Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 51

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 52) Good article reassessment (archive) (Page 50) →

The King and I[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: withdrawn

I believe this article should have been promoted GA in February, and that the reviewer was not applying WP:WIAGA but his subjective standards, and that the article should be a GA. Note that while I may make a few changes on request, the idea really isn't to make this a substitute GAN, but to seek the community's view on whether WP:WIAGA is fulfilled.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Wehwalt withdrew the nomination

To give a reason for the withdrawal, it became apparent that Ssilvers had added much unsourced information to the article. He objected to the removal, even though it was unsouced and a reader would be surprised should he check information against sources. Accordingly, I had no alternative than to withdaw it until I can check against sources and remove all unsourced statements, which I am in the course of doing. As I have gotten sufficient review at this level, any further review will take place elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

so I think the best, and quickest, course would simply be to renominate at WP:GAN, especially as so many changes have been made since the review. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was forced into the withdrawal, effectively, by Ssilvers adding material without regard to sources, yes, and as an admin I keep to a personal 1RR which puts me at a disadvantages faced with a determined adder of unsourced material. However, I'd still like opinions from the community as to whether it presently meets GA standards. Many thanks,--Wehwalt (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick look at the article, the lead appears a little short, the plot section too long. If you want a review, then nominate at WP:GAN, there is no point in picking over the bones of a review that took place several months ago. You can check that you have met all of the good article criteria here. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, can you close this at my request?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to go on record, I disagree that Wehwalt's statements above are accurate. If there are any remaining unsourced or incorrectly sourced statements, what are they? However, I agree that the article is probably at least GA quality. I am not "a determined adder of unsourced material", and I ask Wehwalt again to stop these personal attacks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, then. What do you see as needs to be done for the article before it can move ahead?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some notable names that are mentioned in the article are missing from the table of Principal roles and notable performers. You had written: "I will do that last, so as to spare repeated effort." Other than that, I think you still planned to review the NYT reviews for those productions where we cite IBDB or BWW, because you preferred, if possible, to replace the remaining IBDB cites and BroadwayWorld cites with NYT cites (although the Theatre project consensus was that IBDB (as opposed to IMDB) and BWW are reliable sources). In some cases, a paragraph already cites to both the NYT and either IBDB or BWW; I can't see those NYT cites, but it is possible that the NYT article already covers the info that is cited to IBDB/BWW. You also stated "I also have part of an article pack still unexpended for the LA Times", so I guess you had intended to check that. Can we reduce the number of refs in the paragraph about the original London production so that it doesn't bristle with so many cites, or do you think it needs to repeat the same cites multiple times within the paragraph - perhaps by putting them at the end of the paragraph? Other remaining issues:

  • 1981 tour: LA Times might tell us is whether there were other notable actors over the course of such a long tour. You had planned to check this.
  • Green briefly discusses the "theme" of the show, which ought to be added to the discussion. The article, in general, ought to more clearly discuss the treatment of the social/racial themes, but that could be addressed after GA.

That's all I remember as being outstanding. Jezhotwells suggests above that the Lead could be a bit longer, and I would suggest adding a sentence about the Tuptim matter. Something like this: Anna brings matters to a head when she assists Tuptim, one of the King's slaves, who wishes to escape from the court with the man she loves. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I'll work on this in dribs and drabs. Unless someone wants to conom this will have to wait behind three coin articles I have ready for a turn at FAC so there is no hurry if you come up with more stuff so I will probably run it through both GA and PR first. Besides, TCO, who was interested in seeing a more popular R&H pushed forward, is gone until 31 May.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per Jezhotwells' suggestion, I have attempted to shorten the plot summary a bit. See what you think and revise as you think appropriate. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reassessment has been withdrawn and archived, so it would be best to continue at the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unhalfbricking[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Keep KitchenRoll in particular has addressed the problems at hand. Consensus is keep.
  • The "History: Simon nicole writes about Fairport" is missing the name of the work.
  • What makes informatic.uni-hamburg.de a reliable source?
  • What makes this a reliable source?
  • What makes this a reliable source?
  • The infobox shouldn't have any reviews in it.
I don't see that in the GA criteria, it is commonly used in album articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 06:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be in the GA criteria, but note that the docs for {{Infobox album}} say "Formerly, a Reviews field was included in this template. Professional reviews should no longer be included in the infobox, but be described in paragraph form in a "Reception" section. See WP:Albums#Reception." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 15:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, i didn't know of that change. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 20 ("Who knows where the time goes?" from the BBC) is a dead link. It should also credit the source and preferably not have something vague like "18 minutes in".
  • The Chart Stats.com cites don't have the name of the work in them. One is also mising an accessdate.
  • What makes this a reliable source?
  • One of the hamburg.de sources ("previously unreleased out-take: Zierke, Reinhard") doesn't have the name of the work.
  • What makes this a reliable source? It appears to be a fansite with no proof of accuracy.
  • The citations shouldn't have detritus like "due to the said stack falling over during the recording" or "previously unreleased out-take" in them. Those should be in standalone footnotes.
  • Prose issues. Almost every sentence in "Title and cover" subheading begins with "the".
  • Personnel section is unsourced. It should have a citation to the liner notes if nothing else.
  • In the intro, "And arguably reached its peak", "mark a turning point in the band's history", "prolific year" — weasel wording. Get rid of it.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the other comments, but note that the WP:GACR makes no mention of specific formatting of in-line citations other than those in science articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 06:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed a little while ago that the article was below standard for a GA, and started an individual GAR in order to improve it. I couldn't find good sources and then got distracted so closed the GAR as it seemed inappropriate to keep it open indefinitely. I'm pleased a community GAR has been opened, and hopefully some attention will be paid to improving the quality of the prose, the sources, and the coverage. Statements are not always supported by sources - nothing here: "Unhalfbricking appeared, therefore, at a difficult time for the group, but was enthusiastically received. After a period of intense reflection about their future they decided to pursue the folk rock idea further and violinist Dave Swarbrick was invited to join full-time for the follow-up, Liege & Lief." is found in the source. Indeed, the source says almost the opposite of one of the statements - "they decided to pursue the folk rock idea further" by saying "they started to edge toward a more traditional British folk-slanted sound". There is a sourced statement that the alternative cover was done because the band upset the record company - yet it was done by the acclaimed A&M designer Tom Wilkes, and it was quite common for labels to be redesigned for American release, so such a contentious, unusual and unlikely claim needs more sourcing, removing or reformatting to indicate that the claim comes from a single source. There is no mention here of the band having problems with A&M. The unsourced statement that the album was "enthusiastically received" does not match with the moderate commercial success, and we have no contemporary reviews, though modern ones do not indicate that the contemporary critical response was enthusiastic. There is a general feel of a series of notes - short sentences and short paragraphs - so at the moment the article does not flow, and does not provide the reader with a useful informed overview of the topic. There is speculative original research, as in "Genesis Hall was the nickname of the former Bell Hotel in Drury Lane, which had become a squat in early 1969 and later became noted for a mass eviction by the police." The lyrics do not indicate that it is about the squat - and as the squat was named Genesis Hall in the same year the album was released it is not clear which came first, and it may be coincidental. The source merely indicates the squat, it does not mention the song, and provides no connection. My feeling is that the article is in the early stages of construction and needs a fair amount of work to provide appropriate and accurate information which is made difficult by lack of helpful sources. I have tried, but didn't get far. I hope that the community GAR will work, though note that after 10 days no work has been done. Unless there is an attempt at improvement in the next few days I support delisting. SilkTork *YES! 11:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delist, no editing has taken place since 6 March. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can an uninvolved editor close this please? Jezhotwells (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bengali language[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist Consensus is article should have failed the original GAN and there appear to be no editors interested in assisting with the GAR. Szzuk (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was passed earlier today after a superficial one sentence assessment. It looks in good shape, but I think it could do with additional scrutiny. I found and tagged three dead links. I am notifying the reviewer and nominator. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was too short. And thank you for pointing out those dead links. I just didn't have any other comments at the time. Bernstein2291 (Talk • Contributions • Sign Here) 16:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has three {{citation needed}} flags for a start and they were there on 1st March 2011 before the review started. I suspect that the article has passed without it having been read thoroughly. Pyrotec (talk) 12:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: Dead links and citation needed tags still outstanding. There has been some editing action, but mostly dealing with formatting. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be closed as delist, please? Jezhotwells (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011 Fukushima earthquake[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: kept

The article fails Criterion 2 of WP:WIAGA, which covers sourcing and verifiability. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In particular:

