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 28)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 26) →

Red Auerbach

Result: Boldly passed by Sumoeagle179. Discussion was heading that way anyways.

User:OhanaUnited pretty unilaterally removed 1-month old GA Red Auerbach, just citing minor shortcomings in 2 lines, and then failing the article after 4 days. He completely failed to inform the main editors (User:Onomatopoeia, User:Chensiyuan and others), never listed the article on WP:GA/R for discussion, and never listed the article on WP:NBA for any discussion for our WikiProject, yet stating "he did everything he did to let everybody know", see Wikipedia:Editor review/OhanaUnited. In addition, in Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_candidates, User:T Rex pretty much agreed that OhanaUnited's behaviour was not in line with existing and enforced procedures, and told me to put this up on GA/R ASAP. I even now did the 2 minor things OhanaUnited requested. —Onomatopoeia 12:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Article is currently at GAC. Can't we just leave it there and let it be re-reviewed, rather then going through this? Giggy ^Talk 00:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds to me like the GAC should be cancelled for now, based on the discussion elsewhere, a GA/R seems the most reasonable solution since there seems to be some controversy. Homestarmy 00:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will not vote on this because of conflict of interest. I just want to point out that the delisted version [1] and the current version [2] requesting for another review are different. Look at the reference between 2 versions and you may see the reason why I delisted it. Please remember that the version that I delist and the version request for GAR, and I don't oppose the current version to be promoted back to GA if there're no other concerns raised here by others. (I don't know why Onomatopoeia targetted me here in addition to editor review & talk page when GAR is supposed to discuss about articles and not editors) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't switch the roles. YOU should be explaining yourself, not ME. I want a LEGITIMATE reason why this article should NOT be a GA, and a LEGITIMATE answer why you failed to communicate with WP:NBA, main authors User:Chensiyuan and me, or listed this article at WP:GA/R. Shoot-first-ask-later is destructive, unilateral style and is diametrically opposed to the concept of constructive, communicative editing. —Onomatopoeia 10:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Here the exact quotes from the Red Auerbach talk page:

  I'm expressing my concerns regarding this GA review. I felt that this article has passed the review even though it didn't meet the standards. First, notes and reference section should be merged. Reference #6 and #10 have no sources! Where did you obtain the information from? This article needs more varieties of references than the existing ones. I also found Image:RedMemshamrock.png lack of fair use rationales. Lead section should be summarized and shortened furthur. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  And then four days later: As my concerns are not addressed, the article will now be delisted. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  Was there ANY warning? This was just a general remark, and at BEST, a non-binding appeal for copyedit. It was NEVER clear that GA delisting was a topic. —Onomatopoeia 10:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'd like to point out that OhanaUnited followed the instructions listed on this page to the letter. Notification on the talk page is all that is required. He alloted time for improvements to be made (two days is the minimum hold period), he was ignored, he delisted it. I believe (could be wrong) that you stated elsewhere that you did not know concerns had been raised because you don't have the article watchlisted. Even if he'd nominated it here, procedure is only to notify on the article talk page, so you still wouldn't have known. How long did it take you to realize it had been delisted, and how did you realize it? Lara♥Love 15:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Answered on your talk page, it was 24h after OU delisted it on the WP:NBA page. As I am the middle of making Tim Duncan a FAC, I hardly had attention for anything else beside the article, the article's FAC page, and my talk page. And for the 48-h-and-don't-tell-anybody, WOW. How much work is it to just notify the main author on the talk page? And don't give me that stuff that I should have looked better, YOU should have told me, this is common sense. I could have done the necessary edits in 2 minutes IF I HAD KNOWN! What is WP:GA/R for, then? To be skipped at will? —Onomatopoeia 16:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, first of all, you need to calm down. I've been over this on all (three or four) pages you're going on about this on. I'm not sure how many times it has to be explained that GA/R is not required. By procedure, only the talk page has to be notified. I'm sorry that your FA editing has taken up your time. I've reviewed over a hundred articles in the past week. I've also created a sub-taskforce, two templates, updated a project page, copy-edited two FA noms... and I don't even know what else. I don't have time to search for the main editors of every article to be brought to delistment, just like you don't have time to watchlist a dozen pages. So your reasons for not noticing the articles status had been questioned is no more of an excuse than ours for not notifying you. What's done is done. The article is here for review, so let the reviewers take care of it and stop pounding your point into every page you've complained on. We've heard you and replied multiple times. Lara♥Love 16:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Relist - The lone wikified year in the lead is inconsistent with the rest of the article. Additionally, it's a piped link which I know is discouraged in WP:MUSTARD for music articles, but I'm not sure if there is a similar standard for sports articles. The notes and references also need to be formatted per WP:CITE with all available information including retrieval dates. Dates should also be wikified in notes and references for user preferences. Those are the only issues I noted at this time. Other issues noted in my quality review of this article have been addressed. Lara♥Love 16:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Changed recommendation to Reslist as references have been formatted, date wikilinked. I still don't like the random year, but that's not a GA disqualifier, obviously. Lara♥Love 16:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist I see no obvious variance with WP:WIAGA. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist I can't believe that a person would take the time to unlist another's work when they never even contacted them. This to me is the gravest incident here. Yeah, if you are truely trying to remove a GA from being a GA, you will simply put a message up on the Talk Page. For those who are trying to truely improve the Wikipedia, they would have taken the time to contact the primary author(s).--Kranar drogin 04:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Arguments listed above. I admit being worked up, but in my defense, I never did anything WP:NPA also had GOOD REASON to be worked up. Ill communication is one of my pet peeves, in WikiLife as in real life. —Onomatopoeia 07:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kranar, nobody owns articles. FYI, delisting GA never requires going through GA/R (even though most of the cases go through GA/R first). Go read "If you believe an article should be delisted" section point 3 to 5. It only asks people to leave message on talk page (which I did), allow time to respond and improve (which I also did), and delist if it still hasn't meet the criteria. Nothing says I'm obligated to leave message in WikiProjects & principal editors, nor ogligated to list it at GA/R prior to delist. I also question Kranar's familarity with GA system, because the contribution count [3] reveals himself familiar with articles related to Illinois, not GA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking my oar in but you didn't leave anytime on the Victoria Cross (Canada) incident. Even if it is not strictly the rules, it is still common courtesy and in the spirit of the wiki and constant improvement to ask the main contributors for their opinion. Woodym555 18:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Passed I just passed this.Sumoeagle179 02:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA

