Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← (Page 20) Replacement filing cabinet.svg Good article review (archive) (Page 18) →

To archive an article from the disputes page, check over the dispute, and see if any enforcement is necessary. For instance, if a discussion results in 5 editors for delisting an article and 1 against, then delist the article as you archive it. If a dispute is close, for instance, an approximately even amount of editors taking a side, try to make a new comment rather than archiving, to see whether the dispute should continue. Make sure not to archive active discussions, a good rule is to not archive anything that has a comment less than a week old, unless a resolution has been posted to the discussion. An exception to this rule involves disputes which have a clear outcome in these ways: There is at least an 80 percent majority to do something with an article, there are at least 6 votes, and at least three days have passed since the article was nominated for review.

Archived Disussions

Syncaris pacifica

Result: Delisted prior to GAR

Delist per detailed objections cited previously on article's talk page. Needs improvements to use of references, prose, and clarity. ChicagoPimp 01:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like its already been taken care of by someone else. Homestarmy 15:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not sure what the state of the article was when ChicagoPimp looked at it, but it looks perfectly fine now. I say keep...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Southern Pacific 4449

Result: Delist 5-0

Article has zero citations and is stubby in places. Delist. LuciferMorgan 18:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delist Lack of inline citations. We sure are removing a lot of locomotive articles recently. Hopefully some of these are improved upon later to return to GA. Delist for now though. --Nehrams2020 23:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist - per above. ChicagoPimp 23:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delist per above. Same comment as below. These train articles were promoted before there were any standards in place. They should be delisted without reviews. --LaraLoveT/C 03:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist - some references, but no inline citations. Too many red links. - 52 Pickup 17:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

PRR GG1

Result: Delist 4-0

Article has zero citations and is listy in places. Delist. LuciferMorgan 18:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delist Lack of inline citations, and some of the lists should be converted to prose. --Nehrams2020 23:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist - per strong agreement with above. ChicagoPimp 23:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delist per above. In these cases (which I have seen many recently) these train articles were all promoted before there were any standards in place. I don't think the deserve review. Delist on sight. --LaraLoveT/C 03:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per lack of citations. Aaron Bowen 16:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

EMD GP30

Result: Delist 5-0

Article has zero citations. Delist. LuciferMorgan 19:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Delist - no inline citations, poor verifiability. ChicagoPimp 21:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Delist - per above. And it has a trivia section. LaraLoveTalk/Contribs 03:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Delist - for all the same reasons listed. This is a generally well written and broad enough article for the subject, but the lack of inline citations makes the verifiability inadequate. Also, the over use of abbreviations is a problem. The first time a term is used, it should be spelled out before it uses the abbreviation.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Delist Lacking inline citations, could use some cleanup. --Nehrams2020 17:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Clarkson

Result: Delist 6-2

I believe this article does meet the GA criteria. It lacks many citations, and the Lead has information that is not in the main body of the article. Clarkson's early years are limited to only two short sentences, and many sentences like "Clarkson is most associated with the British motoring programme" without facts is POV. A lot of (short) paragraphs read like trivia. The references section should also be looked at for the right formatting style, and if they actually are references, or just filler. andreasegde 11:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delist: End is listy, badly structured (too many short sections). weak lead, one sentence paragraphs. Not very broad, bio section way too short, unless he was really young which he isn't. Numerous citation needed tags, not nearly referenced enough. Fails GA criteria #1, #2 and #3. IvoShandor 12:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: The article is comprehensively referenced, and even a cursory examination of the citation needed tags indicates that many of them are spurious (in several cases, a "citation needed" tag appears in the same paragraph as a citation for the relevant material). I see only minor issues here (eg, the laundry lists), which should be worked out on the talk page. Interestingly, a number of the short paragraphs were introduced by the nominator, immediately after he inappropriately replaced the article's free image with a fair use image. Nandesuka 12:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment:Nandesuka actually works on the article, so his opinion is biased. I did split the Lead into three sections (to show what was needed) moved a couple of references to the end of sentences, and I put a fair use image on the page, which was reverted (no problem at all). This review is supposed to be conducted by neutral editors. andreasegde 15:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    • My rationale is a bit different but I stand by my original vote minus the speedy, it appears to be quite unstable at the moment. IvoShandor 13:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Sort this out on the talk page and I'll change my vote to keep. IvoShandor 13:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I am just not sure which version I should be reviewing, which is why I still say delist. IvoShandor 15:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep The version I see right now looks GA-like. The section on Engineering needs some clean-up, but on the balance this seems a fine article. If there are real stability problems (and not just minor fixes but real content disputes) than maybe a 1-month cool off period to see if it can be stabilized, but other than the non-encyclopedic tone of the Engineering section, it looks fine.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Image:Clarksonpie1.jpg has a broken licensing tag and needs to be scaled down and tagged with {{furd}} . ShadowHalo 00:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I shrunk it Shadow. Quadzilla99 09:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Although the article was apparently improved in the meantime, but it still is of rather meagre quality - the biography section is rather stubby to say the least, the paragraphing is poor, with many two-liners, there are POV/OR concerns and the sources need to be reexamined for whether they are properly used, there are those lists at the end still - and I could go on... Now, GA/R is not an infinite hold, if the article is not of GA standard, it should be delisted and renominated once it is improved to reach it. PrinceGloria 10:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Too many stubby paragraphs, and there's an inconsistent citation style. LuciferMorgan 18:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per most of above. The lead is weak, lacks criticisms to the point it seems biased. United Kingdom should be spelled out and wikified with (UK) following. The bio is stubby. There are several minor issues such as missing space after citations, missing commas, misplaced commas and periods in regards to quotations, missing italics from title, use of apostrophes in place of quotation marks. [Question: Is height measured in feet and inches in England?] The article could use more wikification. There is incorrect formatting of some references. The listy end seems fine to me. There is a place for lists in some articles and this is a good example. It would be too much to attempt to write all that into paragraphs. Speaking of paragraphs, there are some that shouldn't be. Sentences that should conclude one paragraph have instead become the start (or all) of a new one. This article has much to work on. LaraLoveT/C 19:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Not a terrible article, but it needs some work to get back to GA status. In particular, the lead is very bad, paragraphs are often too short, and many of the citations have no retrieval dates. These problems should be quite easy to fix. Zeus1234 02:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Polymerase chain reaction