  1. Article: "Nevertheless, the Fukushima Hamadori earthquake was the strongest registered aftershock to have its epicentre located inland.[10][11]"
  2. Article: "Although it was centered near a different fault zone, the earthquake was reported to be an aftershock of the 11 March Tōhoku earthquake, which occurred offshore about 235 km (145 mi) to its northeast.[8][1]"
    • Neither ref 8 or ref 1 provide the distance between the two earthquakes.
      • With precise latitude and longitude distance is established and easily WP:Ved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Using what measure? Isn't this then original research? And even if it is "easily verified", the burden isn't on the reader to provide the verifiable source, but on the editor, which he or she has failed to do. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know the details of latitude and longitude but mathematically the distance is as reliably sourced as a statement that one thing happened at noon and another thing happened at 6 for a WP statement that two events occured 6 hours apart.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Article: "Workers at the damaged Fukushima Daiichi power plant — distanced near 70 km (40 mi) from the epicentre[14][1]"
  4. Article: "A warning for a localized tsunami of up to 2.0 m (6.6 ft) was issued by the Japan Meteorological Agency; however, it was quickly canceled after no waves had been reported.[19][13]"
    • Classic synthesis. Ref 13 says a warning was issued and later lifted. Ref 19 says "The Pacific Tsunami Centre said the earthquake had not triggered a widespread tsunami." This sentence links two statements of fact to form a new statement not supported by either source.
      • I am failing to understand your point.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • See WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. ... "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." This is a good example of that. A = warning issued and cancelled. B = earthquake triggered no tsunami. C = warning "quickly canceled" because no waves reported. It's different from if there was a source saying the warning was withdrawn because there was no tsunami. To suggest that it was quickly cancelled because there were no reports of waves is joining the two statements together inappropriately. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • lol, if you want to be that pedantic, I can change it to ";however, no waves were reported, and the warning was canceled," making it two different statements supported by two different sources. Simple as that. ★ Auree (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nominator is being too picky. The refs could be deleted and it still passes GA, they aren't perfect but neither are they misleading. Szzuk (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we should wrap this up, since the nominator isn't even discussing anymore. ★ Auree (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Criminal Court[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: The consensus is to delist due to ongoing problems that require more significant attention than can be given in a reasonable time. There are problems regarding sourcing, with challengeable statements and large chunks that remain unsourced. The lead needs attention, it is large and sprawling. The prose in the article is choppy in places, with a feel that notes have been added to the article without thought given to flow and readability, as a result there are sections of the article that are tiring to read, and the information is not adequately conveyed. There is often too much detail, and the article would benefit from trimming back to the essential points. Article fails GA criteria 1(a), 1(b), 2(b) and 3(b). SilkTork *Tea time 10:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
I completely agree. The article reads like a press release.
The first priority should be to draft a section that properly outlines the criticisms. It is for example, a fact that the ICC does not provide for jury trials. Why not just tell the truth and then leave it as a fact? I
It is a fact that where jury trials are a fundamental human right that the ICC denies this human right. The ICC does not consider a jury trial to be a human right. Just tell the truth. That is the truth. Instead of telling the truth, why go off on spin? It doesn't really matter to this article if the US military get jury trials or not. The whole topic is irrelevant to the ICC article and should not even be here.
It is also a fact that where public trials are a fundamental human right that the ICC also denies this human right. Just tell the truth, that the ICC simply does not consider this to be a human right.
The article incorrectly claims that the US Uniform Code of Military Justice does not allow for a jury when it does. Just as with any US court, an accused may either request a judicial trial or to be tried by a panel of their peers who are not judges or lawyers.
This is but one example of why the article is biased and is not factual. It cannot be fixed with a few edits. Fixing the issue that I raise would only be a good beginning. The ICC like everything else has its good points and its bad points. Only an ICC press release would read like this article does. Raggz (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor who chooses not to register for privacy reasons requested this. His reasons were: 3+ years since a review, 500+ edits, high profile institution, and bare URLS. --Obsidi♠nSoul 23:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked dabs, one found in ref#1 but I understand this is deliberate. I repaired 49 dead links and tagged a further 7 for which no archived version could be found. Checklinks added titles to bare urls, but references could do with consistent formatting, including author and publisher details. The majority of sources are from the ICC itself. there are some largely uncited sections. Images appear OK. Prose appears to be OK. Stable. Needs more detail on states which have not signed or are critical of the court. The lead does not fully summarise the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The nominating editor, 01:48, 30 July 2007, User:Sideshow Bob Roberts, has not edited since 18:36, 13 September 2009[3] Jezhotwells (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have informed the Law and Human Rights projects of this reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, I reached this page via the Human Rights Article Alerts page, my initial assessment (independent of the GA criteria) is that this still remains one of our best articles, with brilliant content that is probably unrivaled in any other tertiary source. On the other hand, there are very obvious areas for improvement, in particular in relation to the ongoing investigations and in progress cases and the relevant criticism thereof. Ultimately this article is probably due a reassessment and I would love to help improve any particular areas of weakness that are identified, but at the same time this is a huge and continually developing topic, and we probably do not have the manpower to keep it up to GA status in the longterm ( this pending any new involved editor comments, I would love to be wrong about this!) Ajbpearce (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jezhotwells. And hello Ajbpearce, GA is mostly concerned with technical stuff rather than content, but you're already aware of that, heh. I was also technically not the one who nominated it for reassessment and I'm not a reviewer nor an involved editor so I can't actually pinpoint where it might fail the GA criteria. I did it as help for an IP user (I'm a helper volunteer in our IRC channel), since IP's can't nominate articles for WP:GAR themselves. Jezhotwells has pinpointed several problems though, I suggest fixing those (the uncited sections seem to be the most pressing concern at the moment). Thanks again.--Obsidi♠nSoul 01:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
minor note, on the 27th feb Jezhotwells added a primary sources tag to the article. I don't really think that it was appropriate criticism / review for this article. Generally - the primary sources seemed to be used descriptively to support factual statements about, e.g the composition of the court, or the content of the articles of the rome statute - where they are the authoritative and most helpful sources for us to link to. I obviously have not gone through all of the 150 citations in detail though, so if you had specific concerns I've missed/overlooked, then could you raise them here? (and i'll obv try to deal with them) Ajbpearce (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some improvements have been made, but:
  • There are citations to other Wikipedia articles, e.g. #24, 25 Fixed, these were places when a blue link would have been fine
  • Outstanding dead link tags - These links all go to the website of the ICC, which is not working at the moment, when/is it is fixed these links should come back, if that site remains down permanently (unliley for a major international organisation) then this is a bigger problem though
  • Publisher details still missing form citations, inconsistent citation style - As I understand it, the GA criteria do not require that there is a "consistent" style, beyond that they are inline citations from reliable sources, which I think this article has everywhere except at Victim participation where there are two paragraphs that need citations
WP:CITEVAR is the applicable guideline. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Victim participation and reparations section has outstanding citations needed tag - Agreed, see above, will try and work on this
  • The Duplication Detector and Earwig indicate a number of likely copywrite violations. If sections of the establishing statutes are used, they need to be rendered as quotations - Any non-trivial section of the statue appears to be rendered as quotations already as far as I can tell, in regards to the reports generated by earwig, they are all almost certainly examples of people C&P a sentence or two from the wikipedia article, or just coincidence when discussing a related topic
Jezhotwells (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Territorial jurisdiction section has a lrge section which should be in quotes.
Also Office of the Prosecutor
All of these lengthy quotes should be rendered in blockquotes to make them stand out better.
There are still a lot of stray sentences.
Delist: There has been editing activity, but none seem to address the points that have been raised. There appear to be many books, news articles and journals which cover the establishment and activities of the court which could be used. Long outstanding dead links, weasel words, and references needed tags. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Updated with response to 3 of the 4 specific issues you raised, if you could say where weasel words are used, I could fix those, i did not notice them on a read-through Ajbpearce (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The court's creation perhaps constitutes the most significant reform of international law since 1945 "perhaps"
45 United Nations member states have neither signed nor ratified the Rome Statute; some of them, including China and India, are considered by some[who?] to be critical to the success of the court. twice, in lead and artcile. The lead sentence is identical to that in the body, which is not right, the lead should be summary style.
Some commentators have argued that the Rome Statute defines crimes too broadly or too vaguely.
Some argue that the protections offered by the ICC are insufficient.
Taking into account the experience of the ICTY (which worked with the principle of the primacy, instead of complementarity) in relation to co-operation, some scholars have expressed their pessimism as to the possibility of ICC to obtain co-operation of non-party states.
It is sometimes argued that amnesties are necessary to allow the peaceful transfer of power from abusive regimes
For example, the outstanding arrest warrants for four leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army are regarded by some as an obstacle to ending the insurgency in Uganda
The fact that so far the International Criminal Court has only investigated African countries and only indicted Africans is creating resentment in some African countries, even in countries which are state parties to the Court.
All of these instances of "some" or "sometimes" need in-text attribution. The issue of the majority of sources being primary, when there are many available books, journal articles and news items which could be used has not been addressed. The strcuture of the article is not good. There are a number of short sections. Full quotes from statutes are not always needed, summary style is more applicable. This is an artcile for the general reader. The footnotes and external links can provide the detail. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. This can't stay in rehabilitation forever, its had long enough to improve but isn't there. Szzuk (talk) 07:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I fixed the easy issues raised, and I am not sure all of the complaints made against the article are valid, but its clear it has issues that its become clear I have neither the time or interest to solve, so.... Ajbpearce (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. There have been improvements but it needs someone to spend a few hours on it. It would be quite a lot of effort, and in my opinion that would be unrewarding. As it's had 10 weeks here I think it's fair to conclude other potentially interested editors have the same opinion as us. It's time to close this one. Szzuk (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:DEADREF before dealing with the dead link tags; it was substantially revised earlier this year. Dead links are not actually prohibited by the GA criteria. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Spitz[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Consensus is to delist due to article failing criteria 1(b) (prose quality), 3(a) (broad coverage), and 2(b) (referencing). SilkTork *Tea time 11:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not follow the standard format for a dog breed article - being sections on History, Description, Temperament, Health (as a minimum). In appearance/size variations and in history, there are large uncited sections of text. I also do not think that the current history section is complete and needs to be fleshed out; and finally the references are using a variety of formatting with missing dates etc. Miyagawa (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have invited the main contributor and original nominator to comment here. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. In addition to what Miyagawa has commented on, there are questionable, unreferenced claims throughout the article including:
  • "coat has a non-stick texture often described as being similar to Teflon"
  • "and is a popular pet" (where?)
  • "they are brave and consider it their duty to protect their family" (something this subjective needs a citation to a high-quality source)
  • "They are a very clean dog and do not have a doggy odor, due to the texture of their coat mud and dirt fall off or can be brushed out very easily." (run-on sentence too(!))
Overly general statements are included -- all puppies have itchy gums, for example, not just Japanese Spitz -- and dubious web pages are cited:
There are three others sources that are passable if not ideal. – anna 08:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist/Demote. The article is clearly falling short of Good Article Criteria Part 2b "provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged" As per Anna's comments above. I also don't believe it covers the topic deeply enough to be considered to be of good article status (eg: lack of references, lack of health information). There are some sections that are far too short, eg, care and "mortality". Keetanii (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shakira[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: The article was delisted in 2006. If the nominator believes it now satisfies the Good Article criteria it should be renominated at WP:GAN AIRcorn (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this page (Shakira) should be reassessed and re-listed as a Good Article. This article was listed as a "Good Article" once but it was delisted. However, I do not find the reason why it was delisted as it satisfies all the criteria--Andreasyeah (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose "I believe that Shakira page is a GA, because I see no problems". The main problem is that you never tried to contact main editors, even when I said it to you twice. Now returning to the article:
  • 1 [citation needed] tag
  • 1 [when?] tag
  • 1 {{prose}} tag
  • 5 {{dead link}} tags
  • Poorly written references. I'm not going to prose, but if those problems are highly vissible, prose is worst than that. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 19:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK I will do try to contact the main editors and improve the article. After that I will ask again for reassessment--Andreasyeah (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you feel that you have got the artcile into shape then simply re-niomate at WP:GAN. WP:GAR is primarily concerned with re-assessing what may be perceived to be recent faulty reviews. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:DEADREF before dealing with the dead link tags; it was substantially revised earlier this year. Dead links are not actually prohibited by the GA criteria. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the article milestones on the talk page it appears that this was promoted and then delisted in 2006. As over four years have passed it would be better to take this through the standard nominations procedure. AIRcorn (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted Whether the original nomination was in good faith or the furthering of an agenda is no longer relevant as other editors have since joined the debate. The original concern was that unreliable sources had since been added to the article, violating criteria 2b. Nikkimaria, Ruhrfisch and SilkTork have further raised questions about source reliability. While none of these editors called for an outright delisting due to this issue and some have since been removed or hidden, there are still some (5 of those listed by Nikkimaria and Ruhrfisch's example) remaining. An even greater concern are the unsourced statements listed by Silktork. They were brought to editors attention over a month ago, but still remain unsourced even after they were brought up again two weeks ago. As such I am delisting the article. AIRcorn (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be reassessed because since the fair review it was given and it's subsequent pass. It's core editors have added an array of fansite references to then article, which seems suspect. When me and another suggested they be removed, we had a backlash telling us they are notable because they are GI Joe fansites. Many suggestions have been given and met with hostility. Some of the sources came under discussion here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_92#G.I._Joe_characters and still ignored suggestions they be removed.Rain the 1 BAM 20:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, you are referring to this very reassessment page! Jezhotwells (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the links are similar, but the discussion here was created first. And then after Raintheone ran into opposition there, a second discussion was created on this page. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, that is the discussion page for the GAR process. This is the re-assessment page. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted an outside opinion but did not get one, only the same editors claiming fansites are fine. Like I said you were not willing to review the fansite material after the peer review so I nominated it. As editors will see when they look on the articles talk page, I was told my opinions do not count because of the peer review. So I think this peer review should be put on hold and handed over to the community in general.Rain the 1 BAM 23:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It was just that there was a mention of sources and no sign of the sources being removed. Plus an image was added back after the suggestion one be removed. But I guess we can wait until it is over if you really want too. If my views are pushed aside and I think not enough is being done to adress issues, I just thought this was the best place for it.Rain the 1 BAM 21:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which image? I believe the contentious ones brought up in Peer Review were removed. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rain, with all due respect, I've never claimed that your opinion doesn't count. But for all your talk, about how bad you think the fansite references are, I do think that you're going about fixing them the wrong way. I'm sorry if the the editors of WikiProject G.I. Joe have not met your standards as quickly as you expect. But I don't understand why you continue to remove information from G.I. Joe articles, when you admit yourself that you know very little about the subject matter. And then when someone disagrees with you, why do you ignore the editors who've been working on those articles, and decide to nominate an article for deletion, or ask for it to be reassessed? Wikipedia is built by editors coming to a consensus, but I do not feel that you have tried to work together with the editors of G.I. Joe articles. Instead, you have intentionally caused problems for others to fix, which again is not helpful or constructive. Fortdj33 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for discussion of how the article does or does not meet the good article criteria. Please discuss that here rather than engaging in disputes with other editors. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines for Good Article Reassessment state "Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate: reviewers are rarely content experts, nor can they reassess a moving target. Wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment." That is the primary reason why I dispute Raintheone's motives for reassessment, and I apologize if my comments were considered inappropriate. I personally believe that the article meets the criteria for GA status, as evidenced by Talk:G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics)#GA Review, and in fact has addressed the points of the peer review, to be considered for FA status. Fortdj33 (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to explain why you think it meets Ga in the current format. That GA review was for a the article in this revision [4] - Then next edit after that saw the article double in size with the inclusion of fansite material. The review was carried out by Jezhotwells himself, a fair reviewer of many articles - I do not think he would have not adressed the multiple use of these sources.Rain the 1 BAM 01:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per the GA Reassessment instructions, you are required to "leave a review on the reassessment page detailing the problems with the article in comparison to the criteria, and save the page." As such, the burden of proof is yours. The rationale given at the top of this page is nothing more than a generalization of what you perceive the problems to be, and is lacking in specific details and the comparison to GA criteria as specified. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is individual reassessment not community.Rain the 1 BAM 02:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Community assessment: "If you believe a current good article does not meet the criteria, try reassessing the article yourself (an individual reassessment), and only request a community reassessment if a disagreement arises." Have you done actually done that individual reassessment, and if so, where is it? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  1. Raintheone's implication (see earlier comment time/date stamped 01:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)) is that a decrease in quality must automatically follow from an increase in quantity - a logical fallacy at best, and intentionally dishonest at worst.
  2. I would also note that the fansite material you mention consists of interviews with the creator of the G.I. Joe comic book. Given the context in which the material appears (i.e. discussion of the publishing background, the creative processes involved, and impact of the series), I find it hard to believe that you can get any more reliable than the man himself. So while I can understand concerns about using other material from these websites (e.g. plot and character summaries) which could be interpreted as unsourced original research on the part of the website owners, it's hard to argue the same about statements coming directly from Larry Hama's mouth. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can start a fansite tomorrow and make an interview with him all by myself. You'd then use it for wikipedia, great. Yojoe have been at it for years without any form of verification. If it is a video interview, that is a different sttory. In context in this article, which I'd suggest the community, someone that is not involved in this project - look at it and opine on the fansites hosting interviews. This is something a lot of editors grapple, they just ignore fansites with interviews - why does this article gain exception.Rain the 1 BAM 03:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:
  1. So you're saying that at least three different websites have deliberately falsified the interviews? Sounds libelous to me.
  2. I can't speak for those other editors who "just ignore fansites with interviews", since I neither know those editors, nor am I familiar with their work. So as far as I'm concerned, fansite interviews are being used elsewhere - your job is to prove the absence, or the policy that specifically prohibits their use. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - given that this stems from what is essentially a content dispute, I'm thinking that one or more of these alternatives would have been more appropriate rather than jumping straight to GA Reassessment:
  1. Wikipedia:Third opinion
  2. Wikipedia:Requests for comment
  3. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal
-- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not. I nominated this because I believe it has unreliable information comprimising it's GA status. You won't even wait for other editors opinions. You are trying to shut it down before it has began.Rain the 1 BAM 03:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'll wait for other editors' opinions - I just happen to be waiting for editors who don't have a demonstrable bias against this WikiProject and its member editors -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I received a request on my talk page to look at this reassessment, particularly the claim that unreliable sources were being introduced into this article. Generally speaking, interviews are given more leeway in terms of reliability, but may be considered primary sources. Also speaking generally, be sure to consider WP:COPYLINK. Examining the specific sources used here, I would argue that this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this are of questionable reliability. If you have RSN discussions or other material supporting their use, they may be justifiable, but without that background I would advocate their removal in most cases. In a more general comment on the process here - 3O isn't currently a good dispute-resolution method for this article; MedCab or RfC might work, although I'm personally having trouble framing the dispute in the clear-question format preferred for RfCs. Community reassessment is more feasible than individual in this case. Whatever forum this dispute ends up in, I would encourage editors to avoid personalizing disputes and remain focused on content. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To let community editors know, we have RSN discussion of a few of those here -Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_92#G.I._Joe_characters.Rain the 1 BAM 04:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And to let community editors know, the aforementioned RSN was in regards to specific types of content (i.e. material such as character bios, plot summaries and scans of G.I. Joe toy vehicle blueprints and action figure filecards) hosted on those websites. Importantly, it should be noted that this article's disputed content is not the same type of content (i.e. interviews with G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero creator and writer Larry Hama. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure editors can read it for themselves. Here is just one example looking at the context of the RSN why is the claim "However, it eventually became one of the series' most enduring issues." - cited to [5] and [6] - This is a pretty big claim for fansites to be backing up.Rain the 1 BAM 13:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Although the nominator may bring up some good points about source reliability, this GAR seems to me to be the latest round in an ongoing grudge match against the members of the G.I. Joe Wikiproject, from its self-appointed content supervisor. I have personally been the target of this sort of attention before (see User:Gavin.collins), and I know from experience that it can get ugly and really ruin one's enjoyment of editing the Wiki. I have noticed that Raintheone will start a discussion politely enough, but quickly get frustrated and feel the need to take some sort of action against the parties if they do not do what he wants in the way he expects it. I have encouraged before, and I will again encourage Raintheone again to continue discussion with the people involved rather than jumping into action. If there is an ongoing dispute with other editors, we have a dispute resolution system - which, by the way, does not involve going to AFD or GAR to get one's way. BOZ (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BOZ, because Raintheone does not appear to desire a consensus with the editors of WikiProject G.I. Joe, instead he seems to be taking this debate about reliable sources personally. Unfortunately, his good intentions have degraded into disruptive editing. He has prevented other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve G.I. Joe articles, by intentionally creating problems for others to deal with, such as the aforementioned AFD, and this GAR. He has continued to edit G.I. Joe articles in pursuit of a certain point, despite opposition from other editors. And he has repeatedly disregarded other editors' explanations for their edits, because of his vendetta against certain sources.
Regardless, I believe that this article meets the criteria for GA status, as evidenced by its recent GA Review, and I dispute that any added content has automatically reduced the quality of the article. Since Raintheone has asked for a community reassessment of this article, with no regard for good article criteria, or the points of the peer review, it is his responsibility to specifically address the criteria for GA status, and explain on each point how this article fails to meet the criteria. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is just just the shared GI Joe editor's opinion. I brought it here to see if the sources compromise the GA. Not for the same group of editors to tell me off even more, you think it is okay, you would, you worked on the article. On the personal side you keep maing, I'm hopeful an admin will look into this and see what I've been through - Being told to go away because I don't read GI Joe, being told fansites are okay and the Guidelines and my questions are opinion because GI Joe editors reached a consensus that these are fine. Well four editors is a week consensus..Rain the 1 BAM 17:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and why should your opinion be worth any more than any one of us, forget about being worth more than all of us? And if, as you say, "four editors is a week [sic] consensus", then what do you call a consensus of one? Or is that why you're currently out there canvassing for admin support? If you're calling bias on me because I worked on the article, then I can easily call the same on your vendetta. What's truly sad is the amount of work that could have been done to address deficiencies in the article, if the G.I. Joe editors hadn't been wasting so much time having to deal with your constant harassment. Personally, I hope an admin does look into this to see what you've been putting the rest of us through. And for the record, I'm not telling you to go away because you don't read G.I. Joe ... I'm telling you to go away because you don't understand G.I. Joe. ... and likewise, I would never dream of editing Coronation Street etc., because I have no understanding of those. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, there is an admin looking at all of this - and while I'm not generally quick on the block button and would prefer to block neither of you, I'd willingly block both of you, if only to make you stop harping at each other. Jake: if you have a problem with Rain's behaviour, take it to WP:RFC/U or WP:AN/I. Rain, same goes for you. Both of you: the purpose of community GAR is to seek input from the wider GA community as to whether this article should remain a GA. Commentary here should be restricted to the article's content as it relates to the GA criteria. Comment on editor behaviour belongs elsewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Observation - you know what's awesome? Between this GAR, the discussion that immediately preceded it, and numerous other discussions on the article's talk page and the G.I. Joe WikiProject talk page, the total accumulated bytes worth of chatter is well in excess of the size of the actual article. How's that for efficiency and good use of time? The government (any government) would be proud. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I peer reviewed the article and commented that to become a FA it would need sourcing for things which were then without sources. While WP:RS applies to all articles, the higher an article goes on the quality scale, the less tolerance there is for including non-relaible sources. A GA has to follow WP:RS. That said, I have sometimes seen interviews in what seemed to fansites cited in articles at FAC. I looked at one of the interviews here There is relatively little on Hama and his work in it, and the main point Isaw (that Carl Barks was an influence on Hama's GI Joe books) is explicitly stated to also be in a foreword to a book. That is what should be cited. Wherever possible look for backups to the material from these interviews. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - so what happens now? It's been over a week since the GAR was posted. It's no coincidence that editing on the article in question has ground to a halt. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: well, the specifics of the rationale are that the addition of new material and new sources meant that the article no longer met the good article standards. Little has been done to address these concerns. The review may be kept open until some consensus is achieveed or there havs been a pweriod of four weeks without comment. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well the rationale was a little vague, suggest that the nominator provide with a point-by-point and we'll do what we can to address each specific deficiency as identified. Otherwise it seems to me to be a bit of a Catch-22 then - I can't speak for the other editors, but personally I'm reluctant to do anything until I know that I'm not wasting my time, but nothing is going get addressed until someone starts editing again. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Detailed look
*The paragraph in the Reprints section says - "G.I. Joe European Missions was published monthly from June 1988 until May 1989. The European Missions series are all reprints of Action Force Monthly, which was published in the UK. Unlike the weekly Action Force series, these were all original stories, never before seen in the U.S. They were not written by Larry Hama, and fall somewhere in between being part of the official continuity and outside of continuity." - This is cited to the Yojoe fansite [7], it is also a reword of what they said, it is being used to cite the whole block of text.
Removed Yojoe ref, and added {{Citation Needed}} -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*In the plot section, there is a claim that reads: At first, the issue was controversial; some readers felt cheated that it had no words and could be "read" so quickly. However, it eventually became one of the series' most enduring issues. - This source doesn't really help and it fails to meet WP:RS.
Well, for one thing, the source you indicate doesn't refer to the first part of the claim you quote above (which is properly cited). Have now removed the myuselessknowledge, and added another -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*This one is absolutely out of the question, this link to a FORUM post [8] is backing up text reading as such: "The series directly picks up from the end of the Marvel Comics series, and with Hasbro's statement that "Fans can read it according to their personal preference, but we are currently taking the brand in a direction that does not take the Devil’s Due story into account", the intervening series published by Devil's Due Publishing from 2000 to 2008 have been rendered non-canonical."
Hid it. Didn't delete it outright, as it's important, and I'm still hopeful of finding a source that meets Raintheone's exacting standards -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The events of these issues would later be embellished and elaborated on in many subsequent issues." is cited to a fansite and the article is here
Removed -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • - In the 'years later and cancellation' section the text and claim "Shortly after the final issue, a G.I. Joe Special #1 was released, with alternate art for issue #61 by Todd McFarlane. The cover features Snake Eyes in a crouched-down position, in a homage to the Spider-Man title that McFarlane illustrated during his tenure at Marvel." - [9] Trying to assert that it pays homage to something using a fansite is iffy. Is there no professional insight or is it mentioned in a interview with one of the associated personel?
Added a new source -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*This source [10] Is frfom mediacommons - They are group that is primarly built of students and aspiring journo's testing their writing skills. A org that also lets anyone interested in media join and post. They are not professional reviewers or anything. They also post in blog formats. - So basically this is one of many blogs.
I just did some digging, looking into the edit history for this article, and the edit that brought this reference into use actually predates the final pass into GA. So if it's good enough for the GA reviewer, then it should be good enough for you. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of April 2011, ten volumes have been published" - There is 11 per [11]
Actually, there's 10. One of the 11 on that page is a re-print of issue no. 1, as part of the "Hundred Penny Press" line. It is not considered one of the Classic G.I. Joe reprint volumes. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*"The shape of comic book reading" quote by A David Lewis, which page is the exact quote on? The ref is too brief, so the claim is not easily backed up.
So I guess that means that you've never learned to use the <Ctrl-F> function? Pity. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • [12] - NYCGraphics is actually a group of niche media people running a site hosted by Blogspot - I guess you could argue they have worked for some good companies though.
Again, you don't like this website, then get it blacklisted. But just to humour you, I've changed put in a new reference -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Even die hard fans make mistakes so why is good to use this fansite for a about 7 sentances, a big block of text.
Removed the offending bit of text. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • - In addition to these there are number of fansites hosting interviews - there is talk they might be okay though so I left them out. Nikkimaria raised issue with some of those, Ruhrfisch notes that WP:RS is important at GA and some are in question and that Jezhotwells notes that not much has been done to adress the issues, in the original rationale the sources were adressed in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_92#G.I._Joe_characters.Rain the 1 BAM 13:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"and that Jezhotwells notes that not much has been done to adress the issues". Why would I waste my time addressing anything, if you're just going to flush everything that I do? Your biases are showing more than ever. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Raintheone: fair enough - and if I address all of the points above, either by finding a better source, or deleting the claim, are you going to drop the harrassment? Or are you going to remain ensconced in your role of self-appointed content supervisor? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 9 reading :"^ a b c d e f g Zimmerman, Dwight Jon (July 1986), "Larry Hama", David Anthony Kraft's Comics Interview" - Where is that from? What type of media was it?Rain the 1 BAM 21:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you'd bother to do a little checking, you'd know that it's a magazine article reprinted online. Since you're such an expert, why don't you tell me what the proper citation format is? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joepedia is a an external wiki of bad quality and shouldn't really be used as an external link. Official sources are good for further reading.Rain the 1 BAM 21:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just harping -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are pointers to help it meet the GA criteria. With the citation, as the magazine reference was vague, I as the reader didn't know where to find it. The general reader wouldn't know this. Citations should be laid out correctly. Is there a link please?Rain the 1 BAM 22:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd bothered to check, you'd know it was there. Or else googled it. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are meant to cite the source - Readers aren't meant to google and find a ref that may or may not exist. An editor of the article should really make sure they provide info that is verified. We can assume good faith, but it is a little vague. What publication, page number etc. Good progress is being made, just a few more things left.Rain the 1 BAM 22:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why thankee massa, I sure is pleased youse approvin' of the progress. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jake Fuersturm, please keep your comments civil and remember to assume good faith. Thank you. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jezhotwells - Raintheone's the one questioning my good faith, or did you miss the exchange a few lines above. Furthermore, I'm simply reminding him that Wikipedia editors are volunteers, not slaves, especially not his. -- 00:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Jezhotwells - fyi, if you go through the points Raintheone listed today, he's actually questioning your judgement on something that made it into the final version of the article prior to it being passed in GA back on 2 March. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, Raintheone is pointing out something that I missed and should have picked up on. Such mistakes do happen. Please keep your comments to the point of whether or not this article meets the criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would have been dealing with things earlier, if Raintheone hadn't waited a week to actually provide something concrete. You'll excuse me if I'm loathe to waste my time dealing with generalities. But as you can see above, once they were properly enumerated, I have been dealing with them. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The request for me to adress more problems was made today. This is community GAR open to any editors insight. Plus you have been asked to stop making this personal - so please respect that. There are still issues there.
I made the request a week ago: "Per the GA Reassessment instructions, you are required to "leave a review on the reassessment page detailing the problems with the article in comparison to the criteria, and save the page." As such, the burden of proof is yours. The rationale given at the top of this page is nothing more than a generalization of what you perceive the problems to be, and is lacking in specific details and the comparison to GA criteria as specified. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)" -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was a request for a further explanation which I gave. Nikkimaria also raised the issue of several sources. Today there was a request for a point by point from the nominator. I'd like to request once again that we stick to the tasks in hand please.Rain the 1 BAM 02:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To which I responded: "Community assessment: "If you believe a current good article does not meet the criteria, try reassessing the article yourself (an individual reassessment), and only request a community reassessment if a disagreement arises." Have you done actually done that individual reassessment, and if so, where is it? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)" - and I am sticking to the task at hand - you held it up by a week. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The forum reference that is now hidden - needs not be there at all. Perhaps you can save it in your sandbox, it is still visable when editing - A GA should not have any unreliable claims anywhere in the text. Certainly not when a forum is being used.
  • The external links still have fansites
  • There is an issue still with the ref that was missed from the first GAR.
  • There are too many fansite interviews - It is up to other editors to decide, perhaps taking it to the RS Noticeboard mght be a good port of call.
  • There is still a NYCGraphics link (hosted by blogspot) being used as a ref.Rain the 1 BAM 01:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Forget about it. I refuse to edit anything more unless I get a solid commitment from Raintheone that if these final points are addressed, that he's going to drop the matter once and for all. He can't just keep adding stuff to the list, that's just being ridiculous. I have too much to do in real life than to come here and be his whipping boy for his amusement. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are points that have been incorrectly adressed from above, with an addition of something I missed. It is not for myself to decide as this is the community GAR and there will have to be consensus that it meets the criteria. At present there are outstanding issues that should be adressed. If everyone thinks enough work and changes to comply with the criteria have taken place, then it is very likely it shall pass. Once again, please try to avoid making personal comments like the one above - you have been asked several times by three editors - not to do so.Rain the 1 BAM 02:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The prose in the article could be tightened so it is more encyclopedic in tone - presently it is a little informal; however, the prose is clear enough for GA criteria 1 (a). It mostly meets 1 (b), though I would like to see the lead developed a bit more per WP:Lead - I don't see much of the Background and early development in the lead, for example. It meets most of 2 - it has a reference section, and doesn't appear to deal in OR. There are some statements that appear unsourced - such as "When G.I. Joe began, most toy tie-in comics lasted an average of two years, so G.I. Joe, lasting for 14 years, was considered a runaway success", "Many readers praised the series for its attention to detail and realism in the area of military tactics and procedures", and "The comic book's popularity with women has also been attributed to the strong female characters featured in the comic, such as Scarlett and Lady Jaye." And there is the question of the reliability of some of the sources used, which prompted this GAR. The sources I looked at do have staff, and appear to use academic writers; however there is an informal air about them, and they are being used to support some strong claims such as "the series has been credited for making G.I. Joe into a pop-culture phenomenon", and a "historically crucial moment in media convergence." The claims made for the series tend to be praise, and squeezed out of questionable fan sources, or not supported by any sources, so it might be failing 4 - neutrality. I'm inclining to the view that the article needs tighter sourcing, both in terms of challengable statements, and in terms of quality of sourcing. SilkTork *YES! 10:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for Raintheone: I see you are unhappy with the quality of the WP:External links in this article. Can you tell me which of the six Good article criteria requires compliance with the EL guideline? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. The issues I raised above have not been addressed. SilkTork *Tea time 11:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked back at my comment and I don't make any mention of any previous versions. I was evaluating the article as it stands now. I have not looked at your side-by-side comparison, as it is the article as it stands now that is under discussion. I came here as I am archiving my talkpage, and I am just checking I left a comment on this GAR. I don't have this discussion watchlisted, so if this GAR isn't closed, and the issues I have raised are addressed, please let me know, and I will reassess. SilkTork *Tea time 20:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Horse[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Closed as discussion is an editing issue which has moved to article talkpage SilkTork *Tea time 09:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