Result: Delist - Delisted by editor of article. Lara♥Love 05:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like a re-review because some are saying that it is not GA any longer Chaza 93 10:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC) DELISTED thanks everyone El-Nin09 20:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delist. One-line paragraphs, awkward prose (see "Other tournaments", both 1a), lead is insufficient (1b). Not well-referenced (2a), major assertions are unsourced ("The hiring of Paul Gillon as PA to Sepp Blatter was the shortest in history as he was hired and fired on the same day.", 2b, possible 2c). History and Commercial activities are not broad in coverage (4a). The article goes off-topic in places ("Laws of the game", 4b). A picture of the headquarters should be obtained (6). There are major problems with the article, and I don't think the original review was comprehensive enough. CloudNine 11:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delist. Definately not a FA, probably not even a GA. As per above. Drewcifer3000 14:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, certainly not well-referenced, most of the article appears compleatly unsourced, even with a few external links here and there. Homestarmy 15:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Inadequate lead, well below even the "broad" requirement of GA's for level of coverage (the World Cup doesn't even get a section ?!?!?!?), woefully underreferenced, where there are references, they are blind external links, not footnotes or parenthetical notes, either of which would have bibliographic information. The writing is uneven in places. This has no business being a GA, and whoever is mentioning this as FA worthy is, um, passing the dutchie on the left-hand side, if you know what I mean... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, not up to GA standards at all. Lead definitely needs expanding, and article is very poorly referenced. This is very far from being an FA. Raime 01:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delist - In addition to all the issues listed above, the copyrighted image of the logo in the infobox lacks a fair use rationale. Lara♥Love 14:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banksy

Result: Delist. Article fails to meet several criteria. Lara♥Love 15:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recently nominated for GA, I went to review it and discovered it's already listed. The article, in my opinion, is in a poor state and needs some serious work before I'd consider it a GA. My major concerns are the multiple failures to comply with WP:CITE, simple lists where prose could be used, an empty section, external links in the main body, single-sentence paragraphs... Anyway, I'd be interested in the opinions of other Wikipedians before I delist it. Cheers. The Rambling Man 15:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist - The lead lacks context, who is Tristan Manco? It also could be expanded. The Career section is incomplete, 2005 is empty. Bullets are missing, although there shouldn't be bullets at all. Way too listy. Fact tags are no good. The references are improperly placed and improperly formatted. Images need to be staggered and placed so as not to clump edit links together. Typos and typographical errors need to be corrected. Lara♥Love 17:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Very listy. I'm also concerned about the pictures. They are photographs containing images of works by a living artist. Aren't they Banksy's copyright and not just the photographers'? I've seen no statement that Banksy has released them into the public domain. --Peter cohen 17:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Per Rambling Man and Lara's comments. As far as copyright goes, I don't think art that is technically considered criminal acts in the state they were photographed are covered under intellectual property laws. But I could be wrong. Another general issuue is that I think this article is seriously lacking in that it does not have a section discussing his published works, of which there are several editions. And it fails to recognize Banksy's own topical categorization of his work in these books. I hate to draw the conclusion, but he has "periods" sort of like Picasso. He has rat themes, police themes, etc. etc. I think this article frankly fails as a sober encyclopedic treatment of his art, not just his sensational stunts. The guy has had serious gallery showings and other mainstream artistic activites, not just street work. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per above comments. Lead needs work, article has too many lists, references need some work. Raime 21:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist for a semi-anonymous grafitti artist like this, we probably need cites confirming each of his works. I see several works attributed to him, but there is no proof these are his; it's not like saying "Michaelangelo painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel", these are works of an anonymous artist, and we have no confirmation that he DID some of them... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist - I think this is an awesome article, and wish more graffiti articles could be like this, but in the dog-eat-dog world of GA nominations, it unfortunately doesn't shouldn't pass. Drewcifer3000 21:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Teresa

Result: Speedy keep. Envoked WP:SNOW. Lara♥Love 19:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous GA/R