Result: Delist 5-0

I was surprised to see that this was a Good Article. I feel that there are some issues with the whole layout of the article (example: the history of the discovery is at the end instead of the beginning-middle). There are also referencing problems in the article. This is a 33KB+ size article, and there are only a total of ten references. Science-related articles should contain many more references, since without reliable sources, it would be easy for some vandal to go unnoticed and make a falsified claim about the process. I think the article needs a cleanup, and I would recommend sending this for a peer review. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Delist, not even close to satisfying WP:SCG, most sections are compleatly without citation, and there are too many lists which don't appear to really need to be lists, possibly failing WP:EMBED. Homestarmy 00:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Delist, not nearly enough references for a scientific article. Lists should be changed to text. ChicagoPimp 17:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Delist per above. LaraLoveTalk/Contribs 15:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Delist, way too many lists in this "GA".--Wizardman 03:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Bill Clinton

Result: Keep 5-1

Delist - I think that Clinton's article should be delisted for a number of reasons, mainly the listy prose in the "Legislation and Programs" section, as well as the "Supreme court appointments". Although it is somewhat well cited, and the lead is pretty good, I think it's good to double check. Happyme22 04:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep While the prose isn't "brilliant", it is up to GA standards as "well written". I see no obvious grammatical errors, nor any egregious violations of the MOS. The article is quite well referenced, neutral, and stable. While some information is presented in list form, I do not see that as a problem. The article is NOT as a whole a list, it is an article, and some information simply owes itself to being presented in bullet list format. The areas where this article uses bullet lists is appropriate and concise in a way that plain prose would actually be less desirable. For all of those reasons, I see this as a keepable article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment there are no inline citations in the Governor of Arkansas and Campaign for the Democratic nomination sections at all and the article is fairly listy. Quadzilla99 07:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Honestly a few days ago I considered nominating the article for GA review myself. However the past few days I have rewritten about half the article and added about thirty references to the later sections. I still have to do the governor sections and the presidential election campaign but hope to have updated the entire article within a few days. As for the lists I am in agreement with Jayron above - the article is not one entire list, rather those things such as the bills signed into law by Clinton (important things) are in bullet form. If users are worried about Governor of Arkansas and Campaign for the Democratic nomination sections then please put the GA on hold and give me a few days to finish my current improvements. Im also going to work on the image captions. LordHarris 11:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I have spent the last few hours rewritting (expanding some areas, and making more concise others) the Governor of Arkansas and Campaign for the Democratic nomination sections. I have added several references to these areas, to those pieces of information that are likely to be challenged. I have also reformated the references, so that mutliple references from the same source now appear once, but as a,b,c etc rather than as several seperate references. Hope this addresses reference problems. In regards to the "Legislation and Programs" section, as well as the "Supreme court appointments" I do not believe this violates WP:WIAGA. Wikipedia:Embedded list states that a list style may be preferable to a long sequence within a sentence. Lists are to be avoided when they can be incorporated as prose. In this case of this article major policies are discussed as prose. However the list is there to make clear, and point out those examples that clinton signed into law that are without prose (because they are less significant enough to warrant an entire paragraph). LordHarris 13:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep While the prose is clunky in some parts, and parts of the article are list-like, it still fulfills the requirements of a GA class article, which only requires 'good' prose. The prose fits that description, but can still be improved.Zeus1234 00:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: This article reads very well to me. I agree with Jayron that bullet lists have their place in some articles. I do think that the supreme court appointments could be written into a paragraph, or worked into another section, but it would not be desirable to write out the legislation in paragraph form. This is a well-rounded, balanced article. Would need improvement to meet FA, but it definitely meets GA standards. --LaraLoveT/C 03:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep The article is not FA quality, but it is easily GA.Balloonman 22:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Uluru

Result: Delist 5-0

Article is insufficiently referenced in large sections. Delist. -Malkinann 07:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delist - insufficiently referenced in flora/fauna and history sections. ChicagoPimp 14:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. Text is also sandwiched between images, references are messy and incomplete. LaraLoveT/C 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per above reasoning. LuciferMorgan 22:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist The geology section is pretty well referenced, but it is the ONLY section that is referenced. I mean, there's a verify-cleanup banner across the top of the article; if there was someone caring for the article it would be fixed by now. Additionally, article titles SHOULD be redirected to the correct name with diacritical marks, and this one makes it clear that the rock is called Uluṟu while the article is titled Uluru. Pretty sure that is not in keeping with article titling guidelines, but that might be a minor point as well. The referencing is a BIGGER problem.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I put the verify-cleanup banner there myself as an attempt to let people know that while the article is long, it needs more references. I think that the sections that need more references are the name, description, flora and fauna, history and tourism sections.-Malkinann 23:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946)