This article needs serious work and looking at. The opening para alone has innacuracies such as saying it is a subspecies of a family. Nirame (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that this reassessment was started a whole three minutes after the editor starting it first posted to the talk page. It appears that there is a desire by the person starting this to have references in the lead, when those facts are already referenced in the body of the article. There is also a bit of a concern about the first sentence, but I've been trying to work on the concerns as they are brought up without introducing any unsourced information into the article (as Nirame first attempted). While it's certainly not FA status just yet, it's quite well referenced and no other concerns have been brought forward here. I'm more than willing to work on issues, but I need them brought forward, not just "needs serious work". Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the only info i added was already in the article in the right hand panel and was not questioned in that section. in addition the sentance remains innacurate as the taxonomic family contains the genus and the genus the species the horse is subspecies of. missing out those two parts is very misleading. there are also further problems in text further in that makes a differnt subspecies alltogether indistinct the articles subspecies. Nirame (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please use capitals for the start of sentences? It's very hard to read without those visual clues. And I'm not sure what "there are also further problems in text further in that makes a differnt subspecies alltogether indistinct the articles subspecies" is referring to? Can you be specific on which sentence is wrong? I'm not sure what IS wrong from that statement of yours. Like I said, I'm happy to work with things, but you need to state specifics (Note that I clarified the Prez horse thing that you brought up on the talk page - adding in that Prez Horse is a separate species) so if that was the concern, I hope that my clarification made things better. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nirame was correct with the errors in the article, and I think looking over the article and seeing what needs to be fixed might be proper. I would suggest to make a list of issues, and then fix them. I doubt that there are many, but there is never an objection to improving the article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to fixing errors if they are pointed out - but we could have done that on the talk page also, but we're here and we might as well go ahead with the whole process. I've attempted to further clarify the Prez Horse as separate subspecies issue in the lead, if folks would comment whether that is an improvement? I'm not exactly a taxonomic expert, but I'm willing to work together to improve the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Although there are obviously always things that can be fixed, I'm not really seeing the need for a GAR at this point, and it seems that it was started because of a disagreement over a couple of sentences and referencing in the lead that lasted about 10 minutes before being brought to GAR. Kim, I thought you had already been over all of the taxonomic stuff in the article at one point and given it the go-ahead - guess I was wrong on that. We're thinking of working it up to FAC for later this summer, so a list of anything you think should be changed (or just go ahead and play with it), either here or on the talk page, would be great. You're our main equine taxonomy expert, so welcome back! Dana boomer (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is probably my fault because I did the revert. This user (Nirame) is a brand new user with a stunning knowledge of categorization, article renaming and disambiguation, for such a new user, and has been driving me nuts for the last 24-48 hours with massive categorization and category changes. I have asked him/her at least three times to discuss the changes with WikiProject Equine and he/she refuses to do so. When this change hit, I just punched the undo button because some of this editor's previous category reassessments weren't correct and they had lost credibility with me. I believe this is a bad faith reassessment request and should be summarily denied. Montanabw(talk) 01:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Articles can always be improved and as you are wanting to up its status anyway this will hopefully help weed out weaker points. i note the good article status goes back to 2008 so a review isnt inapropriate after that length time. the good article stuff says> Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and concise, < and that was what needed work here and we are still trying to fix. Also please seeWP:AOBF and lets look at things on a case by case basis and if there are differences integrate with refs them or put them on the talk page with refs. Nirame (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nirame, I'm still confused about why you started this GAR. You were apparently upset about one paragraph in the lead. Are there other places in the article that you would like to see things changed? Also, why did you not let the discussion play out on the talk page before going straight to GAR? Bringing an article to GAR over a minutes-long dispute over a few sentences is a rather over the top reaction. If you have other issues with the article, we would love to hear them, but for now, you just keep talking about the same issue (which, I think, has already been fixed). Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "if there are differences integrate with refs them or put them on the talk page with refs." Yes, if different high quality reliable sources disagree then we need to point this out in the article. However, if you are suggesting permanently putting the information and refs on the talk page, this is incorrect. Instead, we would put them in a footnote or otherwise keep them on the main article page - the article page is for reading, the talk page is for talking. Also, the knowledge of equine taxonomy, domestication and evolution has changed rapidly over the past two decades, so a high quality reliable source from 1990 in one of these quickly changing fields may quite possibly be meaningless now. Dana boomer (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The differences I was refering to there were in opinion generally for Montanabw meaning puting things back that are in disute by reversion is better done accompanied with supporting refs. But now you bring it up I agree with what you saying about the articles reliable sources potentially being meaningless now. Notes perhaps be taken of the publication years and checks done on how relevant they still are to their subject areas.Nirame (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also i am not saying to permenantly keep refernces on talk pages i was just meaning it might be needed to put them there before going into the main article if the main article is getting reverted lots.Nirame (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not what I meant. You say "if there are differences integrate them with refs". This I would take to mean adding new refs, since what is in the article is sourced (even if occasionally the prose needs to be tweaked). I was cautioning that any new refs that are added need to meet the "high quality reliable sources" criteria required by FAC (since that is where we plan to take the article) as well as be up-to-date. Montana was correct in stating that references are not needed for the majority of the lead. Because of the significant work we have done on this article over the past couple of years (since the GA nomination), all of the refs currently in the article should be up to date with the latest knowledge. If not, they are used to reference statements like "previously, scientists believed that...", which is a correct use of older sources. All I'm asking is that if you wish to integrate new information, provide new sources, and when integrating new sources, please make sure you vet the sources beforehand. Putting proposed new sources on the talk page is a good idea - it is what we always suggest, since this makes it easier to discuss them. Also, I'm still waiting for you to provide a listing of more issues, since a brief dispute over one paragraph does not warrant a GAR. Dana boomer (talk) 10:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nirame, I'm out of this particular discussion. Several people have busted our butts on this article for years, first to get it to GA, then to make it better yet, and now to get it ready for FA. If you have an issue with me, take it to my talk page (or yours) and we can discuss. What you are doing here is not in the least helpful and is hurting a bunch of other people -- seems a petty way to behave just because I reverted you. Montanabw(talk) 20:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with you at all thanks I'm just happy to point out some things here. Making the best of every article is what counts. I am corcerned with the content on wiki, what people wish to say about one another's character is neither here nor there to me.Nirame (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
added more to the talk page and shall put more as i decide how to phrase my concernsNirame (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Can you move to close this, then, please? Montanabw(talk) 05:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can we have a clear statement that this is a GAR issue by pointing out which of the criteria the article doesn't meet, or a clear statement that this is now simply an editing issue which has moved to the article talkpage, in which case I will close. SilkTork *Tea time 17:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi i think it would still be an issue under:
A good article is—
1.Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise,
and
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[5]
^as the content clarity is still to be sorted and the stability thing would come up as things are sorted outNirame (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK! I think " this IS now simply an editing issue which has moved to the article talkpage." Nirame began it though, so hopefully he/she will agree. Montanabw(talk) 06:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that there would be NO editing dispute except that Nirame started one! The issue is being thoroughly discussed on the talk page, and as far as I can see, he issues are trivial and not worthy of a GA review. The issues Nirame raises are appropriate for consideration before we put the article up for FA, which we are about to do, but Nirame, who is a relatively new user, doesn't seem to understand that you don't use GA review to do an FA peer review. And you most certainly do NOT request a GA review because you are having a snit fit over being reverted. Montanabw(talk) 02:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Good article reassessment (or GAR) is a process to determine whether articles that are listed as good articles still merit their good article (GA) status" Given the issues of clarity in the article that is why i started that and those issues are still there. The issues arent trivial the phrasing is at times ver misleading.Nirame (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And since this has been closed by SilkTork, we can now take this back to the talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel and Hardy[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist. The article was nominated for a community GAR due to concerns over referencing. The GAR has been open for over 11 weeks and there are still citation needed tags on the article. There are four editors who agree with delisting. SilkTork *Tea time 15:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The article has been given GA status at least 4 hours ago. However, this article fails 2b as sections of the article, "Foreign language films", "Supporting cast", "Music", "Lost films", "The Sons of the Desert", "Colorized versions", are unreferenced. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the article. I've added some refs and asked on the talk page for some more. Szzuk (talk) 07:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of those sections have been referenced now. Szzuk (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Lead does not adequately cover the article per WP:Lead, so not meeting GA criteria 1(b). There are dubious uses of lists. There is an extra-ordinary amount of unreferenced material which would call for a quick fail. There are some sweeping statements, quotes, personal comments, and challengable assertions that need citing. It's possible that the reviewer just read through the article without paying attention to the sourcing. These things happen. Anyway, clearly fails 2(b). There are two listy sections which contain dubious extra material, "In other popular culture" and "Supporting cast". These sections need to be tidied up or removed. This extra material causes the article to come up against 3(b) - "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". The reference section, though not impacting on GA criteria, is not helpful. There is a long list of reference books, and it is not clear which ones have been used in building the article and which ones are simply listed as recommended further reading. Added to which the external links section is clearly failing WP:EL. The article has been on GAR for over a month with insufficient attempt to address the referencing issue. SilkTork *Tea time 11:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will make changes to the lead, list sections, links - it'll take a while. It did occur to me when reading that you felt that the article could quick fail on unreferenced material, that you'd applied featured article criteria to 2b. Inline citations are deliberatley less severe for GA because if you need cites for everything you're practically at featured article status. The article is actually completely accurate so there isn't much worth challenging. If a lot more refs are needed I'll have to look for assistance. Szzuk (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I integrated the list sections, updated the lead, deleted the unnecessary links. I'm going to need more input on the refs. Szzuk (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Around 15 refs have been added since the start of the GAR, 3 separate contributors have added them and more can be provided if necessary. If you feel more are required please add inline cite requests to the article. Szzuk (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reference section has been split into further reading and those used for cites. Szzuk (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a substantial section called Before the teaming, which has two sub-sections. None of this is in the lead. Either the information in Before the teaming section is not needed, or it should be summarised in the lead per WP:Lead. It would be worth going through the article and paying careful attention to building the lead.
 Done Have updated lead. Article needs to mention they were established/experienced actors before the duo. Will recheck to see if I've missed any other sections. Szzuk (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How long is "soon"?
 Done Deleted, too subjective. Szzuk (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a very long reading list, some of it is fairly general, and some is not helpful - In the Night Kitchen is not about L&H, it's a children's comic book that just uses their images. See WP:FURTHER for guidance on Further reading lists.
There is a world of difference between a comic book and an illustrated picture book by an internationally recognized author, Maurice Sendak. The reference is clear that this is the first and most prominent use of the imagery of Laurel and Hardy because of the author's upbringing and constant attendance as a child at matinee performances of the Laurel and Hardy films. The inclusion of the image not only is an example of how a popular cultural reference made it into the popular mainstream media but that the Sendak works have now been the subject of university programs and especially in the case of award-winning In the Night Kitchen, the example of influence in a child's mind led to influence of other children, far removed from Sendak's generation and how they were introduced to the story of Laurel and Hardy. Sendak even referred to his early years as ones of poverty and deprivation with only the continual visits to a local theatre to see the comedy duo on screen, as his only respite. In the Night Kitchen was not only a recreation of the author's childhood thoughts but also an homage to the one aspect of a long-lost past. FWiW, because the original paragraph with its quotes and citations is now completely lost, no wonder nothing makes sense. Bzuk (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
 Done The further reading section is gone. I think the Sendak book notes should stay as they add to the article. Szzuk (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the reference section could be presented more helpfully. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. I have tidied up a bit.
     Done Tidied. Szzuk (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well done on removing the lists.
  • The referencing is still weak. There are still opinions, quotes and statements that could be challenged. It is a policy requirement that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation." And GA criteria specifies opinions, quotes and controversial statements that could be challenged.
     Done See below. Szzuk (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is saying this: "Laurel and Hardy's onscreen personas are of two dim but eternally optimistic men, secure in their perpetual and impregnable innocence. Their humor is physical, but their accident-prone buffoonery is distinguished by their affable personalities and mutual devotion; essentially "children" in an adult world." That reads like an authorial summary, but is not cited to any source.
 Done Deleted. Szzuk (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lack of adequate sourcing is a problem for this article even without a GAR taking place. It is generally easier to cite when building an article and the sources are right there on your desk, than it is to look for sources after the article has been written. I will be looking to close this as a delist in 7 days unless there has been significant improvements on the issues raised. SilkTork *Tea time 22:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I can see this now. I combined two of the sections on style of comedy and characterizations and deleted around a third of the material. It was pretty weak and would never be verifiable. Szzuk (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I finished a pretty major copyedit of the history section and removed the more cites tag. Deleted quite a lot of weak material and re-ordered etc. There might be a few bits and pieces that still need citing but nothing I could see. Szzuk (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:::This is possibly the worst rewrite I have ever seen in a good article. Instead of finding sources for areas of contention, whole sections have disappeared to the extent that the reviewer is not seeing the initial work at all. The article has been "sliced and diced" into an incomprehensible mess. I almost feel like go ahead with the "delist" and then restore the article to its original pre-May 2011 state and then start over with the references at hand and make it a readable and verifiable work. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't going to be possible to source statements that I deleted. I deleted what was challengeable, weak, not focussed - generally not encyclopedic. You're also aware I've been editing this aricle for several years - I most certainly did not slice and dice, I left the important information. Szzuk (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that, "It wasn't going to be possible to source statements that I deleted"? Isn't that the way that the original authors would gather supporting material to corroborate their development of the article? I know that editing other's work is often a question of "too many cooks" but the generally accepted editorial dictum is to preserve the original intent ("voice") of the author rather than instilling a new direction. I am further puzzled how a good article in April is considered unredeemable by May 2011. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The original GA was weak, so it was sent for review after 4 hours. That's fair enough, I expected to have to do more copyediting. I don't think I did instill a new direction, I haven't added comment I removed that which I felt was unverifiable/challengeable. Szzuk (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The major concern I have is that the amount of removal of content that was linked to the body of the text has left a large list of reference sources that are now unconnected with the article. In stating a case for the use of Sendak references, I scanned the article to find no mention of the original statement. In doing a cursory check, there are 1,000 words missing from the body from April–June 2011. With such a major change, reducing the article by 16%+, and scarce mention in the talk page regarding these changes, you are surprised that I am surprised? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
All of the sources used for inline cites are now listed in the bibliography. It is impossible for me or anyone else to know which books in the further reading section were used to help write the article without the original author having put cites inline. I mentioned the GAR on the talk page on several occasions. WP:Further reading mentions this section should be limited. It would be helpful if you could think of a way of limiting it. Szzuk (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since the statements that were derived from the reference sources no longer exist in the body; I will await the reviewer's final comments and decision. The next step may be to undertake a complete rewrite if warranted as the article itself was the culmination of many years work and many contributors' contributions yet now has become significantly different, never mind the niceties of doing a basic style and consistency check. The reason why there are so many references in the so-called "further reading" is that these sources were once used to support and verify the individual statements made in the article. The only recourse to the massive deletion of text is that there will be a digital record of the earlier versions with which to begin again. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Okay, time to get off my meds. On a veeeeery careful re-reading of the revised edit, it isn't as drastic a change as I first dramatically and harshly characterized. My apologies to Szzuk, who has tried to do a masterful, if not always consistent job of revising the article to "streamline" it, although some revision may still be necessary. See new changes today. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I accept your apology. I'm not going to get much more opportunity to edit before the GAR closes however I trust your additions will be helpful. Szzuk (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Misunderstanding cleared up. Szzuk (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • De-list - Several issues throughout article. I suggest a de-list, and then a re-nomination with a proper review. Several basic grammar issues, violations of basic MoS and awkward paragraphing. Would be happy to post several poor prose examples if required or asked for.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 07:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This could easily be construed as a bad faith comment, however I will assume good faith. I do not wish to point out the prose problems with your article - Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Dreamlover (song)/1 and I have no obligation to do so. Szzuk (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This has nothing to do with you or "Dreamlover". Take it as you'd like. Just so you're satisfied, I'll post actual evidence shortly.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added a few references and did some copy editing. Could not work out these sentences:
  • Hal Roach spoke scathingly about the film (despite box office takings to the contrary) and Laurel's behavior during it's making. How is box office takings contrary to speaking scathingly? Maybe "despite [high/good/????] box office takings"
  • often played by Mae Busch, Anita Garvin and Daphne Pollard Did they have three wives? Should the "and" be an "or"? Or if Pollard was always one of the wives could it be rephrased to "often played by Daphne Pollard and Mae Busch or Anita Garvin".
I commend the work done by Szzuk in adding references, but it could do with some more. Added some "cite needed" tags where I feel they are necessary (i.e. statements regarding their popularity). This has been going a while so delisting is understandable, but as long as it is continueing to be improved I would be inclined to let it go a little longer. AIRcorn (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed what I can but I don't have the books to rebuild the article, delist was always a possibility, will just wait and see. Szzuk (talk) 09:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I started going through the article in order to tidy up and cite, but it does require more than a few hours work. I'll now delist. SilkTork *Tea time 15:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guarana[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • most recent GAN review