The article's neutrality is under dispute. Review and delist? 70.232.77.79 08:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (for now). The neutrality dispute is only a couple weeks old, the tag only a couple days. Let's give it some time to run its course, then if the issues aren't addressed renominate it for review. Drewcifer3000 17:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. The article was just under GA review and passed. Majoreditor 02:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. The article has been reviewed and approved for GA status quite recently. A couple of opponents disagree, and keep putting up tags and referrals here. Not necessary. --Anietor 03:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep GA/R just closed within the past month---with this very concern being the reason for nomination.Balloonman 03:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - Been here, done this. Lara♥Love 05:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist - If there is lots of opposition to it being a neutral article, that would seem to indicate that it IS NOT A NEUTRAL ARTICLE. Necronomikron 07:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This article was up for review within the last two weeks. The article was reviewed against all criteria, including that of neutrality. It was determined that the article was neutral and met all other GA criteria. Lara♥Love 14:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply to Necronikron: A small group of loud people does not a majority make; likewise just because a small group of editors repeatedly insists that the article in non-neutral does not make it so. Like LaraLove said, this issue was analyzed by several well-respected editors here at GA/R; most of us were entirely unconnected to the article, and it was determined that neutrality was not a problem. If you seek a wider audience to bring your discussion, might I suggest RFC? However, be aware that going to mommy because daddy didn't give you want you want is HIGHLY frowned upon. See WP:FORUMSHOP. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - Just under GA Review and passed depite the neutrality dispute. No need to bring this up again. Raime 13:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I suggest closing per WP:SNOW since there's no chance of delisting at this point. Majoreditor 19:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshi Touch & Go

Result: Keep. Lara♥Love 03:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Yoshi's Island DS is a GA, but just like Archaeoastronomy, this one suffers from a lot of unreferenced sections. FMF 23:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep really? Because everything that I would expect to be referenced has specific inline cites. The synopsis of the gameplay, like a movie synopsis, is assumed to be referenced to the work itself and does not usually require specific cites. The reception and development sections are a tad light, but not entirely out of bounds for what I would consider GA quality. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yoshi's Island DS. The other could seriously use some cites.--SidiLemine 13:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, i'm with Jayron on this, everything that should be cited seems cited reasonably well, and I don't see any other serious problems. Homestarmy 15:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above comments. Article has adequate references for a GA, particularly for one of its topic and length. Raime 01:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My English is not very good:
  • What does "the game was a middle success" mean?
  • "Different from the earlier Yoshi games" somehow sounds wrong.
  • I don't understand this: "However, the player can draw lines on the lower screen with the stylus, what creates clouds that will support a character."
  • Is "though not as positive as earlier games" correct?
  • What does "gained negative critics" mean?
  • Don't use "you" in last sentence of Gameplay section and "Totaka's song" section.
• --Kaypoh 14:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Issues adressed. Thanks for the remarks.--SidiLemine 16:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems fine to me. Drewcifer3000 20:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Undertaker

Result: Delist. Issues from previous GA/R not addressed. Lara♥Love 13:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous GA/R

Yet again this article has been passed by an inexperienced editor. It's written in-universe, has no citations (apart from a bunch of cites proving kayfabe wrestling results); without putting too fine a point on it, I'm quite appalled this passed GA. Delist (PS - How many more times will this inefficient article pass?). LuciferMorgan 17:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist - Another case where the article clearly fails to meet the criteria and should just be delisted with a message on the article talk page detailing why an in-universe article with cleanup templates, insufficient reliable resources, improperly formatted resources, etc. is not up to par for GA. Lara♥Love 21:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per above. Raime 00:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I seem to remember there used to be some kind of dispute as to WWF being fiction. was that settled?--SidiLemine 10:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have refrained from commenting because I was rather confusd by the references to "in-universe". Perhaps this explains things.--Peter cohen 13:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know of any such discussion. WWE is known fiction. How that could be under dispute is beyond me. Read WP:FICTION and compare the article to Bryan Adams (wrestler), which is not written in-universe and has been appropriately listed as a GA. The article is titled "The Undertaker", but you're writing about Mark Calaway and the character he protrays. Lara♥Love 13:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I might need time to get it back, but I know it happened somewhere. If not, I am not aware of a consensus describing wrestling as fiction. You might also want to speedy demote Konnan.--SidiLemine 15:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Please don't take me wrong thought. I think this article should be Delisted, for all the good reasons cited above (principally poor quality of references). I just took that as an occasion to clarify a point.--SidiLemine 16:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• DelistWWE and similar wrestling endeavours should be treated as fictional endeavours and should be treated by the guidelines of WP:FICT. This article has NOT addressed the issues at the last GA/R, and should continue to be delisted. Again, it confuses a fictional character with the actor who protrays him; for an example of where it is done better, see Stephen Colbert (the article about the real dude) and Stephen Colbert (character) (the article about his Daily Show/Colbert Report persona). There should here also be two articles here, one on Mark Calaway and one on the character of The Undertaker. Many Pro Wrestling articles suffer from this; they treat the charcter and the actor as the same thing; they are not. To bring back an arguement I made in the priod GA/R, picture The Undertaker, in full make-up, in the check-out line at the grocery store. Now picture Mark Calaway in the same situation. Get it? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Don't worry, I get it. I was just wondering if there is a consensus on that, i.e. if the good people of the wrestling WP agree. --SidiLemine 13:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the FAs and GAs they have listed on their project page are written out-of-universe, I'm inclined to think they do agree. Lara♥Love 16:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This one and Kannon are also listed there. It might be better to tke that discussion there, however.--SidiLemine 17:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist I don't mind the blurring of the line between the real person and their character too much, but the stuff about the professional careers is a little tedious and long. WHY is more important here that what happened. Being told a series of staged events is monotonous and makes for poor reading..Balloonman 23:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage (band)