Result: Delist 7-1

Article is lacking references, there are large swathes of it that are not referenced. Delist. One Night In Hackney303 14:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delist I am in agreement that it needs more referencing. Whole sections are unreferenced. Zeus1234 15:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. The first have has an adequate amount of inline citation, but the second half is almost entirely without citations. Also, there are only three references, which seems inappropriate to me for an article of that length. LaraLoveT/C 19:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I've remarked the lack of references, but I thought this problem could be solved in the future because the article is really good per overall. Eurocopter tigre 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Everyone should understand that a sentance like this: "The Liberal Period was marked by corruption, government instability, continued depravity in southern Italy, and use of authoritarian measures by the Italian government." Needs a reference. It has none. There are DOZENS like it throughout the article. Given that the article makes MANY assertions and interpretations of history, and gives no specific sources of those interpretations, it is woefully underreferenced.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Three books as almost the only references for this article cannot possibly be getting the entire story on this subjects. Also, the start of WWI seems to have no references, almost all of World War Two has no references, the start of the Facist Italy as well, and considering how big those parts of the article are, this certainly works out to not well-referenced. Homestarmy 15:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per above reasoning. LuciferMorgan 19:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist 1c. Quadzilla99 16:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sun Yat-sen

Result: Delist 5-0

This article has no inline referencing and should thus be delisted.Delist Zeus1234 02:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delist per nom. LaraLoveT/C 03:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per nomination. LuciferMorgan 10:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist No inline references, AND there is an unresolved clean-up banner on one of the sections. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Remove from GA for now, and renominate once inline citations are added and other criteria are met. --Nehrams2020 05:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

English Reformation

Result: Delist 5-1

Another GA passed by Eurocopter tigre (see Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946) below) that is insufficiently referenced. Delist. One Night In Hackney303 13:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what does "well referenced" really means. Anyway, I just wanted to help in the GA candidates process, which is a very slow one. I'm not going to pass anymore articles, however, if you say it's insufficiently referenced, I'm neutral. --Eurocopter tigre 14:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I dunno about this one, most of it does seem to be referenced, are the citations just for individual sentences or something? Homestarmy 14:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Have you seen this section? One Night In Hackney303 14:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
What about it? I counted 7 refs on it. Again, GA criterias says that the article needs to be well-referenced , but it doesn't says what does well-referenced means (it could mean 20 or 200 refs). Eurocopter tigre 14:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
There are already a number of references there - are there particular statements in that section that you feel need references? Per WP:CITE, "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." What do you think meets that criterion? David Underdown 14:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Well in the entire section I count 18 paragraphs and 13 references. One Night In Hackney303 15:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Who says that the refs number should be the same with the paragraphs number? See this good article, there are dozens of paragraphs unreferenced. I also guarantee you that 80% (maybe 90%) of wikipedia's good articles doesn't have a ref at each paragraph. Hackney, good articles are not featured articles, maybe the featured ones must have a ref at each paragraph. BTW, I'm changing my opinion - Strong keep--Eurocopter tigre 15:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
And which of the unreferenced paras contains "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." which as I said previously is the bar at which referencing is required? David Underdown 15:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
This discussion should also be valid for Kingdom of Italy (1861-1946), David, you can take a look on it if you want. Zeus, show me the GA criteria which says that should be at least one reference per paragraph. Eurocopter tigre 15:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
A quick read of the article would provide you with the answer to that question, sadly I don't have the time or energy to type them all out. If you really want a list, I will provide one in about an hour, as it will take that long to compile everything that needs sourcing.
It is clear the editor reviewing failed to read the article properly, otherwise he would have noticed sentences like this one:

In Parliament, bishop John Fisher was Catherine's and the clergy's champion; he had inserted into the first article, the phrase 'as far as the word of God allows' into the first article.