Result: Delist Two months and very little improvement. Clear consensus to delist. AIRcorn (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Several one-sentence paragraphs. Prose is terrible.
  • "Beverages" section has several [citation needed]s.
  • Are there any more recent studies on its effects?
  • Is more known about its history?

The article seems very short. I'm sure there's much more to be said about its history and use in products, and its effects. Are there any more recent studies on what it can do? It's widely used in energy drinks, so there should be more to say about it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the citations, but it still needs wp:MEDRS for medical assertions. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the points made above. The one-sentence paragraphs make the article read as a series of facts, instead of clear, encyclopedic prose. For the History section, it would be helpful to provide chronological context. For example, the portion on the Guaranís mentions no (even approximate) date or time--making it tricky for the reader to determine when this cultural practice began and whether it is still in use today. The last two sentences in this section also omit much detail, jumping quickly from 16th century use of Guarana in Europe to its commercialization in 1958. The first portion of the History and use section of the Stevia plant article, while not perfect, could serve as a solid model for these purposes. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Agree with the above about broadness and prose. Virtually nothing has been done to address these issues despite sources being availible [13] AIRcorn (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per TenPoundHammer's concerns. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 06:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Too many short, choppy sentences. I'm not an expert but think the coverage isn't broad. No interested editors from the looks of things. Szzuk (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M-17 (Michigan highway)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. The concern was that the article was not factually correct and didn't cover the main points. This concern was not shared by the three editors who responded, and upon examination of the article it appears to meet the appropriate criteria, and is of a similar standard to other GA listed articles on this topic. SilkTork *Tea time 10:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Believing that this article may fail two of the Good Article criteria, I recently opened a Good Article review. However, the primary article contributor and I were unable to reach agreement regarding needed changes, so I have closed the individual review and am requesting a community review.

My first concern with this article is that it does not meet Good Article criterion #2 ("Factually accurate and verifiable"). I found a number of factual errors in the "Route description" section, some of which would be obvious simply by looking at a map, and others of which are obvious to anyone who has driven the route. I attempted to correct the errors that I spotted, but I have no references for this. One correction which I attempted to make was reverted without explanation, even after I raised the issue in the individual review. Also, this article is sourced almost entirely to maps. This is not necessarily a problem, but requires that we stick to facts that are actually shown on the map and not interpretations or guesswork.

My second concern is that the article does not meet GAC #3a ("it addresses the main aspects of the topic"). The western portion of it, running on Washtenaw Avenue from US-23 to the EMU campus, is a major thoroughfare in the area. A reasonable search will turn up quite a lot that's been written about this stretch of road, including the general character of the road, notable landmarks along it, the history of the developments along the road, and future plans. Similar information (though in less quantity) can be found regarding the eastern portion of it, on Ecorse.

Thank you, cmadler (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Imzadi1979

Regarding Cmadler's points above in brief, he has been encouraged to make any additions or corrections to the article he wants. His issue about sourcing to maps is a bit of a non-starter though, as has been discussed in numerous forums over the last several years. If there are minor errors (I have been known to mix up the words "east" and "west" in a minor form of dyslexia) then they can and should be fixed by anyone, period. I removed a measurement he added to the article because I felt we couldn't support it from the existing sources. We seem to have some disagreement over how to describe where M-17 and BUS US 23 run concurrently, if Cmadler wants to look into that, as the local resident, and help clarify that, then that's welcome.

Second, I have done a search of news media looking for information to add to this article. Cmadler stated in the last GAR, "This is probably the most-written-about, most-discussed roadway in the Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti area. Concerns about traffic congestion and non-motorized (pedestrian and cyclist) use of this road appear in major local media on a regular basis." Yet I have not found any articles referencing the roadway except in the context as the location for a crime or the location of a business opening. I've asked Cmadler's help in finding articles and sources to back his statement so that we can include the information. His reply was to close the individual GAR and open this GAR. Imzadi 1979 → 20:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. GAR is not the GA demotion factory. --Rschen7754 21:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My vote still stands, unless it becomes apparent that there's something that actually needs fixing. GAR is not the place to bring articles to be demoted because of vaguely worded concerns that cannot be addressed. --Rschen7754 16:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be as explicit as possible about my concerns, and will number them for easier discussion.

  1. I'm not suggesting that using a map as a source in unsuitable -- I think that's obviously acceptable -- but statements about (for example) roads passing through residential areas, etc. are not adequately supported by the maps. Imzadi1979 has not responded to this, beyond the above comment ("a bit of a non-starter...has been discussed in numerous forums over the last several years"). I have examined the talk page archives of the US Roads WikiProject, and every discussion I found seems to confirm that a map can only be used as a source for information that it actually shows. -- This appears to me to fail GAC 2 (the verifiable requirement).
  2. Unless my understanding of the term is wrong (which is possible), I do not think M-17 runs concurrently with BUS US 12 until the Huron Street intersection; the several blocks before (west) that intersection have westbound M-17 on the westbound (southern) lanes and eastbound BUS US 12 on the eastbound (north) lanes, with most of that stretch divided with a median (as a boulevard). I changed this, but Imzadi1979 changed it back without explanation. (Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding the idea of concurrency.) -- This appears to me to fail GAC 2 (the factually acurate requirement).
  3. I apologize for the delay in providing further sources; I hope to have them this afternoon or this weekend. I've been busy IRL, which is also the reason the individual GAR sat so long. -- This appears to me to fail GAC 3a (requirement to address the main aspects of the topic).

Thanks, cmadler (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • A quick search of a couple major local media outlets turned up the following relevant articles published within just the last year. I'm sure a more in-depth search would turn up many more.
  • Obviously many of these discuss individually trivial matters, but they collectively paint a picture of both the present reality and major plans for this road. And again, this was just a few minutes' searching; a more in-depth search could surely turn up much more, including historical information. cmadler (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further replies from Imzadi1979
  1. The map actually shows the information presented. As I stated in the individual GAR, the satellite view in Google Maps does show that information, i.e. it doesn't take a specialist or even a leap of judgement to see that those are residential subdivisions (houses, apartment buildings, etc) near the roadway in question, especially when Google Maps labels individual businesses. That level of interpretation is allowable, and verifiable.
  2. We may have had a minor disagreement in in fact based on how the MDOT map inset I consulted makes the one-way street situation in that area appear. Now that 2011 map is out and in my hands, let's update the text as necessary.
  3. Thank you for finally answering my question. Let me see what's usable here, because an article that trivially mentions the roadway is useless for our purposes. We can't really take and synthesize ("paint a picture") from minor details scattered across several articles though.

Imzadi 1979 → 16:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to #1, I believe Google Maps is sufficient enough to source this. I personally don't refer to this sort of thing in my articles, but I won't object to anyone who does. (I have objected to articles that have way too many references to the surrounding land, because when articles become a meaningless repetition of "The highway passes through X County, where it goes by some homes. Following this, it goes through farmland before passing by some random business. Then there's some more homes" it puts the reader to sleep. I don't see that here.) --Rschen7754 16:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) I will wait for your further comments regarding points 2 & 3. Regarding the first point, prior to my first edit, the article contained the statement "Along the sides of the highway are many subdivisions of houses and schools" cited to Google maps. This was an untrue statement, and the fact that you believe such a statement could be cited to Google maps highlights my concern about this. I changed the statement to read "Although there are many residential areas near M-17, particularly to the south, the road itself is dominated by commercial development, including numerous restaurants." The first portion of this might be citeable to the satelite view on Google maps, but the rest of it is not, and is currently uncited. Another uncited and possibly incorrect statement is that M-17 begins "on the Ann Arbor – Pittsfield Township border." Although it is certainly near the border, I am dubious that it is actually on the border, which is near (but not at) the western end of the Washtenaw Avenue/US-23 interchange. cmadler (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have limited time the rest of this afternoon, but concerning the terminus point, I will comment for the moment. The following is all cited to the Detroit Area inset of the 2008 map:

M-17 begins at exit 37 along US Highway 23 (US 23) on the Ann Arbor – Pittsfield Township border. West of this cloverleaf interchange, Washtenaw Avenue is Business Loop Interstate 94 (BL I-94) and Business US 23 (BUS US 23). M-17 follows Washtenaw Avenue east of this interchange through Pittsfield Township and Ypsilanti Township.

Breaking those three sentence down, clause by clause, if necessary:

  1. US 23 runs along the border. The political boundary jogs westward so that the interchange ramps are in the township, but the freeway runs along the boundary. The printed map has change in shading for the two municipalities obscured by the interchange.
  2. The second sentence sets up what is the westward continuation of M-17 since Washtenaw Avenue does not terminate where M-17 terminates.
  3. The third sentence sets up where M-17 initially runs from its terminal point.

All three facts are verifiable from the MDOT map inset, and cited to it. (No policy or guideline around here requires consecutive sentences to carry redundant citations except in a biography.) Imzadi 1979 → 18:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to Washtenaw County GIS (I apologize, I can't figure out how to link to a specific view, but it's pretty simple to navigate), not only is the entire interchange within Pittsfield Township, but there is a narrow strip of Pittsfield Township extending into Ann Arbor, encompassing the full width of Washtenaw Avenue all the way to the Pittsfield Boulevard intersection. If M-17 terminates at US-23 (including any part of the interchange), the terminus is fully within Pittsfield Township. cmadler (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you read what I said? Your map shows the US 23 freeway running along, but slightly east of, the boundary, with the city line diverging west around the interchange ramps. The MDOT Physical Reference Finder Application, shows most of, but not all of the interchange in the township with ramps crossing in and out of the city. The 2011 Official State Map's Detroit Area inset (online version of that part of the inset) shows the change in the color of the shading between the city and the township changing at the freeway. The text of the article states that the terminus is at the interchange with the US 23 freeway, and the freeway runs along the border. Your map does not contradict that. Imzadi 1979 → 19:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The map I linked shows the entire interchange within Pittsfield Township. If it is within the Township, it is not on the border. The 2011 Official MDOT map, while broadly correct, lacks the accuracy to correctly describe this (note that it also shows this interchange crossing Hogback/Carpenter Roads, which satelite images show to be incorrect). As for the MDOT PR finder, since it agrees as to the roads but disagrees as to the position of the border, it becomes a question of which source is more reliable as to the position of borders of Washtenaw County subdivisions: Washtenaw County or the Michigan Department of Transportation. cmadler (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is broad in describing what the road is like along with its history. It does not need excess detail describing every single point of interest along the road. In addition, maps are acceptable as sources in road articles. Dough4872 02:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing the grounds for delisting. There are two claims - one that the description of the route is not accurate, though the source used bears out the description. The other is that it is not broad enough as it doesn't go into enough detail about the character of the road - though the article follows the level of detail of other GA listed road articles. It's worth keeping this GAR open for a week to see if there is any support for the issues raised, though I would be looking to close at that point if there is no support. SilkTork *Tea time 17:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Lincecum[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • most recent GAN review
Result: Keep Consensus is the article was brought to GAR without substantial problems and during the reassessment no other problems have come to light. Szzuk (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this fails to completely cover the subject. It doesn't mention his personal life. His interactions with cannabis deserve a lot of coverage. Currently it's not covered at all. This seems to be an old GA that's lurking around. --Iankap99 (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The review was in August 2007. I see that you have not commented at the article talk page. That would normally the be the best step. Or you could work on expanding the article yourself. Personal life information should only be there if it is relevant to his career and it needs to be cited to verifiable and reliable sources. Any information needs to follow our WP:BLP policies. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is false, his whole life should be covered, not just his career. Frank Sinatra's page certainly has more information than just his career. He faced misdemeanor charges, I'd say that's relevant and deserves a lot of coverage. It affected his life and he ended up getting very involved in the politics of California cannabis legalization. The prose is far to short and doesn't cover enough of his personal life to warrant GA status.--Iankap99 (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is false? That information needs to be "cited to verifiable and reliable sources"? Have you notified the nominator of the article? Have you attempted to contact those who have edited the artcile? Have you considered working on the article yourself? Jezhotwells (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions him being cited for possession of cannabis. If this was the extent of the offense then this brief mention is about right. A search of Google news did not turn up anything else [38]. In fact drawing undue weight to a controversy, by giving it "a lot of coverage", in a biography would be a more justifiable reason to delist. A few references could be formatted better, the inline external link should go, a few more references would be nice (for example, the last paragraph in 2010 and his accomplishments), but other than that it is in not too bad a knick for an old GA. AIRcorn (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the ref formatting and External link. AIRcorn (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball AIRcorn (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing where more would need to be added in on the cannabis issue; it reads fine as is, and adding more would actually be a problem. Personal info is sorted throughout the article, so I'm not really seeing any major problems here if that's all there was. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I beleive the issue about his cannibis use is sufficiently covered and there is nothing else that currently makes me beleive this needs to be delisted AIRcorn (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamlover (song)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: delisted due to writer request and prose issues. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article for reassessment as I believe that the review concluded earlier today failed to address criterion 1(a) of the good article criteria: "the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;" Examples of poor prose include:

  • Is was written by Carey and Dave Hall, and produced by the former and Walter Afanasieff. Ungrammatical, poor phrasing.
  • The song became the first of Carey's transition into the pop market, following the mixed reception to her previous studio effort Emotions (1991), which contained gospel and 1960s soul influences. "became the first of Carey's transition into the pop market"? Ungrammatical
  • The song's music video was filmed at upstate New York during August of 1993 by Diane Martel. "at upstate New York"
  • The video was complimented by author Chris Nickson for its resemblance to the song's music and arrangement, as well as its carefree vibe Ungrammatical
  • Due to the song's strong charting, the video received heavy rotation of several music video channels. Incorrect word choice
  • Aside from the seven songs taken from Carey's demo tape, four other tracks were written and produced by the former and an array of famed record producers. weasel word "famed"
  • The album was complimented by critics, who called it a mature debut, full of various genre influences ranging from pop, R&B and soul. "various" poor word choice
  • While making a strong impact on pop music, Carey became interested in altering her sound, and deviating from pop music for her second studio effort, Emotions (1991) Poor word choice
  • During the album's recording, Carey yielded to several different musicians and producers, aside from Walter Afanasieff, the only hold over from her debut.[Very poor prose.
  • Emotions contained influences from mostly 1950's, 60's and 70's balladry and gospel, as well as her continued work of R&B and soul. "mostly"?
  • Following these events, Columbia decided to try and market Carey in a similar fashion to her debut, only having her produce a more commercial and radio-friendly album. Ungrammatical, unclear, poor prose.
  • Carey decided to use the hook in a new and more innovative way then she thought she had ever heard it. Ungrammatical, "then"?
  • She claimed having heard the hook being used in several different songs and tunes, but "never like this." Tense
  • Additionally, Hall expressed how the song's title was not developed until the end of its production ungrammatical.
  • After completing the song, Carey's fiancé at the time, and her soon to be husband, Tommy Mottola came to hear the song in the studio. After giving their take on "Dreamlover", he expressed mixed feelings towards the song, then approaching Walter Afanasieff to add some needed instrumentation and flavor to it. Who is the "they" of "their"?
  • On the issue dated August 23, 1993, "Dreamlover" entered the Australian Singles Chart at number forty-one, eventually reaching a peak of number seven and spending a total of twenty-one consecutive weeks inside the chart. On the issue of what?
  • On the UK Singles Chart, "Dreamlover" reached at its peak position of number nine, during the week of September 4, 1993. "reached at its peak position of number nine"?
  • As the video begins, Carey is seen swimming underwater with clothing, soon gasping for air and climbing into the flower bed above. "with clothing"?
  • Following promotion for her seventh studio effort Rainbow, Carey filmed a Fox Broadcasting Company special titled The Mariah Carey Homecoming Special, a mini-concert filmed at Carey's old high school in Huntington, New York airing on December 21, 1999. change of tense
  • Similarly, during her two following Daydream and Butterfly World Tours, Carey featured her three female background singers up front on stage with her, while they performed small dance numbers alongside her. Clumsy - ungrammatical
  • On Carey's Charmbracelet and The Adventures of Mimi Tours, three male back up dancers were featured on stage, apart from the three female background vocalists behind them. "up dancers"?