• Result: Delist Giggy ^Talk 00:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any record of the article's initial GA review, but the article seems particularly weak in a number of ways. First off the article is not thorougly referenced. (I know that any cleanup tags nominate an article for quick-fail, but please ignore those for the moment since I'm the one that put those in there) What references are there are messy and formatted inconsistently. The language rambles a bit and is semi-POV at times as well. There's also way too many external links. For these reasons I'm nominating the article for delisting of GA status. Drewcifer3000 15:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like a December 2005 review: [4], so nothing suspicious in that I think in case anyone is wondering. Homestarmy 15:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Shirley Manson is hot, but this article is not. The organization is a mess (Overview would be better named something else, the Career section is separate from the 2005-present section, which should be a subsection of Career). Also, it is underreferenced, and where there are some, they are NOT consistently formatted. Some refs are simply blind HTML links, these should be turned into footnotes like the others, with full bibliographical info. Some parts are mostly unreferenced. Some footnotes do have minimal bibliographical info, but some like #11 and #12 do not have anything, and others lack retrieval dates, authors, proper capitalization, etc. etc. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delist - article needs a LOT of work on prose, grammar, and references. remove most uses of "their" and "they" and be more specific about "who did what and when". article needs inline citations for all claims now marked with ^{[citation needed]} tags. LurkingInChicago 04:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Far from GA. Under-referenced, references need to be correctly and consistently formatted, external links need to be removed from body, dates need to be correctly wikified for user preferences (this includes in the references), it could also be trimmed up a little... particularly all the award nominations. Lara♥Love 14:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Article needs a cleanup, more verification of its information and overall, needs massive improving. LuciferMorgan 23:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Texas Longhorn football team

• Result: GA status denied, with changes to GA criteria (3a and 5, specifically) proposed. Discussion continues here. Giggy ^Talk 00:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA was falied on the ground that the 2007 season hasn't started, so it might not be of GA quality anymore in a few months. See discussion here and on its talk page. This is its second GAC, and second GA/R. My point is: if an article cannot become a GA whatever its quality, it shouldn't be on WP in the first place. Are upcoming events speedy deletable? No. So there is a way to make encyclopedic articles about it. The GA criteria don't say "the article is stable, and will stay so for the next six months".--SidiLemine 14:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I read those, it's not that in a few months it may not be GA, it's that an article that currently is titled "2007 (football team)" is not expected to be complete until the 2007 football season has been played out. It's failing good article criteria 3(a) - being broad in addressing the major parts of the topic. A football team article that lacks any information on how they did that season (which has yet to be played out) cannot be a GA at the present. This is thus reflected in the criteria 5: the article cannot expected to be stable because the information that is currently lacking in the broadness (which I would expect, from the past editing of this page, will be filled in a manner consistent with a GA candidate) has yet to be played out.

Articles about future events aren't disallowed on WP, it's just implied that until such future events occur, the article will never be a GA. Mind you, it needs to be certain that that event will take place, and have verifiable sources to say that event will happen (see WP:CRYSTAL). This article certainly is within the bounds of those policies.

I think the GAC reviewers comments are basically saying: keep the quality up - save for the fact the season hasn't been played out, this would meet all other GA requirements. Once the Longhorns have finished their season, and as long as the article maintains GA-quality editing with the season results, then you can re-submit as a GAC which should result in a speedy approval. There may be small additions later (eg. a Longhorn gets the Heisman, or several are picked first in the 08 NFL Draft, for example), but those are minor points, and the article (With season performance) would meet the 3(a) broadness requirements and thus meet the 5 stability requirement.--Masem 15:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a consensus that future and pending events cannot attain GA status, it should be clearly written on the criteria page. At the moment, and as far as I know, it is not. So what you're saying is basically either "it's stable now but it probably won't be stable later", to which I reply that stability relates to edit warring, not information addition, and that current stability is what matters anyway; or "it's not broad in its coverage because it doesn't present information that is not available yet", to which I say this is pretty much the general case.--SidiLemine 15:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I know these too well, but GA criteria 3(a) pretty much says to me that if you have a verifiable future event, your coverage is not complete until that event occurs; maybe this needs to be said cleared further in WP:GA?, but its very much implied.

I am trying to remove the stability issue from the equation here. If you have a future event and it hasn't occurred, then the failure of an article to meet the GA criteria for stability is merely a side-effect of the article failing to meet its broadness. I believe, doing a quick glance at the history, that the "edit war" type of stability is met (eg, a lack of any editing wars), it's just that the lack of information as required by the broad coverage requirement is currently making the article "unstable". Let's put it a quick way: once you get this article to satisfy 3(a), you will have automatically met 5 (assuming no changing in editing behavior). So, no, ignore the stablity issue, that's not the focus of the failure of this article to be GAC.