And also the fact that the footnotes are before punctuation, contrary to the manual of style. One Night In Hackney303 15:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Look again, I'd already sorted that out before you posted this comment. If there are obvious proof reading gaffes, why not fix them yourself, as the third instruction at the top of page suggests. Just one or two examples of places you feel need additional referencing would be nice to be going on with, as that's likely to give an indication of how your view of what's "obvious" differs from that of the original author(s). Just repeatedly asserting that it's insufficiently referenced doesn't help anyone actually improve the article (you could of course just use {{fact}} throughout the article). David Underdown 15:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand why this is here. I personally don't think this meets GA class at all, it's been classed as that by an inexperienced editor who doesn't even know what "well referenced" means, so how he can possibly say it is baffles me. Rather than immediately delist it (which I could have done) I brought it here for review, so the problems with the article could be identified, as would have happened normally with a good article candidate. One Night In Hackney303 15:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I fully appreciate that the original review before promotion was somewhat cursory, but if you're going to say that there are problems with the article, you should be able to sufficiently identify what they are in such a way that it helps the article to be improved, as the instructions at the top of this page suggest. If it's so obvously under-referenced, you should have been able to provide one concrete example of a statement that needs additional referencing by now, WP:CITE does not require that every apra be referenced, only that (potentially) contentious statements should be. David Underdown 15:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You incorrectly assume I don't have examples, as I stated earlier if you want them all it would take time. If you insist, how about In the matter of the annulment, no progress seemed possible: the Pope seemed more afraid of Emperor Charles V than of Henry - more afraid according to who? One Night In Hackney303 15:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't assuming anything, just saying that it would have been helpful to rpesent one or two concrete examples of under-referencing from the beginning. On this particular example, the last sentence of the previous section (which is referenced) tells us that troops of Emperor Charles V had recently sacked Rome, it doesn't then seem a huge leap of faith to assume that the Pope would be frightened of the same thing happening again, and there was no way Henry VIII could protect the Pope. David Underdown 15:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
That's my point, who is saying that's the case? Is it the opinion of an editor? Is it the opinion of a historian? I've no doubt that may well be completely true, but it would be nice to know who said it in the first place. One Night In Hackney303 16:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Whereas to me it just seems so straightforward given preceeding events that it doesn't seem contentious at all. One of the parties seeking to influence the decision of the Pope has already undertaken succesful military action against the Pope's capital, the other is marooned the other side of Europe with no immediate prospect of bringing military force to bear. Of course the Pope is going to be more scared of the Emperor - in fact as I was taught about this in school the Pope was virtually a prisoner of the Emperor at the time, so if anythig the statement is undluy soft. This probably ought to be taken to the article talkpage, rather than being thrashed out here. David Underdown 16:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hackney, these are minor mistakes, which can be corrected in few minutes. You asked for a review on this article because you said it is insufficiently referenced and I'm pretty sure you can't prove that...Eurocopter tigre 15:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Mistakes which you failed to spot, that's the whole point. You're passing good articles without even looking it seems. One Night In Hackney303 15:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you're in the position to categorize me as an inexperienced editor, so please calm down. And, in my opinion, well-referenced could mean something, meanwhile in your opinion could mean something else, because in the GA criterias the well-referenced term is not explained. Off-course you can find many minor mistakes in the article to defend yourself now, because obviously you can't prove that this article is unreferenced (I'm saying this for the 10th time I think). Eurocopter tigre 15:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You've been editing since 1st March, passed an article you worked on substantially that difn't meet GA class, passed another article below that's probably going to be delisted, I'd say it's reasonable enough to call you inexperienced under the circumstances, especially considering the problems with the articles you have passed. I found mistakes in the article to begin with, for some reason you didn't. One Night In Hackney303 15:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't judge people for things they've done in the past. I'm sure that you also did mistakes in the past, but I'm not going to search for them only to defend better my opinions. I also think that you and your disruptive opinions are responsible for slowing the GA nominalizations process. Maybe if this article would have at least one ref per para, it could become a featured article. Clearly you don't really know the differences between a GA and a FA --Eurocopter tigre 16:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You are mistaken. GA and FA articles have the same referencing requirements, therefore the article should have at least one reference per paragraph. Zeus1234 16:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Please compare FA criteria with GA criteria. Eurocopter tigre 16:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Quoting WP:WIAGA: an article needs to "provides references to sources used... cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles...contains no original research.". Quoting WP:WIAFA: "claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." Other than the fact that slightly different wording exist because the two criteria were written by different editors, I see no substantive difference between them.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