These are the outstanding examples of very poor prose. I believe that the article should not have been listed in this poor state. I also believe that full credits for all of the personnel involved in a single release should be included, to ensure broadness of coverage. Nominator and reviewer will be informed. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I don't think all of these are problematic. Most of these are in fact grammatically correct. Next, you went and gathered examples from the entire article and came up with this. This is a fairly small list, and I don't think its a big deal for a GA review. I will await the input from other editors if they believe the prose are that poor. I don't.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issues might be outstanding, but I feel that they're minor. I think with a good c/e, the article will sound better. Novice7 (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – That review was beyond pathetic and what the reviewer wrote was so passable. I agree with Jez that there are prose issues with the article, which the reviewer should have pointed out. This reassessment will benefit thw artcle only. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Novice and I have seemingly fixed the listed issues. And yes I do agree that the review was very sketchy, I wasn't even aware of the passing or reviewing.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 16:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment:
    • Author Chris Nickson complimented the video's carefree setting ... People are "complimented", not things. Again: The album was complimented by critics, who called it a mature debut, and complimented the incorporation of various musical genres ranging from pop to R&B and soul. And: many of whom complimented its production And: Additionally, while complimenting the hook
    • Following the success of her debut, Columbia allowed her to take more control over her musical departure, enabling her to change her genre infusions, melodies and production What does "musical departure" mean? What does "genre infusion" mean?
    • He explained how the two had solely incorporated the hook, melody and loop over the course of one night. "solely incorporated"? What does this mean?
    • Hall also expressed that the song's title was not developed until the end of its production. "expressed that"? Why not just say "said"?
    • After completing the song, Carey's fiancé at the time, and her soon to be husband, Tommy Mottola came to hear the song in the studio. "fiance" means "soon to be husband" so completely unnecessary.
    • After Carey and Hall played "Dreamlover", Mottola expressed mixed feelings towards the song, then approaching Walter Afanasieff to add some needed instrumentation and flavor to it. "expressed" again. "then approacing"? This is very poor. Just write it clearly in "plain Englush]].
    • According to the music sheet published at Musicnotes.com Are you aware that published sheet music is often very different to the issues recorded version. It is issued by the music publisher to assert their rights, usually transcribed by an employee of the publishing house and often bearing marked diffrences to the record. See "Beatles Complete songbook" as compared to the more recent "Beatles Complete Chord songbook".
    • The song topped eight other Billboard charts, and holds the title as the highest debuting song on Billboard's Pop Songs in history, debuting at number twelve during the week of August 14, 1993. Repetitious phrasing.
    • Three weeks later, the song ascended to the chart's summit, spending six consecutive weeks at the top and a total of twenty-one weeks within the singles chart. "ascended to the chart's summit" You mean it reached number one" Why not say so.
    • As the video begins, Carey is seen swimming underwater with clothing, soon gasping for air and climbing into the flower bed above. The image conjured up here is of the singer underwater with clothing swimming around her! Try using plain English.
    • I made some minor copy-edits. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image – File:Mariah Carey Dreamlover MV.jpg fails WP:NFCC#8 as it doesnot contribute to reader's understanding of the article at all. This should be removed, or replaced with another image which can pass WP:NFCC. Personally, I don't find any instance from the music video acceptable for this. Also ask any admin to remove the old version of the music sample and especially for the single cover art. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Dreamlover" began Carey's trend at the time of sampling older tunes as the hooks and backbone of her lead singles --> Doesnot make any sense. You cannot sample an older tune and use it as hook, which is a completely different part of the main composition. Did you mean incorporating the older tunes into the tune and as background music of the song? — Legolas (talk2me) 14:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually don't understand the difference. The "hook" of an older song was used as the hook for "Dreamlover" and was incorporated into the background melody and instrumentation. Do you not understand this? How would you word that?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article is worded badly in many places although it has improved through recent editing. At a guess I'd say the major contributors don't have English as a first language and the article would benefit from a copyedit from someone with better English. I apologise if that isn't the case. Szzuk (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I take no offense, however, as you feel the wording is so poor, can you highlight some instances? Because I honestly don't see issues in the articles present form.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have gone through the lead and made a few copy-edits. Some listed here I was unsure how to fix
    • The song was included in the 1999 Mariah Carey Homecoming Special and her appearance on The Today Show. "included in her appearance" maybe performed during her appearance.
    • Additionally, the song was featured [in] the set-lists of most of Carey's succeeding tours, making its debut during the album's accompanying set of concerts, the Music Box Tour and was featured on Carey's compilation albums, Number 1's (1998) and Greatest Hits (2001).Why additionally, what tours was it succeeding, "making its debut during the album's accompanying set of concerts"?, very hard to follow what is being said here.
    • After filming for the video concluded, Carey said that she did not go swimming in the cold water until Martel dived in first. Does this need to be included in the lead?
I think this has enough coverage and references to be a good article, but its prose still needs more work. AIRcorn (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments Aircorn. I believe I have incorporated the changes into the article. Thanks!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Its been over one month, and no one has added any issues or comments. I think its safe to close this re-assessment.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Article is delist as it stands. There have been no article edits in the last month and substantial problems with the prose remain. Szzuk (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have yet to point out even one instance of poor wording. If you are going to make comments like that, then have something to back it up with. There have been no edits in over one month because all the issue were addressed.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one fell of my radar. I have worked through the rest of the article. You might want to check that none of my edits changed the meaning of the sentences.
    • The song is different from any she had previously recorded, as it leans on pop and light R&B influences. Yet the previous section says Emotions was influenced by R&B plus pop and R&B are also used to describe her first album.
    • On the issue dated August 23, 1993 of Kent Music Report, "Dreamlover" entered the Australian Singles Chart at number forty-one, eventually reaching a peak of number seven and spending a total of twenty-one consecutive weeks on the chart. Why does it say "on the issue dated August 23, 1993 of Kent Music Report"?
You might want to leave a note with Jezhotwells talk and see if he believes the article is up to GA standard. AIRcorn (talk) 08:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aircorn. Thanks a lot for the cop-edit, I really appreciate your help! As for the first one, I fixed it to mean "anything she recorded on the last album." As for the second one, I don't understand the issue. The Kent Music Report was a weekly record chart in Australia, since the ARIA starting electronically posting data in 1997.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can't the sentence just start "Dreamlover" entered the Australian Singles Chart at number forty-one...." and just use the Kent Music Report as a reference? AIRcorn (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sure, I didn't know you meant it that way. As for Jez, I noticed your message before you posted his name lol. I mean, it works with consensus, and he wasn't really reluctant to help or accept the article in any stance, so I'm not sure about approaching him.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's seemed reasonable in the few dealings I have had with him. He certainly knows a lot more about good articles than me. It wouldn't hurt in any case. AIRcorn (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I trust your word, I'll give him a ring.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to comment on the prose again so here goes:

  • Columbia decided to return Carey to the same genre as her debut album and have her produce a more commercial and radio-friendly record - clumsy and mixed tenses.
  • While recording Music Box, Carey began to alter her songwriting style and genre choices, most notably in "Dreamlover". The song is different from anything she had recorded on her previous album, as it leans on pop and light R&B influences. Again inconsistency of tense.
  • After having completed the song, Hall complimented Carey's work ethic and form of writing, calling her a "perfectionist" and "very professional." Poor grammar.
  • Carey's vocals in the song span over two octaves, from the note of an A3 to the high note of a C5. Surely just "span two octaves"?
  • "Dreamlover" holds the title of the highest debuting song on the Billboard Pop Songs chart, entering the chart at number twelve on the week dated August 14, 1993. Th reference supplied suggests that Lady Gaga's "Born This Way" holds that record.
  • The video received heavy rotation on several video music channels, which added to the song's chart performance. "which helped the song's chart performance." rather than "which added to the song's chart performance."
  • Overall, the prose is still rather disjointed and does not really meet the £reasonably ell written" criterion. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to editors - Honestly, I've taken the decision that I'd like for the article to be de-listed. Its for the best. I mean, the article and me were screwed by the crappy review, so I think its most beneficial for me and the article if its de-listed, and then I can take the necessary time to re-read and re-do the prose, and have a thorough and professional review taken. Its not worth it to keep making fixes that wind up bringing up new issues inadvertently. So, that is my decision, I think its best, and I'll hopefully re-nominate it soon.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 15:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Railway stations in Cromer[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: kept Procedural close, no vaild reason for delisting given by nominator. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Looks too small to be a GA article therefore should be delisted. Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 06:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a spurious reason. There's no minimum or maximum article size at GAN; this is considerably longer than a large number of Featured Articles, let alone GAs. Which of the Good Article Criteria are you claiming that this no longer meets? – iridescent 15:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. If it passed on the review page, then you must specify to us which criteria you think it no longer meets, and size is not on the criteria. Rcsprinter (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be an early procedural close unless the nominator offers other reasons for the nomination. A cursory read of the article doesn't lead me to think this reassesement needs to be open for long. Szzuk (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Stuart[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. Deadlinks were fixed and no further issues were specifically noted. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think this article meets the criteria for GA anymore. It lacks infomation fot the length of time he has been playing football and it also lacks references.–LiamTaylor– 13:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be a little more specific? I can't see any lack of references and the article clearly illustrates his playing history. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have invited the original nominator to comment here. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More in the early stage of his career, 46+ appearences for Millwall is covered by 3 lines and only a couple of refs.–LiamTaylor– 16:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found much on-line about his spell at Millwall. Sometimes the coverage just isn' there. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are more references than I was expecting and nothing wrong with the article. I googled for info on his Millwall career, there just isn't much. Szzuk (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well as Iv'e been told before, sometimes there just isn't enough coverage out there to make GA (sometimes it just isn't possible, like I found out trying to get Matty Barlow to GA).LiamTaylor 17:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Mostly because of the numerous dead links, but there is also a lack of breadth. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dead links are sorted. One remains, but I found another source that backs up the statement so it could easily be removed if it still presents a problem. It should be noted that dead links are not a reason for denying GA status anymore, but most can be fixed relatively easily. The breadth seems fine to me for a good article on a football player. AIRcorn (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a reminder that the WP:Good article criteria do not require functional URLs in citations. Any dead ref repair should be done in accordance with WP:DEADREF, which does not recommend simply removing them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I used the wayback machine for most, found a couple of replacement ones or duplicated refs hosted at other websites and only removed the ones that had another ref already supporting the claim,[39] which is in accordance with WP:DEADREF. BTW I think this article should be kept as no one has been able to find the information that is claimed to be missing. Also WP:GACN sugggests that comprehensive coverage is not required, as long as the major aspects are "addressed". AIRcorn (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to close this but the deadlinks actually have not been addressed; I checked and there are multiple ones. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gery Chico[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Listed As a result of the GAR the article has been through an AfD and its had its content checked for neutrality and verifiability. Szzuk (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has gone through two GANs and a peer review. It failed both GANs, in part, due to the fact that I have a conflict of interest with the topic. I am a former volunteer on the campaign of Mr. Chico, and there are concerns that this COI has hampered my ability to present a sufficiently broad and neutral biography of this politician. However, I object to the notion that this article in its current state cannot even be considered in the regular GAN process. In fact, I also do not believe that my prior involvement in this person's political campaign automatically constitutes a conflict of interest that is harmful to Wikipedia. WP:COI suggests that "closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias."

Having said that, it is comforting that Jezhotwells took the time to check much of the article against the GA criteria. However, the COI, while influential in determining compliance with WP:NPOV, should not be a deciding factor in the outcome of a GAN. The GAN process is an assessment of the article, not the nominator. I therefore submit this article for community GAR. Geread (talk) 05:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and promote I did not find the article biased, which is the issue. It contained many of the failings and detracting elements of his life in full encyclopedic detail. I don't know any major controversies that were overlooked. I did not note any given examples of remaining artifacts of biased contributions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full disclosure, I am the director of WP:CHICAGO, and overlooked a request to comment on this issue when it was raised at Wikipedia_talk:CHICAGO#Gery_Chico. I believe the article was largely failed due to my oversight of this requested opinion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am glad that Geread has brought this here. My concern is with whether the article meets the broad coverage criterion. AS it was mostly written by an associate of Mr. Chico, I found it impossible to determine whether this had been met. I received a few comments after asking for second opinion, but none that specifically addressed this. I am happy to wait for the input of the community. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Lead does not adequately cover the article per WP:Lead, thus failing criteria 1(b). I wondered why the subject was notable from the lead, though there is stuff, such as Outstanding School Board President which are interesting which are not mentioned in the lead. There is a neutrality tag on the article that has been there since Nov 2010 - that would need to be addressed before the article could be passed as GA due to criteria 4. Is this topic notable enough for a Wikipedia article? I've just read through it again and I'm struck by how little this chap has done that would be of interest to people who don't know him. He doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. The sources used are purely local. Has there been any coverage of this person outside of the Chicago area? SilkTork *Tea time 12:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your comments. I have added info on the award to the lead. The very purpose of this GAR is to resolve the neutrality issue (see above statements and previous GANs), and the notability issue is currently being debated at AFD. Geread (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have had a read through this with an eye on neutrality. I found it mostly complimentary, but it also delves into his failings. I think it is similar to a sports biography written by a fan and as long as there are no WP:PEACOCK words and it reflects the sources it should pass criteria 4. It does use words like "some people" and "reports suggest" that should be spelled out better. As to the broad coverage aspect; I am not familiar with the man so it is hard to be certain, but I did not feel there was any substantial gaps while I was reading it. I have left some comments below. AIRcorn (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • leading the firm's practice related to state and local government. Could this be clarified better.
  • Some blamed the bankruptcy on poor management, namely Chico, while others blamed an economic downturn. Who is "some" and who is "others".
  • since Chico had made many enemies as the mayoral chief of staff. How had he made enemies? Enemies seems a bit loaded. Would opponents be better?
  • Then-President Bill Clinton hailed the school system as a national model, within a decade after William Bennett, then U.S. Secretary of Education, criticized it as the worst public school system in the nation awkward sentence.
  • He resented this, I am assuming this is Chico not Vallas, but it could be made clearer.
  • Reports suggest that while donations to organizations What reports?
  • Reference: Neal, Steve (May 7, 1999). "Chico needs a lesson on sharing spotlight". Chicago Sun-Times: p. 7. This is used to justify most of the first two paragraphs in the Chicago Public Schools board section. Is there an online version of this or has someone got access to it so the statements can be checked. The title does not appear that complimentary, yet it is used to cite some positive achievements.
As far as the original concern about "Neutrality" only the last one. If someone can confirm the contents of the reference support whats in the article I would be willing to change my suggestion. I left a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Chicago Sun Times. AIRcorn (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the general reader to verify this it would require a subscription to see the article. As a Chicago Public Library patron, I can probably get it online. However, as WP:CHICAGO director, I would prefer if someone else assess whether this is a neutral synthesis of the original source.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone was able to supply a pdf at Resource Exchange/Resource Request which I have now downloaded. I will check it against the article (not right now as I have to shoot off, but I should be able to do it within the next few hours). AIRcorn (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in the article is supported by the reference. I made a few changes and added some more, slightly negative info, to balance it out. Also have done some copy-editing, mostly relating to my above comments. The neutrality tag needs to be removed. I personally think it is fine, but in this case it would be good to get another opinion from an uninvolved editor. Is there a noticeboard or place a request can be made? Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard maybe? Also the Mural picture is udergoing a deletion request so that should probably be sorted first. AIRcorn (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. La Salle Hall[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: delist. I appreciate the work that Moray put into it, but as consensus notes below the article is still a ways from meeting the criteria. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have several concerns regarding this article. I thought that it didn't meet the current WP:WIAGA so I did some major editing work. After removing content which I thought was overly detailed (unmerited name dropping, extensive quoting), including in-line citations and some refactoring it ended up like this. It is now left with only one section (history). The previous version relied heavily on two book sources. The DLSU Library is only about 30 km from where I am editing now but still it's a pain in the ass to go there and verify the content. I simply don't have the time (and honestly, motivation). So I just assumed WP:good faith that the original author User:Mithril Cloud (currently inactive) faithfully and correctly interpreted the information presented in the books without bias.

This is the article before I started editing it. User:Drewcifer3000 had previously (August 2007) had this article for reassessment at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 28#St. La Salle Hall. It was kept. Original GAN is at Talk:St. La Salle Hall#GA on hold.