Now, as to "future events lacking information being the general case", that is true. I'll point easily to a number of articles that exist on WP and are nowhere close to speedy deletion. There is potential for all these articles to meet the GAC after their event occurs, as such they satisfy the broadness requirement of 3(a), and thus they aren't speedily deleted. However, were I to put up United States presidential election, 2008 (an example) now for a GA, I expect to be quickly defeated, yet that article, just like your Longhorns one, has a good swath of good encyclopedic information to make it appropriate for an online encyclopedia that can be updated as events occur, but cannot be considered as a GA - and subsequently a FA or part of a printed/CD Rom version - until full resolution of that event has occurred. And that's how I think the reviewers see your article - it presently has a good potential to be a GA, but can't be at the moment because the event hasn't fully played out yet.

(If we were to use the criteria that if any article at this exact moment did not met the GA requirements, it should be removed, we'd be cutting millions of articles from the encyclopedia. It's the potential that should be used, not the current state of the article.) --Masem 16:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I undertand your point, and I'm happy that stability is out of the picture. About the article (not mine by the way; just stumbled on the GA discussion) not including not-yet available information, I think it shouldn't bar the way; but I'd like to hear from the good people usually commenting here before prolonging this discussion. For the sake of clarity, I'll explain my point: I believe all articles on WP should have the potential to attain GA status depending on the effort put in them, not on future events.--SidiLemine 16:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This listing is in error, and should be removed. WP:GA/R is for listing current Good Articles to see if they still meet the GA criteria, not for reviewing a previously failed GA to get it promoted -- for that, the article needs to be listed at WP:GAC. There is already a discussion regarding this at Wikipedia talk:Good article candidates. I stand corrected on this matter. I still believe, however, that the article fails criterion 3 (completeness). Dr. Cash 17:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the ((Template:FGAN)) specifically states, "If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review." Johntex\^talk 18:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As a contributor to the article as well as the nominator for GA, I remain of the opinion that the article meets the GA standards. The two possible objections that have been mentioned are completeness and stability. I will speak to each one:

Stability - this article is stable and free from edit warring. It is certainly possible that it may become unstable in the future, but that is true of any article on Wikipedia. We should not try to peer into a crystal ball and find hypothetical future problems. This article is closely watched for vandalism and destructive edits, and it is highly unlikely that any such problems will impact the article more than momentarily. The article meets the stability criteria today.

Completeness - this article thoroughly describes the topic as it is known at this time. If we ever send humans to Mars then we will surely learn some new things and of course our article Mars will need updating, but that should not be counted against the article today. As to this article, as each game is played, it usually only takes a couple of paragraphs to add the main points into the article. More detailed information goes into sub-articles according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style on Wikipedia:Summary style. For an example, please see 2005 Texas Longhorns football team, which is a current GA. The article meets the completeness criteria today.

It has been asked why even consider this article at this time? My reply to that is that a "good article" should be recognized as a good article. If we think this article is an example of some of our second-best work (behind FAs) then we need to recognize it as such. Doing so would provide an example to other people who are writing similar articles.