  • Weak KeepThis one is iffy. Yes, it doesn't have enough references (I think there should be at least one reference per paragraph). But it is close to having enough. I think that there should be some attempt to better reference it, and if that is not done, then it should be delisted.Zeus1234 15:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Delist After looking at Jayron's analysis, I have changed my vote. Zeus1234 17:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist It is never about "number" its about the quality of references and their sufficiency. Whenever interpretation of facts is presented, the source of that interpretation needs to be directly cited. History articles are FULL of interpretation; they present not only dry facts (such as dates, numbers, and the like) but also interpretations as to the effects of historical events upon other historical events. In so far as these interpretations are done by respected historians in reliable sources, those sources need to appear as direct inline (either parenthetical or footnoted) references so that we know WHICH interpretation comes from WHICH reliable source. You wanted examples of "challenegable" statements in need of citations. Here they are:
    • Unlike his father, who was secretive and conservative, the young Henry appeared to be the epitome of chivalry and sociability, seeking out the company of young men like himself; an observant Catholic, he heard up to five masses a day (apart from in the hunting season!); of 'powerful but unoriginal mind', he allowed himself to be influenced by his advisors from whom, neither by night or day, was he alone; he was thus susceptible to whoever had his ear. If someone has psychoanalyzed Henry VII and Henry VIII, we need a reference to WHERE such analysis first appeared. It should not be here. These beliefs about the Tudors may be widely held, but if so it should be EASY to find a reference where it is held. These are still interpretations, and thus need references to reliable sources where such interpretations appear.
    • In 1521 he had defended the Papacy from Martin Luther's accusations of heresy in a book he wrote, probably with considerable help from his Chancellor Thomas More, entitled The Defence of the Seven Sacraments, for which he was awarded the title "Defender of the Faith" (Fidei Defensor) by Pope Leo X, an act which, in the light of what followed, appears very strange. Strange is a POV term, and the fact that his receipt of said title is incongrous with later events is an interpretation presented by SOMEONE of historical events, and needs a reference.
    • By the late 1520s, Henry wanted to have his marriage to Catherine annulled. She had not produced a male heir who survived into adulthood and Henry wanted a son to secure the Tudor dynasty. Are you sure this is why he wanted it annulled? Maybe a young maiden caught his eye who he wanted to marry instead? Unless this particular interpretation is given a reference, we have no idea that the one quoted here, and not some alternative interpretation, is authoritative.
    • The death of his chancellor Cardinal Wolsey in November 1530 left him open to the opposing influences of the supporters of the Queen and those who countenanced the abandonment of the Roman allegiance, for whom an annulment was but an opportunity. Again, why was Wolsey's death so important in this light. I am not neccessarily saying it wasn't, I am merely pointing out that there is no reference to a reliable source where such an interpretation of the facts IS established.
    • The Parliament summoned in 1529 to deal with annulment brought together those who wanted reform but who disagreed what form it should take; it became known as the Reformation Parliament. There were Common lawyers who resented the privileges of the clergy to summon laity to their courts; there were those who had been influenced by Lutheran evangelicalism and were hostile to the theology of Rome: Thomas Cromwell was both. There were those, like Foxe and Stokesey, who argued for the Royal Supremacy over the English Church. Henry's Chancellor, Thomas More, successor to Wolsey, also wanted reform: he wanted new laws against heresy. Again, when we assign motivations to people's actions, we need a source to confirm that reliable historians feel; that such motivations really existed. Again, interpretation of facts requires references to where those interpretations are done.
    • Cromwell was a lawyer and a Member of Parliament,an evangelical who saw how Parliament could be used to advance the Royal Supremacy, which Henry wanted, and to further evangelical beliefs and practices which both he and his friends wanted. One of his closest friends was Thomas Cranmer, soon to be Archbishop. Again, this is an open psychoanalysis of the motivations of an historical figure, and we need a reference for it.
    • Having brought down Cardinal Wolsey, his Chancellor, on a charge of praemunire and probably hastened his death, he finally resolved to charge the whole English clergy with praemunire in order the secure their agreement to his annulment. Where is the source that says that Henry hastened the death of Wolsey? Such an accusation needs a reference.
    • The long discussion of the Convocation of Canterbury that follows the above quote is entirely unrefernenced as well. Where do such facts come from, as well as the interpretation of those facts?
    • The Act in Conditional Restraint of Annates which proposed that the clergy should pay no more than 5% of their first year's revenue (annates) to Rome proved at first controversial, Controverisal accoriding to whom?
    • Consequently in the same year the Act of First Fruits and Tenths transferred the taxes on ecclesiastical income from the Pope to the Crown. The Peter's Pence Act outlawed the annual payment by landowners of one penny to the Pope. This Act also reiterated that England had "no superior under God, but only your Grace" and that Henry's "imperial crown" had been diminished by "the unreasonable and uncharitable usurpations and exactions" of the Pope. Paragraph contains direct quotes that are unreferenced.
    • In case any of this should be resisted Parliament passed the Treasons Act 1534 which made it high treason punishable by death to deny Royal Supremacy. Finally in 1536 Parliament passed the Act against the Pope's Authority which removed the last part of papal authority still legal; this was Rome's power in England to decide disputes concerning Scripture. Motivations to Parliaments actions are claimed here. Needs a reference.
    • This was still not yet a Reformation. That was to come from the dissemination of ideas. Really? According to whom?
    • The king's councillors, his chief minister, Thomas Cromwell, his archbishop, Thomas Cranmer were part of a loose group of people who had read the works of Martin Luther and had been influenced by them. Where is the evidence of this influence? Reference please.
    • Theological radicalism had always been around. In England its major manifestation was Lollardy, a movement deriving from the writings of John Wycliffe, the fourteenth century Bible translator, which stressed the primacy of Scripture. But, after the execution of Sir John Oldcastle, leader of the Lollard rebellion of 1415, they never again had access to the levers of power and by the fifteenth century were much reduced in numbers and influence. There were still many Lollards about, especially in London and the Thames Valley, in Essex and Kent, Coventry and Bristol, who would be receptive to the new ideas when they came - who looked for a reform in the lifestyle of the clergy; who held the Word to be the more necessary sacrament, the Eucharist but a memorial - but they were not party to the actions of the government. Why is a discussion of these earlier heresies important to the English Reformation? Again, I believe they are, and YOU may believe they are, but neither of US are published historians. Find me a reference where such connections are established.
    • Much of the rest of the section titled Theological radicalism is filled with challengable statements about who influenced whom, and what events caused what other events to occur. Again, I am not doubting the truth of this analysis, but merely noting that such analysis isn't currently verifiable as existing in reliable sources, since we have very few references.
    • Dissolution of the Monastaries has the same problems as above. I am going to stop quoting individual assertions, since you should by now have the idea. Insofar as this and every other section presents an interpretation of the motives and effects of historical events, it is challengable and needs REFERENCES.
    • Reformation reversed same issues.
    • Edward's Reformation same issues.
    • Catholic Restoration ditto.
    • The Elizabethan Settlement yup...
    • Legacy again, same issues. Insofar as this section attempts to establish lasting impact of the reformation, it DEFINATELY needs more references.
Again, if you are counting the number of references, you are missing the point. An article needs sufficient reference to establish where any interpretations or analysis comes from, since analysis is ALWAYS challengable. Heck, half a dozen books would be enough to probably sufficiently reference this article, as long as the references were made to specific page numbers, and enough different viewpoints were presented to ensure neutrality. As it stands now, the article is insuffient in the way it is referenced, and should be delisted.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
      • PS. Please read WP:WIAGA and WP:WIAFA carefully. While GA's and FA's differ in several key areas, the referencing requirements are NOT one of them. The two are largely identical in their stance on referencing. The "one cite per paragraph" is not a steadfast requirement, but a good "rule of thumb" that will help meet the requirements. Some articles will not need inline references at all (especially short ones where it is referenced unambiguosly to a few sources); other articles may build paragraphs from several sources and require more.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, that was exactly the sort of thing I was looking for, concrete examples to help improve the article, rather than a generic statement, which is not much help to anyone. I'll copy this analysis to the article talkpage, to avoid cluttering up this review any further. David Underdown 09:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Delist, the thorough examination by Jayron there convinces me, too many debateable statements not referenced, and now that they've been challenged, well, that's that. Homestarmy 16:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I agree that there is consensus now to delist it. Still, in the future, GA reviews should be proposed by normal users (such as Jayron). Regards, Eurocopter tigre 17:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
If GA class was awarded "by normal users (such as Jayron)", there wouldn't be any need for me to bring articles to review. One Night In Hackney303 17:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Neah, you would still find a minor little thing which in your imagination doesn't complies with the WP:WIAGA. You seem to have a hobby on delisting GAs. --Eurocopter tigre 18:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per Jayron's summary... impressive, as always. Past that, One Night In Hackney is doing justice to Wikipedia and the Good Article process. Considering the large number of articles that were promoted to GA before standards were put in place, the articles promoted by the main contributing editors, and the articles promoted without sufficient review, it would dilute the achievement of GA if we didn't find them and delist them. ONIH is not on a mission to find and delist articles to piss people off. It's a matter of keeping the status limited (as best we can) to the articles of good quality... otherwise GA means nothing. If your article is delisted, work on the issues and renominate it. What glory is there in having your article tagged as GA when it doesn't read like one? Regards, LaraLoveT/C 04:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Result: Delist 6-2 This article is about a critic of Islam. The BBC article on her [1] in its title says:"Ayaan Hirsi Ali, known for her outspoken criticism of conservative Islam, seems unable to avoid controversy". seems unable to avoid controversy and yet her article(now listed as GA) does not mention any criticism/responses of her. This article not only fails WP:LEAD: " briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any" but also fails the GA standards (comperhensiveness). I would like to request for this article to be De-Listed until it reaches the standards. --Aminz 05:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Premature - Yes, some criticism needs to be mentioned, and there are fact tags to clean up. Strictly technically speaking, the fact tags clearly violate GA criteria, but the (confusing) guidelines above suggest posting on the talk page first, giving the article's editors time to resolve the issues. It's only fair. - Merzbow 06:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Please show me the guideline that requires a criticism section for a critic. If there is notable criticism of her, it can be included, but I don't see a guideline or policy requiring it.--Sefringle 06:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist For the following reasons:
    • Numerous {{fact}} tags throughout. Should be a clear sign this is underreferenced.
    • There's a cleanup tag {{wikify}} which has not been dealt with.
    • Non-NPOV problems abound...
      • First, the idendification of her as Dutch is uncited. For someone who arrived in the Netherlands at age 23, that she is a naturalized citizen or legal resident of the Netherlands does not necessarily make her Dutch. How is this identification determined? The unilateral use of the word "Dutch" in describing her in the lead is particularly troublesome in light of the controversy surrounding her Dutch citizenship... Also, it appears she is a resident of the U.S. now...
      • The article gives no treatment of any POV in opposition to her political stances. Since it only presents one side of her views (a positive one), it does NOT hold to the requirement that an NPOV article gives opposing viewpoints due representation.
    • A trivia section exists. These are deprecated. Anything worthwhile to put in a trivia section can be put elsewhere in the article. See WP:TRIVIA
    • The infobox identifies her as Athiest, and yet I see no evidence of this. It says she does not agree with the tenets of Islam, and disagrees with organized Christianity, but that does NOT mean that she does not believe in God. To call her an Athiest without a citation where she claims such is plainly wrong.