I would like to know if I over-removed/simplified some parts, if this article is still viable as a GA, and if it would pass WP:FAC in its current state (+ major prose copy-editing). I simply am not sure if a 1-section article with less than 20 in-line citations can pass FAC. Moray An Par (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will provide some feedback regarding your questions above. Overall I think you have done a decent job at fixing the article. I agree with the removal of the large quotes and some of the unreferenced material. I would think a layout section would be useful and probably even required under the broadness criteria. Adding the picture :File:LS Location.png of the layout to that section would be good. There may be some sources, even primary ones could be used for this, to reference such a section.
As the article stands presently I don't think it meets the GA criteria. A few prose issues that are easy to fix, but there are still some referencing problems which are harder to solve. Inline citations are needed and to keep this article it would probably pay to get hold of the books or at least find other means to source some of the statements.
I have left some comments below: AIRcorn (talk) 07:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to the lack of space in the campus at Paco, the transfer of De La Salle College to Taft Avenue was decided. syntax.
  • The estimated cost of the construction of building in the site was ₱200,000 (US$46,400) Constucion and/or building? They seem to be saying the smae thing.
  • The reasons for it's location, although common sense, should probably be cited
  • Opposition from constructing the college at the new site came from certain American parties who had financial stakes on the properties that were supposed to be developed under the municipal planning scheme for the area This does not sound nuetral and is unreferenced. "what american parties? The other statments in the paragraph also need cites.
  • Another problem, concerning the Bronan Plan, arose regarding the site. Not sure what this is trying to say
  • The building sustained heavy ...... Too many short choppy sentences starting this paragraph.
  • Sixteen Brothers and 25 other civilians were massacred by Japanese troops inside the school chapel on February 12, 1945. Massacred seems a bit loaded, but it is what is linked. If the sources say massacred it is probably fine.
"Opposition from constructing ..." This was from the article before I edited it. I suspect that it came from the book(s). The Bronan Plan seems to be one of those post-war reconstruction programs during the American regime in the Philippines. I could not find it (or anything about Bronan) however in internet sources. I assume that the National Library in Manila has facsimiles/copies of the original plans (including Bronan). But yet again, it's such a hassle to go there and check it. I'll expand a layout section shortly. Thank you for the reassess. Also, if it counts, I am in favor of delisting this. Moray An Par (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the second thought, I don't think I can expand a layout section with limited sources. Moray An Par (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. This article shouldn't have been given GA status originally nor survived its first GAR - unless the guidelines were much more lax 4-5 years ago. I don't think this could get to FAC and getting it kept at GA will be a problem. I'm actually confused reading this article, what makes it notable? The architecture? (barely mentioned). It's link to the business school? (Notablility not inherited). It's history? (no mention of exceptionality). The lead needs to be rewritten to be clearer, if its important because of it's architecutre content has to be added that demonstrates why. There are cites missing from the selection of site section too. Article just looks hollow right now. Szzuk (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Amanda Dowler[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: delisted Some improvements made but no clear support for keeping. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maintenance tags.
  • Dead links.
  • Issue over whether we should include "Milly" in the lead (per her common name).
  • Appalling prose in later sections which effectively are just a bullet point list.
  • Instability due to current affairs.
  • Incompleteness.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links fixed. Please also note the one maintenance tag was added to the article by the assessment nominator shortly before listing for reassessment.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here for the diff passing the article as a Good Article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here for the diff retaining the article as a Good Article after review. --Lucy-marie (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, not particularly useful as it was 3.5 years ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still relevant here as this are reassessment and the original passig and original reasssessment are relevant.--Lucy-marie (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Times have changed - assessment criteria have changed, quality expectations are higher, things in the case have moved on. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More things

  • Please also note the lead does not adequately summarise the article, for instance the mention of Operation Ruby exists in the lead but nowhere else in the article. Plenty of mention of Bellfield in the article but nothing in the lead.
  • Ref 2 is a 404 link, it needs fixing.
  • Ref 7 is dead.
    • Ref 7 is no longer a useful ref.
  • Ref 6 says she went to Will Young concert on Tuesday and disappeared Thursday, two days later. The article says she went to the concert "the day before". Needs resolving.
  • Ref 11, ref 21 are from The Sun, a tabloid newspaper. This is not a reliable source. Please find alternative sources for this.
  • Ref 33 links to a plant sales homepage, in no way related to this article.
  • Please use consistent formatting in the references, i.e. BBC News should be linked once, always or never, it should be BBC News, not BBC news or BBC etc etc. I've fixed a number of these, there may be others.
  • Things like "Daily Telegraph" aren't publishers, they're works. I've fixed a number of these, there may be others. Please use the cite templates correctly.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sun is a wholly relaible source if the article is actually read, just beacuse it is the gutter press doesnot make it an unusable source. The Sun is reliable when the facts of their story are stripped away from thier POV. Also the plant sales homepage is relevant as it directly refers to the sale of a Plant named after her. I think TRM needs to read the article and sources to gether and not the sources in isolation.--Lucy-marie (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also as you keep finding errors rather than shouting "these are eroors" why not try and fix them all.--Lucy-marie (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check the edit history. I've fixed plenty of problems. And I don't think just removing the link from ref 7 is a fix. It's no longer something we can refer to. And yes, The Sun is unreliable. If the facts are notable, they should be sourced by a reliable source. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And perhaps you're missing the point of inline citations. They are supposed to be accessible to the reader to back up the info in the article. The police one no longer does and the plant one just links to a shop homepage, not related in any way to this article. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question a number of the sources say her remains were found in Yateley Heath Woods, this article says Minley Woods (and is unreferenced). What's the correct location? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This disinterestd sources gives the excat address of where the body was found [43] The Road is Minley Road and the Woods are Yateley Heath. I think this is where the mix up may have occured.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so we can fix that up. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions:

  • A number of the sources say her remains were found in Yateley Heath Woods, this article says Minley Woods (and is unreferenced). What's the correct location?
  • Ref 22 is incorrectly used to reference something that happened two weeks after it was published.
  • If you include the Sun offering 100k, it's probably worth including the fact Crimestoppers/Surrey Police offered 50k ([44]) don't you think?
  • I really don't think we should use a Seven O'Clock News programme (ref 23) as a reference, there must be better than this available as virtually no-one outside Channel 4 will ever have access to this, making it a useless source. What particularly was it referencing? Is this better?
  • Ought we not add information relating to the fact that Bellfield has pleaded not guilty in the interest of balance?
  • Where is the info in the infobox referenced, e.g. birth date, height, monument etc?
  • Is there nothing more to add to the legacy section since 2005?
  • Is this of any use with regard to legacy/memorials, doesn't seem to have been covered here at all.
  • This source says the CCTV footage was "enhanced by the FBI", worth including, especially back in 2002 and showing good collaboration across international borders?
  • This link indicates that three different men were arrested, questioned and released by September 2002. This isn't mentioned in the article at all, nor is the cost (at that time) of the investigation which topped £1m... Some other interesting stats in that article like number of sites searched, km of waterways searched, number of enquiries made...

Image problem - there is no valid fair use rationale for this image to be used in this specific article. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the rationale provided thoroughly and the fair use exemption. No more images can be created and the image is for illustrative purposes only. --Lucy-marie (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't patronise me. I told you no valid fair use rationale was in place for use in this article, as you very well know having changed it just now. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow two words which you could have changed yourself stop being a mischief maker, over minor perniciousness . Now you know how it feels to be patronised yourself, maybe you will stop patronising me.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm? Sorry? "two words"? "a mischief maker"? "perniciousness"? I don't follow you at all, but I'm not at all surprised by that. I'm sure you are aware of the importance of correct fair use descriptions, aren't you? In any case, perhaps now you can get on with fixing the issues I've raised in this sub-standard GA. If not, stop bothering me. There's a lot to do, as you can see above. And once again, comment on the content, not the contributor. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments

Sorry if I'm repeating anything from above, I'll try not to, but it is getting a bit congested with different comments and replies.

  • I think "Milly" should definitely be mentioned in the lead, but I guess that is the consensus emerging on the talkpage.
  • The "Investigation" section is a bit "listy", and doesn't flow very well. I'm thinking that in particular, the three paragraphs about people contacting the family could be consolidated into one, rather than just being a list of "This person did this. That person did that."
  • "Farr was sectioned indefinitely..." - sectioned is colloquial/informal and should be reworded ("detained under the mental health act" or something similar")
  • I'm not really happy with The Sun as it is used here, and sincerely doubt that article is "wholly relaible". "Twisted Milly Hoaxer Caged" says quite a lot. Furthermore, they describe the individual as "said to have a history of paranoid schizophrenia". This is not the same as "sectioned ... for being a serious psychological danger to the public due to his history of paranoid schizophrenia". Who "said" it? The judge? The defendant? Witnesses? An unnamed source? Some bloke hanging around outside the court? As The Rambling Man has said, if this is a notable fact, it will appear in media other than The Sun. Bear in mind that WP:BLP applies here.
    • Also, the fact that the actions of these individuals take up approximately half of the "investigation" section is probably undue weight.--BelovedFreak 16:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the "disposal of the car" bit slightly vague. What car were they looking for? Had a car been seen where she disappeared? This isn't really explained.
  • "Surrey Police confirmed that Levi Bellfield was their prime suspect " - it would be helpful to have a bit of information about who Bellfield to give us some context without having to click through to that article immediately on reading the name. The fact that he had just been convicted of other murder charges is kind of relevant.
  • Just wondering if Crimewatch was still known as Crimewatch UK in 2002, can't seem to find it in our article
  • Is there a particular reason for the image that we're currently using? It seems that there are several better ones being used by news sources. For a start, it's hard to really tell what she looks like in this one. And, this might just be me, and this might sound silly, but I can't help wondering if it's really appropriate to have a photo of the victim of a child predator that unnecessarily shows quite so much of her legs. If it was the only available picture that might be different, but given that there are other images that could be used, why not go for a closer-up head & shoulders one? (eg. [45]) --BelovedFreak 15:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the paragraph about the DNA found on her clothing vague & confusing. "suggesting that her killer may have met her before" doesn't seem to be backed up by either of the two sources cited. In fact the Independent article suggests that the police thought the DNA came from someone who bought the clothing and returned it to a different shop, prior to Milly buying it, therefore not suggesting that she had met her killer although that was presumably a possibility. (To be fair, I don't really understand the point of the Independent article in that it seems to be claiming a possible "breakthrough", but then saying that the police believe the DNA to be unrelated). Our article goes on to say "This link was ruled out within three months", but this fact isn't really supported. The Daily Mail article says that the DNA was not found to be that of any of the 46 men tested, not that the link was absolutely ruled out. "Detectives ... will be travelling to Sunderland in the near future to liaise with local police ... around this line of inquiry" doesn't suggest that the link was "ruled out". I'm not sure how notable this paragraph really is, it seems to be a line of enquiry that fizzled out. If it's kept though, it needs to be explained better, and to reflect the sources better.--BelovedFreak 16:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a passing comment, but relevant: WP:DEADREF was significantly changed back in March, and most GA reviewers don't seem to be up on the changes (because, honestly, nobody can keep up with every change to our ~500 guidelines). Under the new rules, most non-working URLs should not be removed from citations in articles.

I realize that dead URLs aren't immediately useful, but there has never been a Good article criteria that prohibited GAs from including dead links, and any clean up associated with them should be done in compliance with DEADREF. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to clarify

WhatamIdoing's comment prompts me to clarify a little, since I've been quite general above about what could be improved. In terms of the GA criteria, in my opinion this article currently fails #1 (I don't find the prose well-written, clear or concise). It fails #2 as some sources are misrepresented and there are problems with #3 as I'm not sure that all points have been covered, and I think it goes off on a tangent with unnecessary focus on people interfering in the investigation rather than the investigation itself. It could have problems with stability or being out of date, (due to the trial) but it doesn't actually seem to have those problems right now. Overall, I don't think that this article is GA standard. BelovedFreak 17:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Aircorn:

  • I have scanned the above, but as it was over a month ago and in many places appears to have degenerated I am going to conduct a review against the criteria from where it stands now. It is also difficult to work out what points have been sufficiently dealt with. This does not mean that all the above points have been addressed, just that it is getting hard to follow where it stands. First off the lead appears a too bit short and fragmented to satisfy WP:LEAD. I realise a recent move has occurred but I think a better way of presenting the image in the infobox would be to have Amanda "Milly" Jane Dowler to match the article title and not have Milly Dowler below. Still some cite needed tags that need addressing, some added by me. An article of this nature has to be well supported by quality references. Further comments below AIRcorn (talk) 09:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was last seen by a friend waiting at a bus stop, 18 minutes later walking along Station Approach. Was she last seen at the bus stop or walking along Station road
  • It is believed Dowler was killed and buried shortly afterwards. Who beleives this?
  • They reasoned that while Dowler was unlikely to have gone off with someone she did not know of her own free will, no-one had come forward who had witnessed a struggle, despite a number of apparent sightings of Dowler prior to her disappearance. I am not sure how this supports the polices claim that she was not taken by force. Just because no one witnessed a struggle does not mean a struggle could not have occurred. Am I missing something?
  • This link was ruled out within three months, at the same time that a DNA link to a church robbery in Sunderland was also ruled out. Why was it ruled out? How is the church robbery relevant?
  • Paul Hughes was convicted of making threats to kill and was jailed for five years after sending letters to Dowler's mother threatening to kill her and claiming to have killed Dowler. This does not flow very well with the previous sentence better.
  • Same goes with the Lianne Newman and Gary Farr sentences. They need to be re-written possible as a single paragraph as they are all slightly related to flow much better.
  • The car has still yet to be discovered. Maybe "As of ...". Still could mean anytime before today in Wikipedia.

Kung Fu Panda[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: delist Major issues remain unaddressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • Two one-sentence paragraphs in Production section.
  • Unsourced review from Chicago Tribune in Reception.
  • It has 88% on Rotten Tomatoes. Could one of the few negative reviews be cited to give balance?
I added 2 negative reviews from top critics on the cite (from CNN and The Toronto Star). Glimmer721 talk 16:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By contrast, Kung Fu Panda won 11 Annie Awards (including Best Picture) out of 16 nominations, albeit amid controversy." — What did the controversy comprise?
  • Most of the second paragraph contains info found nowhere else in the article (e.g. "Although the concept of a 'kung fu panda' has been around since at least 1993, work on the film did not begin until 2004"). Also, it doesn't elaborate: who first brought up the idea?
Sources
  • Unsourced quote from Black in "Awards" section.
  • Bare URLs in the Sequel section.
  • What makes Xbox360fanboy.com a reliable source?
  • No one is tending to the article. Some references to the sequel were still written in future tense.
  • I removed a citation to a forum post, which is in no way aceptable.
  • Offline sources need page numbers.

Overall, I found so many problems with the article that I don't think it can get a quick fix. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've taken care of the above (marked with a strike). I've never worked on the article before, don't know if the article passed like this, or it accumulated after it was passed. There were a lot of unsourced sentences in the box office section. About the award controversy, the part is linked to Annie Award#2009 which explains the "controversy". —Mike Allen 04:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Although I agree with TenPoundHammer's concerns cited above, Xbox360fanboy.com is not a reliable source. There are too many unsourced sentences and no issues addressed above. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 06:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mathcounts[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: delist No action taken on addressing article problems Jezhotwells (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Article was promoted three years ago. There are glaring problems with WP:V and WP:RS, such as the following:

  • Entire paragraphs and sections have challengeable statements that are not supported by the given source. Examples include Mathcounts#Ciphering round and the description of the 1987 Countdown Round format.
  • There are many speculative/opinionated statements that are not supported by the sources. For example, "As a result, a state team is typically made up of students from different schools," "This round is mainly a fun, fast-paced round where speed is vital. Due to the fact that no calculators are allowed, competitors must be able to do calculations quickly and mentally," "A good [team round] score ranges between 6 and 10," "It spread quickly in middle schools, and is the most well-known middle school mathematics competition" (characterization as "most well-known" is not in the source) and "This change was presumably made in hopes of making this final round more exciting and more suspenseful, since now the champion must win four consecutive matches (three if they received a first-round bye), as opposed to previous years when a student could potentially win the championship after defeating a single opponent."
  • The countdown round description is inconsistent between the state and national formats. In the state formats, earlier rounds are best-of-three and the final rounds are first with three correct answers, while at nationals, the earlier rounds are best-of-five and the final rounds are the first to four correct answers.
  • There are spelling and grammar errors, such as "competidors" (in the Awards section), "Which ever team has a score most improved form the year before gets this award." Additionally, the entire article could use a copy-edit for spelling, grammar, and style.

For these reasons, I believe this article currently fails good article criteria 1 and 2 and therefore should be delisted. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Socialist Party USA[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: keep No specifics of issues have been added by nominator Jezhotwells (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Socialist Party USA/GA2, where I wrote the following:

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

I shall write more later. However, as the author of a GA article Shapley–Folkman lemma, I was shocked by the tendentious editing and COI problems of this article. It obviously fails GA criteria, because of misuse of sources and NPOV violations.

For example, the article failed to mention that the old Socialist Party changed its name to Social Democrats, USA, until I added the NYT article. Its blames a group called "Schachtmanites" for taking control of the old SP, citing a Washington Post article, whose on-line version only mentions Schachtman (and not SDUSA or his position within the Socialist Party, at least in the on-line version cited).