If the article is not worthy, then it should fail. However, it should not be failed because of hypothetical future considerations. If it meets the criteria today then I believe it should be passed today. Thank you, Johntex\^talk 17:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Deny GA status - since noone seems to be voting yet, I'll be the first. Although this is a very good and thorough article, I don't think it qualifies for GA status based on stability and completeness criteria. We know that once the 2007 season is underway and eventually completed, this article will change dramatically. However good the article is right now, we have to assume it will change. Besides, even if it was granted GA status, how long would that last before the season starts? Granting the article GA status right now is an exercise in recentism. Drewcifer3000 15:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not a vote. Writing the article may be an exercise of recentism, but GA status has nothing to do with it. Please state how long must we be able to "assume" an article wont change (on WP!) to be able to grant it the status it deserves. The delisting process exists for a reason, as far as I know.--SidiLemine 15:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Call it a vote, call it my opinion, either way is fine. There's no predetermined timespan that an article must be stable to be considered for GA status, that would be silly. My point is that we know it will change. You could set a watch to it. It even has a tag at the top of the article pointing this fact out. The fact that we could nominate it than de-nominate it is not important nor was it my point in the first place. My point was that the article must be assumed to be unfinished. I don't want to get into a huge debate over this, I just wanted to express my opinion on the matter, since that's all it is: my opinion. That's the whole point of placing the article on this page right? Drewcifer3000 15:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Most GA articles aren't "finished." GA is specifically meant for articles that aren't of the length or comprehensiveness to be considered for FA, FA articles are considered "finished." Not that the word is a good one considering the nature of the wiki. That being said, I do not think that because an article's subject will have activity in the future that it should necessarily be barred from GA, as the comprehensive requirement doesn't exist for GA, only FA, which there seems to be some confusion about in this discussion. This article, however, is likely to change soon, like in a couple weeks, so I don't think it qualifies as "stable." But many articles are subject to change, people die, buildings get torn down, things quit being made. Thus, the idea that an article cannot be GA because something of significance may happen in the future is not one that holds much water in a quest to delist or keep an article non-GA. In this case, the stability argument could be used but saying that an article is not "finished" so therefore it cannot be GA basically excludes every single article in the encyclopedia. IvoShandor 16:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I would love to have LaraLove's or LuciferMorgan's opinion on this.--SidiLemine 16:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  IvoShandor, I think you misinterpreted what we were saying. Because of the fact of recentism, that very reason is the cause of stability to be in question. I suppose we were just going by odds: articles of the like are doubtless going to be subject to issues relating to this. Unless stability in a strong way can be proven, then I'm for withholding the GA status (just so we're clear, "A" status requires no formal review, and so based on the general quality, I'd list it as A class for now and review to GA again once the season's at least halfway through, but depending on the activity the page (I hate to use the word, but I'm going to) suffers, it may be failed, alternatively wait until the dust settles and then re-request it. --linca^linca 16:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  But stability refers to edit warring. There is no edit warring here - the article is stable. Stability is proven just by looking at the article history and by looking at the Discussion page. Johntex\^talk 17:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  (unindent)Notice I say that stability is a valid argument, I actually agree that this article shouldn't be listed, not that it isn't "good," it's just not WP:GA. Stating that an article isn't "finished" is not a valid argument, no GAs are "finished," if they were they'd be featured. That's all I am saying, I wasn't trying to discredit the stability argument at all. IvoShandor 16:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe the stability argument to be void here, per beginning of discussion. The point here is comprehensiveness (please note the criterion is "broadness"). I'm not actually saying the article should be listed: only that if there is a clear consensus in that direction, it should be stated on the GAC and/or GA? pages that articles pertaining to current and future events cannot ever attain GA status until the said events are over.--SidiLemine 17:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  So should I start a review for Space Interferometry Mission then? Even though it won't launch for something like 8 years? It is a future event. Is this the direction consensus is going around here? No wonder I never stop by this page anymore. IvoShandor 17:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Promote to GA - there is no edit warring and no evidence of stability issues. There is no evidence there will be edit warring in the future. It is broad in its coverage of what is known at this time. Keeping it up-to-date is not that much work. Most of the details can go into sub-articles in Summary Style. If it ever fails to meet GA criteria, that can be dealt with at the time. It is wrong to hold the article back now because of hypothetical future considerations. Otherwise, we need to go strip Mars of FA status because we know more missions to Mars are on the way. (Again, keep in mind I'm an author.) Johntex\^talk 17:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Well put. The Mars article will certainly change once the mission arrives.--SidiLemine 17:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict)I think this is a good point, but not applicable to the article in question, the Mars article won't change significantly until another space craft gets there, the rovers are currently bedded down for the worst Martian dust storm in many years. The Longhorns article is set to change significantly over the next few weeks. Which may or may not preclude it from GA. Given that they play one game per week, it may indeed be possible to maintain said article at GA status without undergoing significant day to day changes. So we need to figure out this is going to be approached by GA. What is meant by significant changes, when is an article to prone to changes to be listed. I mean, Barrack Obama is featured (as is Mars), and both articles will clearly undergo major changes sooner rather than later, especially Obama (which I think has survived FAR a couple times). Either way there needs to be some clear cut discussion toward consensus on this. I propose that this review be left open until that is determined. IvoShandor 17:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to stability comment above from JohnTex: Stability refers to, according to WP:WIAGA: "it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war." (Emphasis added). IvoShandor 17:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that is right. Other than hypothetical edit warring, I don't see any reason for the article to change significantly day-to-day, not even during the season. They only play one game a week. It takes one change to put in the score and a few of sentences to capture the main aspects of the game. If the game is significant, then it will get its own article anyway, just like 2005 Texas Longhorn football team. The changes to the main article will be very manageable. Johntex\^talk 17:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, it's not that Mars the planet is going to change because of the missions there. Exploration of Mars will change, and that might cause some changes to the Mars article, but the likelihood of that happening is unassured; the Mars article itself meets the broadness without noting additional missions (unless, of course, they discover the Transformers on the planet or something of that magnitude). On the other hand, barring a major event, we expect that the Longhorns will play out their season, and thus there will be an information change in the very short term.
• I think we're finding this to be a timing issue. 2007 Longhorns is a very soon-to-happen event and will change with some frequency (weekly); the Obama article is somewhat soon to happen, but changes may be anywhere from daily to monthly, and the Mars article is unlikely to change except maybe on a yearly basis. Additionally, at these levels, you can talk about the broadness criteria: there's still known gaps for the Longhorns, there's some unknown gaps that may occur in Obama, and its unexpected but possible there's gaps in the Mars level. Is there a hard line to say when or where? I don't know, and I've brought this up for discussion at WP:GA? since this should be reflected or better spelled out if other such articles come along this way. --Masem 17:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the fact that seems to not be sinking in is that detailed changes are going to go into sub-articles. Only a couple of sentences and the score tables are planned to come into this main article. Please see 2005 Texas Longhorn football team as compared to 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game, both of which are GAs. Johntex\^talk 17:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That would work if every game were notable enough for its own article, but that's probably just not the case. IvoShandor 17:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The notability guideline specifies that a topic can pass the notability criteria if it has multiple independent sources published about it. That is never a problem for any UT football game. Johntex\^talk 19:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• unindent: Your statement reflects the letter but not the spirit of the guideline you cited, which is just that, a guideline. IvoShandor 02:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Deny GA Status (at the present time) The real issue with this article is not that it is not well written, and it's not that we don't trust JohnTex to keep up with the article (in fact, he's actually quite a good editor, and probably one of the better ones on the wiki, particularly in terms of sports articles). But the real issue here is that most of us know that articles on current events are very unpredictable and unstable, due to the nature of the "anyone can edit policy". Sports games in particular, can get quite unpredictable during the regular season, as games between rivals can get heated, with many of the opposing team's rivals often spouting all sorts of nonsense anywhere they can find the ability to do so on the internet (not just including on wikipedia; but wiki's structure makes it quite easy to do this). So no GA editor really wants to take that risk with GA status (or FA status, for that matter), since these are supposed to be some of the "better" articles on the encyclopedia. The whole GA program has recently undergone some extensive improvement this summer, and current reviewers don't want to jeopardize what has been accomplished with the program over a couple of risky articles. I really don't see why the need to rush this, too. What's wrong with just waiting until the end of the season? Dr. Cash 17:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I just feel that articles that meet the GA standard today should get reviewed today. I don't feel that we are "rushing" anything to review an article on its merits. If an article like this passes, then it would be an example for other people writing similar articles.