For all of these reasons, the article should be delisted.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delist per Jayron32's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 18:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist oer Jayron32. Aaron Bowen 18:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per Jayron's review. LaraLoveT/C 19:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Anything with citation needed tags should be delisted.Zeus1234 02:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Eugenio Espejo

Result: Return to GA/N

The article failed in its nomination for Good Article as it didn't comply with GA criterion 3: Broadness of coverage. However, I think the article is broad enough: it does not have to be comprehensive, as in a Featured Article. I have tried to deal with that problem, but I have not received a reply by the reviewer.Dalobuca 17:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment It looks like you have dealt with the original reviewer's main objections. As the original review happened some time ago (11 days) and the article HAS susbtantially changed since that review, I would recommend renominating it at WP:GAC to let another editor have a crack at a full formal review. This page is mainly for reviewing the decisions of other editors in their reviews of article's; the prior review was a quality review that served its purpose, and got the article fixed up to standard. Go ahead and renominate it, and it should pass this time. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I will. Dalobuca 20:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


Marquette Building (Chicago)

Keep 5-2; status quo retained

Nominated for delisting. Poor structure, history section really is more than that, the restoration section and much of the history section is really just about architecture. Thus the actual history present is stubby at best and fails the broadness criteria as well. In addition the lead doesn't meet WP:LEAD, several facts find their only mention within the lead. In general the article is far from broad and such a famous example of Chicago architecture surely has more information available than this. IvoShandor 07:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I see multiple other problems, I can note them here if others would like. IvoShandor 08:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as-is. Looks fine to me. I think you should list the other problems. GreenJoe 14:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I have done some minor rearrangements, which do make the article better (by addressing your concerns), but don't think much more is needed. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I will list them when I get a shot, today or tomorrow or sometime soon. IvoShandor 16:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are my issues and, for the most part, why I say delist:

  • Several one sentence and short paragraphs/sections.
  • Unencyclopedic exact address in the lead.

 Done moved. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is, the address needs to go entirely. IvoShandor 08:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, why would it need to? This is a building, it does have an address, I see nothing "unencyclopedic" about it, just like about the geographic coordinates. That said, this is a minor issue, and the article is still far below GA quality - who decides whether to delist it or not? PrinceGloria 08:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
It really has no significance to anyone reading the article outside of Chicago. Coordinates do. It's indiscriminate information, Wikipedia isn't a phone book. Just my opinion. IvoShandor 08:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
It appears that policy agrees with me. IvoShandor 09:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Kinda sorta. IvoShandor 09:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misreading the policy. It says an article on Paris should not mention the address of your favorite cafe. However, if the favorite cafe is itself an article the policy does not say to exclude its address. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I have to say I fully support Tony here. Which is not to say the article merits the GA status as of now, as it very clearly does not, due to other, more grave concerns raised here, which have not yet been offset. PrinceGloria 19:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, there is no need for the building's address in an encyclopedia article, it provides nothing but to make the article read like a travel guide. Mention the street it is on, if it's relevant, sure, but what use is the address? Policy or no, it just looks bad and unprofessional in my opinion. It is indiscriminate and unencyclopedic. You can keep it if you want, this article still isn't up to GA regardless. IvoShandor 02:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment - there are probably a lot of other articles about buildings that will need the address removed if that is the standard (See Sears Tower). I personally think if a building merits an entire article, it makes sense to provide the physical address since it is one of the attributes of that building. But either way, all articles about buildings should probably have parallel construction in that regard. I think it is also misleading to say that the address of the building is only important to people "in Chicago". It might well be that someone outside of Chicago needs that information, or that someone visiting Chicago (a non-resident) might find the information useful. SqlPac 21:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The lead doesn't really represent a good summary per WP:LEAD, there are still several detailed facts that appear only in the lead.