Procedurally, it would be useful for advocates or officers of this organization to either stop COI editing or to declare their COI. Bluntly, these COI problems are related to the NPOV violations.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with this process.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best way is for you to list the problems with the article against the GA criteria. It is polite to leave a note at the main contributors and the passing reviewers talk page to give them a chance to respond to your comments. Other editors will come along and make there own comments. If no one fixes the problems or they are not fixable it will likely be delisted. If the problems are fixed it will probably be kept. That's my take on it anyway. AIRcorn (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that most of the problems can be readily fixed. I shall make a list next week. Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No Problem. It might pay to compare it to this essay. The requirements are a lot less than many people seem to think. AIRcorn (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Battle of the Heligoland Bight (1939)[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: keep Article has been copy-edited, no further comments from nominator. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Copy-editing needed at least: Example of syntax problems in the current article: "Leader of No. 149 Squadron, Paul Harris, later stated that this was unfair. Guthrie and Hue-Williams were untrained and had never face the enemy before. Further, Harris blamed No. 3 Group Headquarters." –> "The leader ... never faced ... Furthermore ..." — Wegesrand (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hugh Culverhouse[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: keep Clear consensus for article to be kept as GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I was the GA1 reviewer and quickfailed it for general lack of wikification. Now it slipped through on GA3 with pretty shoddy wikification. Both the infobox and the citations are completely without internal or external links. I question whether this is really GA quality in terms of WP:WIAGA 1b.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, nowhere in the MoS does it state that the infobox or the citations need to have internal or external links. As to the wikification, the lead does look a little bare and perhaps a few wikilinks need to be added, but the rest of the article is fine. Personally, I can't believe you quickfailed an article for lack of wikification. The only one of the five MoS articles that mentions linking is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout)#Links, which is basically a how-to guide for wikilinking. As none of the wikilinks are incorrectly formatted, I can't see how the article could fail GA because of that. Please note this is the first Good Article reassessment that I've commented on, so if I've done this incorrectly, please forgive me. Jenks24 (talk) 09:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikification is one of the most minor things out there in terms of development. I did acknowledge that it can be improved but it's not a GA requirement. More links have now been added. If that was your only concern about this article than opening this was a waste of time; adding the links took very little time. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 12:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where did the infobox go. I also originally failed it for need of an infobox, which has just returned as a problem. I don't see how removing the infobox helps the reader. To many the infobox is the first thing that they look for.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the infobox, as you seem to know, seeing as you have given the diff in that comment as well. I removed because, as I said in the edit summary, it adds nothing to the article. Everything in the infobox is covered in the first paragraph of the article. I understand how infoboxes can be useful (they are in the majority of articles I create), but in this case, a generic {{Infobox person}} adds nothing and actually makes the article look worse. However, if you really think it makes a huge difference, you can add it back. All this said, whether the article has an infobox or not has nothing to do with WIAGA. In fact, there are quite a few FAs that don't have infoboxes. Jenks24 (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although an infobox is not required it is a consideration at FA and I doubt that there are that many, if any, FA bios that don't have one. Sure wikilinking sources and such in the notes is not required and as a stand alone complaint is kind of minor, but it is correctable and would improve the quality of the article. If I had felt it was a terrible omission, I would have delisted the GA. This is a more minor form of substandard article passing. As a result, I left it as a GA and hoped to get someone's attention so that the article would be improved in this way. I was not looking for a fight about whether that alone is sufficient grounds for failure. If it was that bad, like I said, I would have delisted. Just hoping we might highlight an area for easy improvement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it was so easily improved, why didn't you just add the wikilinks yourself? In any case, as we are all in agreement that the article meets WIAGA, this GAR should be probably be closed. Jenks24 (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would take time figuring out which sources have links, which ones need to be dabbed and such. I don't really agree it meets WIAGA. Without the infobox, I would have failed it and with it I would have put it on hold until they were done. I see that GAR is pretty clogged up, but it would help if people would close reviews that have gotten their fair share of attention like Gery Chico rather than this one where you are trying to run over me to get it closed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you feel like I've run over you; that wasn't my intention. It's just that the article is bloody good for a GA and minor thinks like linking and infoboxes (which I see you've added back -- not worth edit-warring over, but it looks pretty average, IMHO). Anyway, it took me about 15 minutes to wikilink the refs. As the article has an infobox and more wikilinks, do you think the article meets WIAGA now? (Not trying to run over you, but I'll try and improve some other stuff if you think it needs to be done -- would be a shame to see it be delisted after all the work Dementia13 did.) Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty underlinked, but close it if you must. I still think we should ask for more completeness on this issue. I generally see each instance of a source linked in the refs because we can not assume the reader needed to see the first ref that it appeared in.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many FAs don't have wikilinks in the citations at all (and it's not required at FAC), but *shrug*. If you want to wikilink them, I'm sure no-one will revert. As to closing, I wouldn't feel comfortable closing the first GAR I've commented on. I'll leave it up to you; if you feel that more comments are needed, that's fine. Jenks24 (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I also do not think that underlinking is a reason to delist an article. Infoboxes are definately not a requirement for Good Article or even Featured Articles for that matter (see Daniel Lambert). AIRcorn (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just read twice looking for holes, disappointed I couldn't find any. GAR is often an opportunity to fix problems which got forgotten etc. but I can't see much turning up. Szzuk (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Netball[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

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

Result: delist It would appear that the best course would be for re-nomination. The second review was cursory and did not examine how the article met the criteria. There appears to be a clear well-argued consensus for de-listing. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Netball/GA1 ended in an acrimonious dispute between Racepacket, and LauraHale, amongst others. Subsequent to the withdrawal of the good article nomination by LauraHale, vigorously contested by Racepacket as the reviewer [46], and resulting in page protection, Talk:Netball/GA2 was created, and passed without commentary by any editor, less than 24 hours later. Racepacket and other a few other editors dispute the propriety of this process and the merits of the decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Workshop and other fora. A reassessment is desirable to aid the resolution of a portion of the dispute in a non-disruptive manner by determining the status of the article, one way or the other. Chester Markel (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: please limit discussion here to whether the article currently meets the good article criteria. Other related disputes concerning actions taken by editors in the previous reviews, etc, will be decided elsewhere. Chester Markel (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I oppose reassessment. The article is, on the whole, well written. It is factually accurate and verifiable. (In fact, one of the major criticisms of the article in some places is that it has too many citations and that every sentence is cited.) The article is broad in its coverage: Rules, history of the game, variants, major competitions, how the game is around the world, demographic information, administration of the game. Not sure what is left out that isn't broad. The article is stable, except for ongoing problems as a result of a problem reviewer who has intentionally created problems. The article is neutral. The article is appropiately illustrated by images. If anyone has any suggestions for how to improve the article, I will be happy to work with other contributors to this article to make those changes. --LauraHale (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I'll mainly point to where I already explained why this is not a good article. While there are numerous problems, much of it comes from excessive use of poor sources (primary sources of sporting organizations) instead of a few good sources (secondary 3rd party). This results in some signficant bias (sporting orgs tend to favor their own sport over others) and an excessive delving into insignificant detail. As I've been told, not all of my critiques precludes GA status, but the POV issue has to be fixed for GA status (see link to my comments above). I'm hoping other editors (not just me) who haven't been involved can give this a thorough review, and we can have a fresh start. --Rob (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article doesn't even need a reassessment. I mean it's quite great on itself. So a reassessment would be null and void. --Zalgo (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I have to agree with some of the points made at Talk:Netball#Not a good article. Particular concerns, raised there, are the note used in the lede and the sourcing issues mentioned in points 1, 2, 3 and 4, which could bring the neutrality of the article into question . I can see some further issues as well. Why are there so many participation numbers (for a seemingly random selection of countries) listed in the infobox, surely a single worldwide figure is the only appropriate one to have here? Unsourced statements such as "Netball is popular in the Commonwealth" or "The most important competition in netball is the World Championships" are very POV. Looking at the Olympics section the phrase "recognition means that it could be played at some point in the future" is very vague, any sport COULD be played in the future, and sources used don't actually back this up either. File:Netball pictogram.svg should not be used - it is an image created by an editor and in no way relates to the Olympics - it merely tries to look like the official Olympic pictograms (e.g. File:Basketball 2008.png). Based on the pictogram issue alone this article fails GAC 6 "images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions" and so should be delisted - Basement12 (T.C) 01:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not going to bold a !vote as I am currently involved in editing this article. I don't think this article fails on sourcing issues as my understanding is that using secondary sources, while preferred, is not a prerequisite for a good article. There are other issues, the largest in my mind being 3b "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". This is an overview article, so should provide a general overview of the topic linking to appropriate sub articles. Laura and I have been working through this aspect by creating daughter articles. However, I feel the best solution will be to delist it for now, hopefully lowering the scrutiny enough to allow editors to concentrate on getting it up to good article standard before re-nominating it. AIRcorn (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist After comparing to other GA-Sports articles I detect some gramatical and diction inconsistencies as compared to a random sampling from the Wikipedia:Good articles/Everyday life#Sports and recreation category. The requirement that the article stay focused and go into enough detail feels slightly abused based on the length of the international coverage section. Based on these concerns I feel that the GA standards would be best served by delisting with a future unbiased re-nomination at a later date. Hasteur (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. GARs can be opened at any time, and I think it is helpful to reassess this article, although perhaps it would have been more helpful to wait for the resolution of related disputes first. In any case, I would note (as a general reminder) that GAR is not a vote: articles are listed or delisted here according to whether they meet the GA criteria or not. Disputed and/or inappropriate reviews are not per se reasons to change the GA status of an article, nor are comparisons with other articles necessarily helpful. Netball is a sport which is neither predominantly male, nor substantially North American. The most helpful comments (above, and in general) are those which focus on the GA criteria, as such comments may result in improvements to the article, even if it is ultimately delisted here. Geometry guy 22:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh None of us participating in the arbcom case should be making comments on this GAR. It will wind up biased. If this was a real GAR a list of issues would be brought up and then the main writers would have a reasonable amount of time to try to fix this, not this lets vote about it sort of thing. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think what counts is that closer, and person who makes the final decision hasn't been involved previously. --Rob (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with you on that. Lets focus on making this the best article it can be and not use it as a continuation of past disputes. I agree with you that there is a sourcing issue that needs to be work out. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: in many semi-specialist areas, the only sources available for (for example) 'rules' will be the societies themselves which oversee that area. This applies just as much to sporting rules as it does to breed standards requirements for various animals (dogs, cats, horses and so on). To suggest that an overseeing authority is not a 'reliable source' or is a 'primary source' is wrong. The rules, positions and anything else there are quoted from the sport's authority, not directly from the person who first made up or suggested that rule - so not primary. To suggest that these are really primary sources is a bit like saying that the UK Government's website is either a primary source or a non-reliable source for the contents of any Acts of Parliament passed by the UK Government. That argument really can't be taken seriously. Pesky (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • While sporting associations may be trustworthy in terms of what their rules are, they may not be so great in terms of their organizations significance, on how widely the sport is played, and what recognition it has received. For example participation rates in the infobox are often sourced to individual associations, who have a vested interest in appearing popular.
    • Sporting authorities may not be a good source of rules used by those not recognized by them (e.g. you can play Netball without IFNA sanction).
    • Even if an organization can be trusted with certain details about itself (such as rules), the fact that nobody has ever written about it is an indication that it's so trivial that its not worth mentioning. That's part of the logic behind notability.
    • INFA is arguably the authority on many things, except it's not an authority on being an authority. To use your government example, a government wouldn't be an authority on whether an extra-territorial law has effect internationally. We should use a 3rd party to establish IFNA's role (such sources are easy to find). If some organization was organizing Netball in some country, outside IFNA, would IFNA report that?
    • Funny you should mention government sources as being a good example. We cite Parliament of New South Wales, which says that 1.2 million play, and 1.5 million play (we cherry pick 1.5 million). This is why you need 3rd party sources that actually do fact checking. No organization is an inherently good source on everything. Sources become reliable because they objectively fact check before publishing. --Rob (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did the arbcom finish? I can't find it. I'd say it would have to close as delist if that is still ongoing. While the dispute hasn't shown up so much in the article history, there's obviously a pretty big battle over the article so it fails point 3 - stability. No opinion on the article otherwise, or any problems there may be. Szzuk (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Arbcom finished their work on this on the 19th of June [47]. Based on the findings and remedies passed by ArbCom, I reiterate my proposal that this article be 'delisted from GA and that those editors who would like to improve it so that it falls within the guidelines prior to being marked as such. Hasteur (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. A multitude of problems. There has been a substantial amount of effort since the GAR started, credit to those involved, but very substantial problems remain. Article is very POV and not focused despite this work, I didn't look at the sourcing or MOS compliance because I felt I'd found enough problems to stop looking. Given the time left for this GAR to run and the problems surrounding the article I doubt the radical rewrite it requires could happen. Szzuk (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Add. The GA reviewer was admonished in the Arbcom for a conflict of interest with the nominee, I don't think it should have been promoted in the first place. Szzuk (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please give some examples of these problems so that editors could work to remedy them. I am not sure where the current article loses focus for example. AIRcorn (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can give some ideas but I'm not a netball expert. The variants section appears to be an extension of the rules, do they need their own section? The demographics section gives undue importance to transgenders and disabled. The section on international competitions is ok, but highlights there's too little on the millions of people who play at a lower level, where is that section? There's a huge section on globally which is very tedious, i'm not convinced every part of the netball world deserves mention. The POV in the article is that the structure appears skewed to the higher game - but most people play in school or local town leagues. It might be fixable but you're probably going to run into an edit war/arguments if you do what is necessary. Szzuk (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I won't do any more work for a while, but it would be good to know what needs to be done for any future nominations. The demographics needs a women's section and is in my mind the biggest problem at the moment. AIRcorn (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you've hit the nail on the head. Sourced content has to be added, just a couple of paragraphs of new content is quite a big deal. That's assuming you could just delete away the other problems without much complaint. Szzuk (talk) 12:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The editor who initiated this GAR has since been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Club Penguin[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: delist There has been little progress in addressing the concerns raised. Although dead links may be permissible, citations should be verifiable. Citation needed tags need addressing. Prose could do with improving. No strong support that this article meets the GA criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am placing the article for Good article reassessment because it has some serious cleanup and grammar issues and no longer meets GA criteria. My main concern that there are dead links in the article.

  • Ref 24 is a dead link.
  • Ref 43 is a dead link.
  • Ref 47 is a dead link.
  • Ref 54 and 55 is a dead link.

JJ98 (Talk) 05:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article could do with a decent copy edit. Language is casual in places, and there are a number of single sentence paragraphs. There is also a little too much fluff, so could do with a tighten. I note that the main contributors are keen to continually improve the article, and their energy and enthusiasm is to be commended. I suggest requesting assistance from Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. SilkTork *Tea time 10:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it looks the article has little improvement, although I see two {{fact}} tags and five dead links in the article. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 09:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing wrong with having a handful of dead URLs in citations. WP:DEADREF, which was significantly revised earlier this year, actually prohibits editors from removing them under most circumstances. There has never been a GA criteria that required 100% functional URLs for sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist The prose is very awkward in some places, and needs a thorough copy-edit by an editor knowledgable about the subject. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Live Intrusion[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: keep Clear consensus that problems have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has two paragraphs, one heavy on technical data on recording and release, the other paraphrasing of the two available reviews. The rest, tracklisting and personnel, are lists transcribed from the DVD. The lack of info is the case here partly because there is no original work in this DVD - it's even called "marginal". Some articles aren't cut out for a GA assessment and don't allow for broad coverage (on background and development/writing and themes, recording, artwork, promotion, commercial performance, reception). This article fails in that category - in actual content it's a near-stub. Hekerui (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no "development/writing and themes" because each of these songs have been released before and making such a section would be pointless. The "Conception" section includes information on recording and production/development. There is a reception section already, and there is no way to add a commercial performance section because it really never did anything commercial and was never really promoted. And also, the GA criteria does state: "This requirement (It addresses the main aspects of the topic) is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." CrowzRSA 15:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not write a "composition" section, even though this is a DVD, you can explian each tracks genres, professional reviews, writing and inspiration, production and development of each track. Similar to album articles. If you need examples, if you want to consider this, I'll give you some example articles. Best, AJona1992 (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to CrowzRSA I gave the list of possible things to cover to show that aside from the current sparse content nothing else is in there. If there is no more content available as you say, you can't write a substantial article, which is a minimum requirement, and you may never get there. There are many articles that don't have this content available, especially compilations and works similar to this one, and they are informative all the same. This has nothing to do with FA standards, but with upholding a miminum standard for awarding GA class. We're in this for the reader and marking this as GA is in my opinion misleading. Assessing broad coverage is more than checking boxes on the existence of sections. Hekerui (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to AJona1992 I'm sure CrowzRSA would have included coverage of these specific versions if there was. The songs were released before so general detail on them would be a duplication of the individual article or description for the studio recording. Hekerui (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article may meet GA criteria, but it may not meet notability guidelines. Does it meet WP:MOVIE? The article states it is marginal, and that it had few reviews, and those reviews mentioned are not the most secure of sources. SilkTork *Tea time 10:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the GA criteria:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    It has a well written prose quality.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    The article complies with Wikipedia's Manual of Style
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Everything is properly cited.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    All sources meet WP:RS
    C. No original research:
    I found no WP:OR
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Wikipedia's Manual of Style (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film) (this is a video, not an album) says that a film article must cover a film's Plot, Cast, Themes, Production, Release, and Reception. The contents section can be considered a plot section, since it explains what goes on in the film, the cast is listed in the personnel section, we have decided that discussing themes is not needed, Hekerui even agrees there is no need for a themes, or "composition" section. The film's production and release are talked about in the conception section, and there is a fair amount of information on the album's reception. Some of the things that Hekerui said the article needed are listed as "Secondary content" in Wiki's Manual of Style, and the rest was already covered in the article. The following is what Hekerui said the article needs:Background and development Green tickY talked about what is needed (Production)—Writing and themes/composition Red XN agreed not to be included in article.—Recording Green tickY Even though nothing is mentioned about recording in MOS:FILM, the article does talk about the film's recording.—Artwork Red XN MOS:FILM says that "if available", to provide information on Home media, but it is not available, so it is not required,—Promotion Red XN Production is not talked about in MOS:FILMS—Commercial performance Red XN The article had no commercial performance, and MOS:FILMS says to give a box office "if possible."—Reception Green tickY labeled as Critical reception.
    B. Focused:
    Focused
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    It is neutral and is not bias.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    It is stable and is not undergoing any edit wars
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Image looks good
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    A picture of the cover art is all that is needed.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    If you disagree please comment. CrowzRSA 19:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: keep As per comments by nominator. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page of MIT lists numerous inaccuracies in subjects about the university, including exaggerated research claims, many unsourced claims that are skeptical, and others. Just look at the Talk Page, how many conflicts are there! I just think that this article is not a good Social Science article. Does anybody agree with me?--DSbanker (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is in decent shape, compared to other articles about universities, although there's always room for improvement. The article has been reasonably well policed for undocumented boosterism, compared to Caltech, for example. Some of the info is a bit outdated, and some is quite current; a top-to-bottom review for currency would be useful.