Some people object to "recentivism" but writing articles on things as they happen is the best way to take advantage of source material as it is most readily available. We can always (and we always do as is the nature of the wiki) revisit them in 5, 10 and 50 years to make sure the broader perspective is there. Johntex\^talk 19:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, personally, I don't agree with crystal balling ongoing edit wars and denying GA for that reason. If that occurred, the article could be delisted then. However, I agree with Masem that the article is not broad in coverage... much because it hasn't happened yet. Much of the meat of the article is statistics from previous years. For that reason, I endorse failure. I also wonder, is this common for a football team to have seasonal articles? It seems kind of redundant to me. Lara♥Love 19:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I am happy to report that as Wikipedia over-all gets broader our coverage of college football gets better as well. Seasonal articles are becoming the standard - check Category:2007 NCAA Division I FBS football season and you will see 38 teams have articles for the 2007 season. Category:2006 NCAA Division I FBS football season has 45 teams covered. This is out of 117 teams in this division. Johntex\^talk 19:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is true. Not only football, but all sports articles are growing by leaps and bounds lately, and many of them are pretty high quality. Wrad 03:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Deny GA status To quote the OP "My point is: if an article cannot become a GA whatever its quality, it shouldn't be on WP in the first place." This article CAN become GA status... in January when the season is over. Wikipedia is NOT in any rush, and 4 months is not a long time to wait for this article to be promoted. If it is vitally important to get a little plus on the talk page of a Texas Longhorns football article, well, there are over 100 other seasons to work with. If there is such a rush to get one promoted to a GA, then work on one of those. And we'll see you in January for this one. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There are already several GA articles on Longhorn football. Of the remaining ones, it seems that the author should be able to bring anyone to GA status at any time, vs having to wait until a certain point. Are we going to disallow GAs on active players (or for that matter active actors and politicians) because we know that more information is coming? Johntex\^talk 15:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That isn't an accurate comparison. We would not promote an article on, for example, Tom Hanks' performance in the 2009 movie "Blah blah" or Hilary Clinton's 2008 Presidential Campaign. The articles would include bios and history, but the actual topic of those articles has not yet happened. Lara♥Love 16:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe it is a very accurate comparison. As I mention above, most of this article is already written and it only takes a few sentences a week to capture what happened that week. Extra details can go into sub articles if needed. Johntex\^talk 04:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Deny GA status, Not only will this article not be stable in a few months, it won't be stable in 12 days. Once the season is over and quality is kept for the new sections, then this article will easily gain GA status. T Rex | talk 10:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Deny GA status As per arguments above. Renominate once season is over. - Shudde ^talk 03:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I would like to thank everyone who took the time to comment on this. I still believe that this article satisfies the GA criteria with respect to stability and completeness as they are currently written. However, I respect the views of those people who believe there is a problem with the future events described in the article. Since it seems fairly clear that this "GA fail" is to be upheld, I recommend that we close this discussion and turn instead to clarifying the GA guidelines in this regard. Johntex\^talk 04:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Seconded. Let's head to WP:GA.--SidiLemine 16:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Head to WT:GA. Lara♥Love 17:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I had already set up some discussion of this in Wikipedia talk:What is a good article? though only got one response. But agreed to move off GA/R since this is a larger issue now. --Masem 17:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, since that thread has already started, lets go to Wikipedia talk:What is a good article?#GAs and Future Events. Johntex\^talk 18:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deny GA status despite the articles prose, the event or season in this case, has yet to occur. It's like nominating Hurricane Dean for GA status when the full force has yet to be felt or nominating the 2006 football World Cup before it occured. Davnel03 18:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double bass

• Result: Delist Giggy ^Talk 00:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was very tempted to simply delist this one, but ultimately decided to go for a full review. Multiple sections are very short on refs, and there are some fact tags lying around. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Your temptations are well founded, in addition to what you've identified, there's no way a lead that short adequatly covers an article of this length. Homestarmy 02:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist This is a very well done article, but unfortunately not up to GA standards. Drewcifer3000 04:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Fact tags need to be addressed and additional citation may be necessary. References also need to be correctly and consistently formatted. Lara♥Love 14:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Needs rearranging. Stuff in the "History" section is not to do with the history of the instrument. Perhaps it was intended for the lede? "As well" starts too many sentences. --Peter cohen 15:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Needs more referencing in some areas, references need formatting work, and lead is inadequate. Raime 04:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where Did Our Love Go

• Result: Delist Giggy ^Talk 00:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Originally reviewed and given GA status a year and a half ago, on more recent review, I've found it to have the following issues:

• Image in infobox lacks a fair-use rationale.
• No in-line citations at all.
• Somewhat limited in scope.