 Done added some. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The whole article needs a copy edit.
  • Need citations:
  • It is considered an exemplary model of the Chicago School of Architecture

 Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The building features several distinct elements that have earned it honors as a Chicago Landmark, a National Historic Landmark, and a National Register Historic Place.
Not necessary IMO. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Can't tie these together without citation, it would represent unpublished synthesis, or OR.
  • Around 1950, the terra-cotta cornice was removed from the Marquette Building when an additional story was added.

 Done cited. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The preservation of this building was championed by the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois.
  • Broadness
  • Surely the history section of a 112 year old building considered an exemplary model of the Chicago School cannot meet the broadness criteria if it is only six sentences long.
  • The architecture section isn't very thorough or broad either, on the interior it only describes the lobby on the exterior it only describes the sculpture and the windows.
  • Consider adding a section where you can discuss its landmarks statuses, its awards and why it is such a significant example of the Chicago style of architecture.
  • The architect used trademark long horizontal bay "Chicago windows" on the Marquette Building
  • The one and only ; ), Who is the architect?
  • This part of the architecture section could use a rewrite, it is really choppy: The architect used trademark long horizontal bay "Chicago windows" on the Marquette Building.[4] These are large panes of glass flanked by narrow sash windows. The grid-like window frames and spandrels are facilitated by the steel structure which enables non-load-bearing masonry walls.[4] This was one of the first steel-framed skyscrapers.[3] The building is built around a central light court featuring an ornate lobby.[5] The lobby is decorated with mosaic panels made by the Tiffany firm and bronze heads of native Americans, animals, and early explorers. The two-story rotunda lobby contains panels of lustered Tiffany glass, mother-of-pearl and semi-precious stones that depict scenes of the early history of Illinois.[1] The hexagonal railing around the lobby atrium is decorated with a mosaic frieze by the Tiffany studio depicting events in the life of Jacques Marquette.
  • The Restoration section seems unfocused.
  • At least one full date unlinked.

 Done linked. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • External links always go last.

 Done moved. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The city of Chicago footer template seems like overkill and clutter, it doesn't even link to the article.

Most WP:WPChi articles should get this tag. Good navigational aidTonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • All of the images in the gallery should be moved to commmons and the gallery removed and replaced with a Commons link using {{Commons}}. If you don't want to move the images to Commons at least remove the gallery, per WP:NOT.
    • I have rearranged many of the images (moving most of them from the gallery to the article). TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Much of the sections outside of architecture (as noted above) are also choppy, thorough copy editing by unaffiliated eyes should help to resolve the flow problems.

This is all I have for now. Hope that helps. IvoShandor 16:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: Just so everyone here knows, as should be obvious from my comments above, this is a serious, good faith GAR with no ill intent or previously implied retaliation involved. IvoShandor 17:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Good work on these things so far, the broadness notes are important in my opinion. We shall see what others think. I am not wedded to delisting this, it just needs to be better is all. IvoShandor 01:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Most of these comments remain unaddressed. IvoShandor 12:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC
    • I have done a pretty thorough google search and included most relevant facts. I have reconsidered the categories and templates to improve the breadth of its appeal. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I am afraid I have to agree with Ivo - his concerns are very valid, and apart from fixing the more minor issues as indicated above, I have not noticed anybody willing to give the article a good refurbishment within a short timeframe. I believe this is an important building, and I actually like it personally, but I think there is no reason why we should keep it on the GA list in its present state. I hope it will be developed into a full-fledged GA shortly, and then it can be renominated. PrinceGloria 07:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Well a thorough Google search may not be sufficient in this case, just my opinion, still say delist. IvoShandor 16:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
No edits were made to the article since the 4 May, when I said its condition is unsatisfactory. Additionally, now I see it was promoted without a review, and the users who "voted" to keep it on the GA list are the nominator and promoter of the article... Anyway, I believe the article spent enough time on GA/R and its about time to delist it now in view of the above. PrinceGloria 10:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Allow me to be someone who never edited the article to vote keep. The article is short, but it adequately covers the subject matter, is well referenced, and by the admission above, is quite stable. This is the exact kind of article GA was intended to honor, ones that are relatively complete but still too short to ever make it to FA. While it has become the standard lately to make GA simply a part of the peer review process on the way to reaching FA status, I see no compelling reason to remove this one from the GA list. The ONLY change I would make would be the removal of the silly, one-sentance, "New Tenant" subsection. But once that is done, there is nothing really keeping this from GA status.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment I would rather add all WP article tenants than remove the one I know about. What do you think of naming prominent tenants in a building. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Jayron, but the picture layout seems a bit awkward with many of them smushed on the left like that.... Homestarmy 21:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
CommentI tried to move as many pics as possible out of the gallery. The left tile is the result. With the brevity of the text it is difficult to accomodate so many pics. Editorial assistance is welcome in this regard. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Reply: Besides dumping that single sentance section "new tenant", I would recommend moving most of the pics back to the gallery. That's what it is for. I might keep the best and put it under the "restoration" section, but really the lenghth of the article should be the determining factor for the number of inline pics. This article is simply too short to support 4 inline pics AND the one in the infobox... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep While I think it can definately be improved, I like the fact that it has active editors who are making a concrete effort to improve the article.Balloonman 15:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • One more comment. Sorry I missed TonyTheTiger's comment above, but yes, expanding the tenant section to include all of the notable tenants, provide the section can be properly refernced, is quite a good idea as well. I would support that move.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Can't find anything that is not WP:OR right now. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I was WP:BOLD and made some fixes to the images myself finally. I noticed that you had moved 2 images to the gallery, but the article was still squishing the text into a tight space between the left-aligned images and the right-aligned infobox. See what you think of my fixes. I also did a minor copyedit of the lead. There was a sentance doing some funny things with verb tense.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Tupac Shakur