Please don't be misled by the past controversies on the Talk page. Check the dates, and you'll see that most of them have been resolved some time ago. Again, a comparison to the Talk pages for other university articles is instructive. Reify-tech (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a reassessment, please list specific concerns here. Vague assertions of inaccuracy are not sufficient for GAR. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I realized that most of the issues on the article's talk page have been resolved, so I'll retract my request for a GAR. --DSbanker (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wildfire[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: kept The world view banner has been removed. Whilst the article could probably benefit from additions to broaden the global content, I think it meets the GA criteria sufficiently as it stands. Further contributions should be discussed on the article talk page, and good faith efforts for improvement should be welcome. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

There appears to be a content dispute. The world view template/banner appears to have been in place for 6 months. Szzuk (talk) 08:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, threse is discussion about world view open in the talk page. Dentren | Talk 15:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell, Dentren's 'globalize' complaint is solely that the images are from Europe and North America. IMO the tag is not appropriate ({{reqphoto}} would be appropriate) and is being used as a badge of shame, but even if the tendency of the images to come from countries where most of our editors live did warrant such a tag, since the GA image criterion is very weak, it is not a sufficient reason to de-list the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know on which grounds this badge of shame (compare this to WP systemic bias which is what this is about) accusation is made so we won't speak about that but about things we call all verify. What I see is that (as of May 28 [48]): 8 of 16 pictures deal with examples from the US. If we to this add pictures from Canada and Australia there are 10 out of 16 picrtures showing examples from English speaking countries if we then pictures from Euroe (Greece, Portugal and Estonia) we have that 13 of 16 picturtures deals with these countries. Now we exclude the global map and have that 13 of 15 pictures shows images from the Anglopnone world and Europe. Of the last two remaining pictures one is a "propagation model" not linked to any specific region and the other is map of wildfires in Africa. So we conclude that Africa, Asia and Latin america are very underrepresneted and US more than enought represented. In addition boreal/temperate conifer forests are overeppresented while tropical and subtropical forests fires are not shown at all. In this sence the article reflects very poorly that wildfire is world-wide phenomena. Futher more the Global fires during the year 2008 map give hints that if any region should be given more space than other it should be the tropical and subtropical regions. Dentren | Talk 16:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The systemic bias of English WP is obvious to anyone who ever thought about it. You're pointing the bias out over a very very trivial matter - request photo is the appropriate template, hence the globalize banner can only be seen as a badge of shame. Szzuk (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we aim to improve the article the best thing is to a template on the front of the page which is what most users actually see, request templates on talk pages are likely to be forgotten and sit there perhaps for years. A good selection of images is not trivial since it shows the readers where and how they occur and how they look. As the artcly looks know is seems unlikely that a Nigerian, Vietnamese or Paraguayan would see a wildfire picture he could relate to his country. Again, boreal forest wildfires are tremendouly overepresented.1 Dentren | Talk 16:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to "a good selection of images", but "a good selection of images" is not one of the six WP:Good article criteria. Good articles are not actually required to have any images, much less an ideally balanced selection of images. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikipedia:Good article criteria issue nr. 3 states that articles has to be broad in coverage, coverage by images as stated before very poor. In addition to this sections Effect of weather and Policy fails to give a broad coverage by putting special emphasis on the US and UK. Dentren | Talk 13:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than demanding somebody else fix the article have you considered fixing it yourself? You appear attached to this issue (for reasons I can't understand), but you want somebody else to fix your issue. Szzuk (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:NPA, there it says: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Dentren | Talk 07:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was offering a solution. It's unreasonable to expect a single uninterested editor to source and upload half a dozen images because it would take several hours labour. If several editors are required, as seems likely, then the template may be in place for years. Szzuk (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Broad in coverage" applies to the article as a whole, not the images in isolation. An article can be "broad in coverage" while containing zero images or just one (which must, by necessity, come from a single location). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point. I'd be happy for this to close as Keep, with the proviso the banner is removed. As a side note (you appear experienced and neutral), how many banners would be acceptable for a good article? I've had GA's failed for just a few cites requested, so I'd be interested in your opinion. Szzuk (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Banner remains. I will delist unless consensus for its removal emerges very soon. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the banner is entirely inappropriate, and that the article should not be de-listed merely because one editor is willing to edit war to keep a badge of shame on the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the banner has been removed. If edit-warring over this persists, I suggest pursuing this at the appropriate noticeboard, as consensus seems to have been reached. If it persists however, then the article will fail criterion #5 of WP:WIAGA. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Enthiran[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. Consensus is that the article does not meet GA criteria. It fails 1(a) - Prose quality; 2(c) - No original research; and 5 - Stability. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This film article has been subject to lobbying for unverifiable and possibly over-inflated box office figures for the last 8 months (refer to the extensive talk page archives). There is no consensus for approach and many multiple attempts to add figures to the article have inflamed debate resulting in the article being protected several times. This was overlooked in the original GA assessment as admitted shortly afterwards on the talk page. The article remains unstable and should not retain GA status. --Fæ (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is a section called Scientific accuracy, which is largely composed of unsourced trivia, and a reference to a blacklisted site 'cinestar'. BollyJeff || talk 16:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since raising this GA reassessment, the article has been locked to sysop only for 7 days due to edit-warring over the financial figures. Fæ (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't carry the overall important message, that this film is the highest grossing Indian film of all times. There is too much resistence from industry rivals against it.--David Fraudly (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who are what are these "industry rivals" (bearing in mind I will block you if you turn this GA into any sort of personal dispute or attack on editors' motivations)? DMacks (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want to explain this for you in a really sensible way. Please don't take it personally. Look, there are certain natural rivalries in this world, like in wars between nations or soccer clubs. In India we have different film industries, where there is a big cultural/philosophical war of supremacy happening. Every industry strives to come out with the best and the highest grossers. And today we are talking about a war about an all time record of all Indian film industries together. How would you react, when somebody claims, that Obama from Democrates won only narrowly over McCain, citing a dubious Republican source and ignoring all reliable sources? This is, what's going on here.--David Fraudly (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:David Frauly, an important thing to bear in mind while contributing to Wikipedia is to assume good faith. You can't just assume that "industry rivals" try to manipulate articles their way in order to make that particular industry to look good. I can assure you that a lot of the editors here (including me) work with a neutral point of view to the best of our abilities and when someone breaches this, we would always take the time to remind them about it. About the 'Scientific accuracy' section, does anyone see it problematic? I was thinking about creating an article titled Chitti, the character, and thought most of that could be moved to that page instead. Scientific accuracy does seem pretty appropriate since this is a sci-fi film. About budget and gross revenue, why was the former removed? Do we not have a reliable/qualified source for that at least? And User:Fae, could you list here everything that you think is problematic about those two data in this article, just for a ready reference of Enthiran's issues on this reassessment page? EelamStyleZ (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly, as the issue has dragged on for 8 months with around 100 different sources:

The problem with box office income figures: After much discussion and debate it is clear that there are no verifiable figures available for box office income, the only figures relating to ticket sales for this film are estimates from pundits or the production company. In the case of pundit speculation, the estimates are unverifiable and there is no process described of how they are created and so they appear to be highly speculative guesstimates. In the case of the production company, estimates are also unverifiable as though numbers may relate to profit declared against the film in corporate accounts, this is not related to ticket sales as there is no breakdown of the cost of sales or proportion of profit that goes to retail agencies. Further, the production company has no control or special access to accounts that may or may not include ticket sales by retail agents in India (which in turn have no public third party verification) or elsewhere. Any speculative estimates for box office income by the production company and their representatives must be used in the context of likely conflict of interest as they have a responsibility to promote the film and the possibility of being the top film in Indian cinema by box office sales, which might be true but remains unverifiable.
In terms of this article, a wealth of estimates are available in different sources. Putting a single figure in the infobox will remain dubious as this will be seen as arbitrarily cherry picking one of the sources, none of which is truly impartial. Adding a range in the infobox is possible but statistically rather meaningless and may fail to meet WP:SYNTH. A section exists in the article body about box office income and this can put any quoted estimates in context and provide appropriate weight.
Note, an original film budget has been declared by the production company as part of their corporate accounts. Though other figures may be available in other publications, this less of an issue even if it lacks context and may not relate to any audit-able accounts of what monies were spent. Other figures such as revenue are available but are confusing for the film as this is not box office income and would be relevant to an article about the production company but appear tangential and possibly misleading for this article unless given with carefully explained context, particularly as the figure discussed recognizes different types of cash flow including a forecast cash flow element. Fæ (talk) 07:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if all box office estimates are removed, still there remains one core problem - this article desperately tries to establish legitimacy to a bizarre revisionist claim that Enthiran is the highest Indian grosser ever (and not the Hindi picture 3 Idiots). It is either a sign of ignorance or full-blown xenophobia. So, phrases like ...it was ultimately claimed to be the highest-grossing Indian film of all time...although because official box office records are not kept in India, this cannot be independently verified...somewhere in the top three... show subtle parochial bias and the page does not deserve GA status until these are removed.Kollyfan (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please note that all Rajinikanth films have had similar inflated box office claims (see histories of Kuselan, Sivaji, Chandramukhi, Baba, Padayappa,...)Kollyfan (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a GA reassessment page for Enthiran. Talk only about the film which is currently under discussion. If you want to discuss about any other Indian film which you have problems discuss that here. --Commander (Ping Me) 14:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The statement says "ultimately claimed" to be. There is nothing wrong with mentioning a notable claim. No where does it imply that Enthiran in fact is the highest grossing Indian film of all-time. EelamStyleZ (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to me to be an impasse here. On the one hand, Hindi folks are saying that the Tamil folks are exaggerating the gross figures. On the other hand, the Tamil folks are saying that the Hindi folks are trying to suppress the true gross figures. Without verifiable figures, which we have already established do not exist, what can be done? As long as this article is not locked, I fear that editors will consistently fight over this issue, due to the rivalries described above. BollyJeff || talk 19:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly do not believe such rivalries exist in Wikipedia to a large scale, but I'm finding it hard to rule that possibility out because of how long this debate has been going on. There are fanatics and biased people (generally the unregistered users) who would want to see the gross figure as high as possible. If we can back up a figure with ample sources, I think it deserves to be on the article. I mean, whether the gross revenue was 100 crores or 300 crores, which ever figure is mentioned the most by our 'reliable' sources, that figure should be up. Having an empty space for that field in the infobox seems quite pointless. A range of the lowest cited figure and the highest cited figure may also be appropriate. I think it's about time we settled on one of the two options, rather than having to block the article from editing each time a random editor comes along and abruptly changes the figure with no unanimity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there was any other Indian film article that had issues with gross revenue and budget figures as big as Enthiran. GA or no GA, this issue must be settled soon. EelamStyleZ (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because someone has added a parameter to the particular infobox template does not mean is has to be used or is even good practice to use. Many Wikimedians are against blanket use of infoboxes due to their arbitrary nature and the tendency to add poorly referenced or speculative information (such as the 'influenced' and 'influenced by' fields in the writers infobox). You are also assuming we can agree some reliable sources, this has been my key point over the last 8 months, there are no reliable sources for a box office income figure or even an estimate with a clear explanation of how it was arrived at. Fæ (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there are no reliable enough sources for the gross revenue for Enthiran. However, the Economic Times article quotes a key person from Sun Picture saying they must have generated at least Rs. 375. I know that quote is extremely vague, but why can't we settle with what we've got? The article seemed perfectly fine when the gross revenue said "₹375 crore (estimated)". EelamStyleZ (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that the article seemed fine to you, my viewpoint is with a cautious interpretation of appropriate weight and verifiability. The last 8 months have shown that picking any figure (particularly one from a non-independent source) for the infobox rather than leaving it to a full explanation of context in the article body will lead to instability and accusations of cherry picking. Fæ (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Full explanation of context in the article body" sounds like a reasonable alternative, perhaps under the 'Response' section. That could possibly replace an empty 'gross revenue' parameter in the infobox. EelamStyleZ (talk) 01:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add it, I'm a main contributor in the music articles, but even then I have seen the dragging discussions regarding this article, the continuous edit wars, the personal attacks etc. Both folks are equally to be blamed for turning this encyclopedia into a fancrufty paper bag. And no, after careful inspection I don't see any reliable source claiming the highest-grossing info. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, as an unstable article (as this is when unlocked) fails criterion #5. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist per Jez and per failing WP:GA as a whole actually. This article is far from being the level article that we expect in GAC. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mets–Phillies rivalry[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. There is no agreement that the article does not meet GA criteria. Concerns regarding neutral wording are advised to be worked out on the talkpage. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article attempts to establish a relatively long history for the Mets-Phillies rivalry. However, many of the items listed as incidents of the rivalry are not supported by reliable sources. For example, the first section is a perfect game thrown by a Philadelphia pitcher against the Mets in 1964. And, while the event is sourced, none of the sources contend that this event was the beginning of a substantial rivalry. Another event listed in the article is the trade of a popular New York pitcher to the Phillies. Again, the event itself is sourced, but none of the sources suggests that this contributed to the two teams disliking each other. I believe that most of the information presented within is the product of revisionist history and original research. A conclusion is being brought forth that the sources do not suggest. Thus I believe the article should be stripped of its "good" ranking. Thank you.Ultimahero (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with some of Ultimahero's criticisms, though mine are more limited in scope. The article does indeed attempt to stretch sources to imply that a rivalry between the Mets and Phillies has been ever present. As a lifelong Mets fan, I do not remember that to be the case, nor, as Ultimahero rightly points out, do the citations in the article seem to support that conclusion. I do believe that there has been an intense Mets-Phillies rivalry in recent years, and the article warrants existence and an emphasis on recent events for that reason.
However, my other fear is that the supposed "history" of this rivalry is also infecting other articles. I noticed on several other Met rivalry pages such as Mets-Braves rivalry and Mets-Yankees rivalry that the Phillies were being referred to as the Mets "primary rivals" when there was no citation for such an assertion. To be fair, I deleted those mentions and they were not reverted. However, on the page for New York Mets, I tried to trim down what I saw as an excessive blurb and undue weight on this rivalry, and was heavily reverted by User:SNIyer12 on the basis of the GA status of this article, as if that somehow precluded edits to an entirely different article.
However, I do assume good faith of all involved. In particular, I have had nothing but good experiences with User:Killervogel5 who I understand to be one of the primary editors of this page. I would support giving the editors a chance to address these concerns before rushing to strip the article of its GA status, because I do believe they worked hard to get the article in the conditions it's in and, at the end of the day, it is better than many of the other rivalry pages. Not being entirely familiar with this process, my understanding is that GA standards are a bit lower than FA standards anyway, but I do believe these are concerns that should be addressed. TempDog123 (talk) 07:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What we need are clear examples of where it is beloved that this article fails WP:WIAGA. If those are not forthcoming then the inevitable result is keep. Have the primary editors been informed of this discussion? Jezhotwells (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I listed the the section on 1964 perfect game. No source suggests it as contributing to the rivalry in any way and yet the article presents it as being a foundation. That is clearly original research. Good article criteria number 2 is "Factually accurate and verifiable". Clearly much of the info on the page fails at this point because the articles asserts things not concluded from the sources. There are many other things we could point to: Tug McGraw and most of the info prior to the last few seasons, as well as the "causes" section all fails this criteria. Please check the sources for yourself if you wish. And, yes, this has been presented on the article talk page.Ultimahero (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There does seem to be one POV statement (which I have tagged), but I don't really see many specific instances. Can you present them? Jezhotwells (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have. The whole "perfect game" section has nothing to do with the supposed rivalry. The event happened, and it's factually accurate. But no source quoted by the article lists states that this event contributed to the rivalry in any way. The conclusion that this helped shape a rivalry is original research. Please check the sources and tell me if you see a single instance of this game being presented as the start of a rivalry. The conclusion is original research and fails the "factually accurate and verifiable" criteria.Ultimahero (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that the section actually says that this was the start of the rivalry, it is just background. The sentence "The 1964 season was memorable for the Phillies and forgettable for the Mets." is POV as uncited and should be rewritten neutrally. The next section, Tug McGraw suggests that there was rivalry between the teams: ...McGraw, in the victory parade after the World Series, told New York fans they could "take this championship and shove it." In my opinion the best thing would be to tag, explicitly POV statements and discuss on the talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that the article doesn't specifically say that the perfect game contributed to the rivalry. However, the very fact that it's on the page suggests to the reader that it was the earliest manifestation of the rivalry. Let me explain what I mean: Let's say that there's a Wikipedia article on the tsunami's that occurred in 2004. And, let's say that on this article there a section titled "causes of the tsunami", under which there's a list various seismological and natural factors that could have contributed to that tsunami. Now, imagine that under the "causes" section there was a paragraph about George W. Bush being elected to the US Presidency. Even if that paragraph didn't directly state that Bush's election caused the tsunami, doesn't the very existence of said paragraph in the context of the article suggest to the reader that Bush being President had something to do with the tsunami? It heavily implies it, regardless of whether or not it directly states it. That's what I think the discussed section do to the Phillies-Mets rivalry article. Their mere existence on the page suggests that they had something to do with the rivalry, even though none of the sources conclude that they did.
I don't know if you're a baseball fan or not, but this rivalry didn't really come about until the last few years (some of the sources used on the page will say just that.) Two teams can play each other for a long time but that doesn't mean that they have a rivalry. (The Dodgers and Cardinals have been around a long time but no one would say that they have a rivalry.) Essentially, what the article has done is retroactively gone back through Baseball history and pulled out any moment of significance between the Phillies and Mets and presented them as being important milestones in the rivalry. But the fact remains that no source says that these events actually created or contributed to any rivalry. That makes so sections original research because the are presenting an original conclusion. Simply labeling a few statements as POV is insufficient; most of the sections themselves don't belong on that page.Ultimahero (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voltage doubler[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Not listed. There is agreement that there is a lack of clarity regarding the scope of the article, so criteria 3 Broad coverage cannot be assessed. There are suggestions that it wouldn't take much to address the concerns, and then the article can be nominated again. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The GAN of this article was recently closed as not listed. The reason given was that the reviewer had concerns over the scope and title of the article. The review never really got past this question before it was closed. I am seeking here a view on the correct methodology for determining the scope of a title.

My position, in summary, is that the term voltage doubler is a stock phrase in the industry and refers to a specific class of circuits. The position of the reviewer was that the title should be taken literally and that the scope of the article should be increased to cover any circuit or device capable of doubling voltage, such as transformer.

My evidence for my position is as follows;

  • I asked an uninvolved editor, User:Rogerbrent, who I knew to be an expert in electronics to add an opinion. Roger broadly agreed that the scope was restricted as the article states but did suggest the addition of another circuit.
  • There are around 9,000 gbook hits for voltage doubler, all of which seem to be relevant textbooks, and all of which present a set of circuits similar to what is now in the article, or the article plus Roger's suggested addition. I have checked thoroughly the first two pages of results and random selections elsewhere: none of these sources list or mention transformer as a voltage doubler or any other circuit that has been excluded from the scope of the article.
  • While the term does not really have an exact definition in the industry, this book and this book give a definition that exactly corresponds to the scope of the current article. SpinningSpark 19:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Spinningspark is being disingenuous in focusing on the transformer example. I quote from what he himself said during the GA review: "I can give you (at least I can now we have had this discussion) a clean and precise definition that is free from all qualifying phrases and free of all mention of specific components (at least till the point the article starts discussing specific or "most common" circuits) and would be recognised as valid by others skilled in the art. The problem is that I do not believe that I could back up that definition with sources." Seems pretty clear cut to me. Malleus Fatuorum 19:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not promote: a problem encountered in the review was not addressed, so quite rightly the nomination was failed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The current article covers the definition of a doubler likely to be found in most textbooks. A more general (and modern) definition should probably mention all switches as possible components, not just diodes. This would only require minor rewording on the opening paragraph as the additional content already exists on other pages and could simply be referenced. -Roger (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the article can't then focus exclusively on those circuits made up of diodes and capacitors and ignore any other kind of voltage doubler. Malleus Fatuorum 02:30, 4 July 2011
  • This is simple electronics, a voltage doubler is a few simple analog components, this GAR should be kept simple with a simple ref. Do not promote if it's not forthcoming. Szzuk (talk) 07:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_51&oldid=960711641"