles towards GAN and FAC. I think we decided (at least I did) that Robot would logically be the last article to get a promotion, after we see which material can and should travel to other articles. Still, I think we should be able to save the GA label for now. I'll start by inviting a discussion on the talk page, I'll do some copyediting, and I'll move the history information to History of robots. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll just make some quick notes as I go. My edits are mostly a reflection of what I've seen at FAC. FAC reviewers wouldn't like all the links, particularly when they're strung together, so I'm removing links that IMO the reader could do without. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Apart from the history section, Robot seems to me to be 90% or 95% about robots in the public perception and imagination. I'm going to move some of the material that isn't focused on this theme to the talk page. Obviously, anyone can move it back, or we could talk about how to organize the material into one of the other articles on robotics. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Back in a day or so; working on WT:UPDATES. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article has numerous problems. The prose often descends into chatty, non-encyclopedic banter. Here's an example:
Having a limb can make all the difference. Having eyes too gives people a sense that a machine is aware ("the eyes are the windows of the soul"). However, simply being anthropomorphic is not sufficient for something to be called a robot. A robot must do something, whether it is useful work or not. So, for example, a dog's rubber chew toy, shaped like ASIMO, would not be considered a robot.
In other spots the prose disintegrates into a tangle of rough-hewn embedded lists.
I'm also concerned with the article's focus and breadth. There's an embarrasing lack of material on the current state of industrial robotics. Unless the article's editors can address these issues quickly then we should move to delist. Majoreditor (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised you say that. As someone who subscribes to Industrial Robot Magazine (there are not many of us), I can tell you that the current state of industrial robots is well covered by the article. What in particular did you think the article missed in this area? Industrial robots haven't come very far since they were invented. They're basically like the car. It's gone about as far as it's going to. Changes are mostly superficial, and we're waiting for the next big thing (flying cars, cars that drive themselves). Rocketmagnet (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, bear in mind that there is a lot to cover in this article. Industrial robots make up only one sector of the field, and the article is already long. Industrial robots would be covered in depth in their own article. I imagine the Robot article as a kind of introductory hub to all the other articles. Rocketmagnet (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks Majoreditor, I'll do the copyedit today. I'm not going to add information on the current state of industrial robotics, because the article is already over the limit given by WP:LENGTH, and because how robots work is not the focus of this article; the focus is robots in the public perception. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
And thank you for your efforts to improve the article. I'll give it another reading in a few days. Oh, one other point. I'm concerned with one of the statements in the lead: Despite the huge advances in technology of the last century, robots are still nowhere near as capable as the public imagination believes. Both mentally and physically, robots are still slow, dim-witted and clumsy. Does the article really reach those conclusions?
You're right, it doesn't. But wait ... don't remove it from the lead, let me add to the article so that it does reach those conclusions. I think it's a critically important thing to say. Rocketmagnet (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I deleted that, but I'll put the the second sentence back, with a small tweak, to the end of what I've got, and wait for supporting material in the text to see where we're going with that. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps Rocketmagnet is correct and I have been too extreme in my statements on industrial robotics. However, I still think there's room for improvement. For example, there's much emphasis on robots in automotiv emanufacturing, but scant mention of them for metal fabrication outside the automotive industry. I'd also suggest that more could be said about the production, sakles and marketing of robots. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure, those kind of robots are used in various industries, and the article talks about robots working in factories in general, eg removing hot metal from die casting machines. I guess it could have a little more, but it would be a shame to make the article industry heavy. Rocketmagnet (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, kids are back in school. I can tell from the 8 vandal edits so far today. I've got another couple hours of style updates to do; I can get to the copyediting in a few hours. Thanks for the help, everyone. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Rocket says it's okay with him for me to convert to American English, and I don't believe we have other British editors involved with this article. It's clear that material is going to need to move around among the various robotics articles, and all the others (that I'm aware of) are in American English, so this will reduce the chances of screwing up. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm finished with the lead for the moment; I tried to at least mention all the areas covered in the article (except for the more speculative robots). Most leads are slightly WEASELy because they try to cover things in a general way that will be dealt with specifically in the article; I think I may have gone overboard and bought the whole weasel. If you think there are way too many "some do this" and "some think that" lines, tell me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll leave the first three (short) sections section on characteristics and definitions to whoever wants to make suggestions. I've made some suggestions in the past on those that didn't get anywhere. I'm not sure what the reviewers want, or what the other article editors want. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC) P.S. It's now one section with 2 subheadings. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Franamax and I would like to move the specifics from the robot competition stuff to Robot competition. I like avoiding duplication between articles, I'm ready to put some work into that article, and that's one of the sections that tends to draw troublesome edits. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, I got tied up, I'm back. Rocket, I'm working on doing enough copyediting to remove the maintenance tag ... not just for this review, but for Wikipedia 0.7, too; we're days away from the deadline. I did what I could in the first 3 subsections section, but more needs to be done. Read the lead section of WP:WEASEL for why it's not okay (in WP, anyway) to say "laymen would say X", unless you're talking about a specific set of layman whose opinions were recorded in a reliable source. Also, is "service robot" a synonym for "domestic robot"? It's not defined. Also, I couldn't find in any of our sources the statement that something is more likely to be considered a robot if it has an arm and/or eyes. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I removed the mention of a separate definition of "robot" used in Japan for copyediting purposes; it can go back in when we get a source. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I welcome feedback on the short history section. It's kind of damned-if-you-do: I think it reads like a recital of a few dry facts at the moment, but if I try to breathe life into it and give context and more interesting examples, then it would be way too long for this page; that belongs at History of robots. If I remove what we've got now, it will feel like important stuff is missing. Feel free to tinker with it. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Update: I'll finish today. I've removed some paragraphs from the article that might deserve articles of their own on Eastern and Western views of robotics and nanorobotics. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Done, finally. Theoretically, I should read through the whole thing one more time, but if I do, I'll go insane. All these months, I thought I was making the right decision to keep my hands off and let the contributors slug it out, but now that I see what a mess it was, I really should have gotten to work earlier. I've addressed all of Piotr's concerns, I think. Peer-review style comments would be very, very welcome; now that I've done this much work, I'm headed to WP:PR after this.