Result: Delist 5-0

Nomination for delisting: I believe the article does not meet the GA criteria found in WP:WIAGA. In particular, it fails to meet Criteria #1 (Well Written) and Criteria #2 (Factually Accurate and Verifiable). Of concern are many sections without reference, many unsourced trivial facts that have been added, poor introduction, and poor wikification of the intro and throughout. Examples include:

  • As has been pointed out on the article talk page, the intro. has degenerated into a poor state and is quite jumpy/choppy. It does not properly summarize the article.
  • Also pointed out on the talk page, the Intro alone has dozens of opportunities for proper wikification. Wikification throughout the intro and the article is sporadic and uneven. For example, an author felt it important to wikify "cardiac arrest" in the Intro, but did not feel it important to wikify "respiratory failure". In this instance, it should be both (preferable) or neither.
  • Also pointed out on the talk page, the article includes a lot of trivia. Some examples include:
    • Section on Jada Pinkett-Smith that should be summarized in one or two sentences.
    • List of books the subject read, which is included to make a point. The same point can (and has) been made, in summarized form, previously in the article without a book list.
    • Trivial items also include career trivia and paragraphs of unsourced trivial statements about subject's future plans at time of death.
  • Redundant redundancy is a problem. Some items are redundant, such as mentioning the subject's suspicions that certain other rappers had set him up to be killed, which is mentioned (verbosely) no less than 3 times (Intro, "Life on Death Row", "The November 1994 Shooting"), and the writing of the screenplay "Live2Tell", which is discussed in "Acting Career" and "Prison Sentence".
  • Overlapping sections are a problem, with some items apparently in the wrong section. As an example, the end of the "Early Life" section includes several sentences discussing the beginning of the subject's career. The next section is titled "Early Career".
  • Fan site sourcing. In particular the trivial items are sourced to Fan Sites, like this Russian Fan Site, Tupac Mania.
  • Direct (mis-)quotes are not sourced. A direct quote from film critic Peter Travers ("the film's most magnetic figure") is actually a misquote, *and* it is unsourced. The correct quote and source were previously included in the article, but were subsequently changed.
  • There are two paragraphs of completely *unsourced* trivia at the end of the "Life on Death Row" section.
  • There are unsourced quotes from a rape victim, as well as unsourced trivia that includes very strong statements like the assertion that Shakur developed the word (Thug Life) into an acronym standing for "The Hate U Gave Little Infants Fucks Everybody".
  • The article needs a good copyediting. There are grammar and punctuation errors throughout. For instance, the double comma in the album generated two hits, "Keep Ya Head Up" and "I Get Around", , the latter.
  • Some areas of the article do not follow the guidelines at the Manual of Style (Dates and Numbers), such as the spelling out of certain numbers ("11" = "eleven" in the intro., while the number "6" a few sentences later is spelled out "six"; construction should be paralleled).

The article appears to have largely degenerated into an unsourced, poorly constructed, substandard hodge-podge of trivia about an extremely important figure in hip-hop. Changes have been attempted to bring it inline with Wikipedia guidelines &emdash; including copyediting, verification of sources, addition of more sources, removal of trivia, rewriting of entire sections, etc. Unfortunately attempts to bring the article up to WP:GA or even WP:FA status are constantly reverted. This article should be delisted immediately, and until such time as it is brought up to the WP:GA level. SqlPac 15:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delist per nom. Additionally, stand-alone years are randomly wikified, and date wikification is not consistent. Many references are also incorrectly formatted. There needs to be consistency with cite templates. Article contains fact and verify tags. This article is a mess. It's also worth noting that this article was promoted before there was a standard in place. There were NO inline citations and only one reference at the time that this article was promoted. The reviewed version can be accessed from the article milestones template on the talk page. LaraLoveT/C 21:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • On a side note, about 90% of the references in the article were reformatted with proper cite templates including neglected information like ISBN's, magazine issue numbers and dates, etc. Sources were re-verified and "fan page" references were also removed at that time. Unfortunately the writers on the article saw fit to remove those updates, at least two times. As one writer stated, the standardized cite tags were "too confusing" for him. SqlPac 15:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'll try to work on this if zI have time in the next couple of days. Tayquan hollaMy work 15:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Based on its history (promotion before a standard), and the sad state the article currently enjoys, I recommend immediate delisting. The writers can resubmit the article for Good Article status after changes have been made. I think it's highly unlikely that User:Tayquan (or anyone else for that matter) will be able to fix the number of problems that currently exist in this article in a short amount of time. Copyediting most of the article, adding and verifying cite tags, removing unsourced statements, and deleting "fan page" references on this article previously took 2 people nearly a month. SqlPac 16:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist I welcome and invite all editors to improve this article to GA status, but given the state that it is in, I see no hope that this can be completed in less than a few weeks. We shouldn't have an article on the GA list for such a long time that is not up to standard. This article can always be renominated and passed again when it reaches WP:WIAGA standards.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist unfortunately, the prose just isnt' good enough. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 17:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per Jayron32. Too much to do, so little time. The Hippie 17:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)