    P.S. See the first ref in Robot#Other definitions of robot and the first ref after the lead section for a long list of off-the-cuff remarks from a variety of people, some experts and some just workers in the field, on their impressions of which machines are called "robots" and which aren't. Those two refs are the closest thing we have to avoiding WP:WEASEL (which some of us are rewriting, btw). Rocketmagnet feels strongly, and I completely agree, that we don't want to gut the whole first section just because we're not aware of a large, careful, scientific study that pins down the popular conception of "robot". Rocketmagnet, and many of the authors and subjects of the refs, have been working in the field for a long time and have a pretty good idea. If you take the time to read all the refs, I think you'll see that we're entitled to say something in the first section about what constitutes a robot. I'm open to deleting anything that you guys feel isn't justified by the refs. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Dank has done a lot of very good work improving the article, but I think its problems run somewhat deeper. This can be easily seen by perusing the 62 references. There one finds many websites of news agencies, magazines, corporations, and institutions, online dictionaries, encyclopedias, and other internet miscellanea, but only 2 journal articles, and 6 cites to books. Only two of the latter are books on robotics, specializing in Japanese and Westinghouse robots respectively. There's a general book on robotics in the further reading, but it isn't cited.
In the light of this, it seems to me that large chunks of the article are simply not reliably sourced. The whole listy first section on definitions makes many assertions about what may or may not be considered a robot, but apart from the "official defintions" subsection, it is sourced to a CBC News survey, a NASA programme, a record company, a gadget review site, a robots exhibition, "How stuff works", a dictionary and an encyclopedia (tertiary). Where are the RSS's?
In the history section, assertions about Al-Jazari and Leonardo da Vinci are unsourced, including "The design was probably based on anatomical research recorded in his Vitruvian Man." According to whom?
The section on "Increased productivity, accuracy, and endurance", which advocates the benefits of robots, is dominated by primary sources to the companies which make the products described. One click to the footnote, and another to the source, and the reader is greeted with "Electronic manufacturing solutions. Your path to the future just got clearer" or "TUG can do this. TUG can do that". The manufacturers must be loving this article! The section on swarm robots is just as bad.
"Dangers and fears". Whose analysis is this? Two facts are sourced, as is the "uncanny valley" and concerns about the use of robots in warfare. The rest of the section isn't. "Literature": "The first reference in Western literature to mechanical servants appears in Homer's Iliad." Sourced to an interview by a college journal with a playright?
"The most prolific and best known author of short stories about robots was Isaac Asimov (1920–1992), who placed robots and their interaction with society at the center of many of his works." According to whom? Geometry guy 20:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah! After your warning on your talk page (WP:V you say? What's that?), I thought we were going to have a fight. I completely agree. I will attempt to pawn as much of the work off as I can (not that I've had any luck at Robot). The Asimov, Al-Jazari and da Vinci sources are in those articles (hopefully someone will go get them); I don't like the automated guided vehicle (AGV) section myself; I would prefer to have more online books as sources; and I struggled to find a better source for the Homer quote and got nothing (but I don't want to yank it until I know we can't source it). I thought we were going to have a more fundamental argument. Robot has had over 1000 unique registered editors. This is not an article where I get to read a few books and write what I want. Rocket and I have watched this article for a very long time, and we know that it reflects a lot of community standards. This is where you guys come in: if you want to say "no", say "no", and then I'll pull the source, unless there's some previous battle over that, in which case I'll try to determine consensus. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
On the first section: that's Rocketmagnet's baby, so get ready for a fight. The people who best know the answer to the question are academics. All 4 of the academics quoted in the CBC source are world-class experts, and they know what they're talking about. I think what you're saying is that you want a paper from each of these guys, rather than 1 interview that quotes all 4 of them: sounds reasonable. Anyone want to poke around? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Franamax worked up this table to replace one of the lists; which format do you guys prefer?
Mental Agency Criteria
Mechanism Characteristics Classification
Clockwork car Simple mechanical control Never considered a robot
Remotely operated vehicle Operated under human control Sometimes considered a robot (or telerobot).[1]
Car with an onboard computer, like Bigtrak Drives in a pre-programmed sequence Might be called a robot
Self-controlled car such as the 1990s driverless cars of Ernst Dickmanns or the entries in the DARPA Grand Challenge Senses its environment and makes driving decisions based on this information Likely called a robot
Sentient car, like the fictional KITT Makes decisions, navigates freely and converses fluently with a human Usually considered a robot

- Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Could we have prose, based on reliable sources? Geometry guy 21:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. It seems to me that the problems with this article are not going to be fixed on a GAR timescale. I therefore recommend delisting it for now and encourage editors to rework the article to make better use of reliable sources before renominating it. Geometry guy 12:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd like to help, but I've already spent a lot of time on the article, more than I should given the 0.7 deadline. I'll come back to it after Oct 20. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)