Drewcifer3000 04:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist, mostly per the lack of inline citations. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, not actually based on inline, as that's easily rectifiable, but its scope conceerns me. There was never far this could go. My other concern is the lack of actual meat on the bone. There's a whole lot of information that could be included, such as a more definitive (i.e. less ambiguous) reception/reation section, a more informative lead and to have the b-side mentioned, if even just once (it's "He Means the World to Me", which is confirmed on the sp cover). For this reason, i say de-list and note the list of reasons before it can be put back in GAC. --linca^linca 15:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, apart from reasons re scope/critical reception, should wiki articles refer to the performers as "the girls"? Soesn't strike me as very encylopaedic.--Peter cohen 15:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist due to lack of verifiability. LuciferMorgan 21:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist due to complete lack of inline citations and limited scope. Raime 04:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KLF Communications

• Result: Delist Giggy ^Talk 01:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very strange article, so I'm mentioning it here just to get comments. It is essentially a discography for the The KLF. Do we typically grant discographies GA status? Does this pass even if it were commonplace? Should it be listed under the "Performers, groups, composers, and people related to them" section of the Wikipedia:Good articles page? Shouldn't the article be named "The KLF discography" or something more straightforward? I'm just not sure about anything.... Drewcifer3000 20:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - The article should be about the record label and its history and major acts, but it shouldn't contain a full discography. Plus, that's a terrible WP:LEAD --Masem 20:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - This is a list article, and GA does not handle lists. Not sure it SHOULD be a list article (which would make it fail the Broad requirement if it was NOT meant to be a list anyways). If it is intended to be a list, recommend that it be taken to WP:FLC for review. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - I think this is meant to be an article and not just a list. However, the catalogue is very strangely laid out with a large typo face and takes up a huge amount of space. A table might make it more compact and more comprehensible.--Peter cohen 14:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think tables work - they're ugly mostly are tables, especially the ones which chronicle chart positions. LuciferMorgan 21:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Very strange layout. I don't think the topic warrants a list - The article is apparently about a record label, so why does it even list discographies? But anyways, it does appear to be written as a list, so it doesn't even qualify for GA-status. In addition, the lead is relatively short, and seems to be poorly written and poorly laid out. Raime 21:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Why is the discography so huge? I keep my font a bit large anyway, so for me it's really big. This article needs a lot of work to meet the criteria. Lara♥Love 04:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volcano

• Result: Delist Giggy ^Talk 07:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was first reviewed in December 2005. Has only 7 inline citations and 5 references. There are punctuation and grammar mistakes and MoS violations as well. T Rex | talk 21:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, you have to go all the way down to "Elsewhere in the Solar System" before there's any citation at all, I don't see how this is well-referenced. Homestarmy 01:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist as per nomination. Drewcifer3000 02:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delist per nomination. requires inline citations throughout LurkingInChicago 03:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nom. It shouldn't take much after referencing to bring this article to GA, however. Lara♥Love 04:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nom. Far too few inline citations and references. Raime 04:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Needs to take more measures to satisfy verifiability, possibly through the use of citations. LuciferMorgan 13:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Teresa

• RESULT: Closed due to WP:FORUMSHOPBalloonman 02:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous GA/R — Result: Speedy keep. 2007-08-20

First GA/R — Result: Keep. 2007-08-07

Mother Teresa (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Non neutral, or no longer neutral. Issues regarding the neutrality of the article are still underway. Sfacets 22:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use [[WP:GA/R#Mother Teresa|Good article review]] as the section heading.

Conditional Keep If this article hadn't been speedy kept so quickly last time, I would have voted delist. (I went off to the page having never looked at it before, decided on my vote and came back to find the discussion here closed.) The article had serious scope problems. Most notably there was negligible coverage on what the Indian press and people thought of someone operating in their country. I think this was a serious oversight in previous reviews. Another major issue was inadequate coverage of critical perspectives on Mother Teresa. With the help of sources provided by others I have been adding relevant material. It also seems that a period of edit warring that I arrived at the article to find going on (with several of my first edits, including grammatical and spelling corrections, being reverted in indiscriminate rollbacks, two editors breaking WP:3RR, IP editors heckling about bias or multiply reverting without having ever contributed to wikipedia before) has now calmed down and that constructive discussion between the sides and mutually agreeable work is now taking place. The keep is conditional because I want to make sure that the work discussed takes place and is not instantly reverted. I urge other reviewers to take a similar stance and not speedy close.--Peter cohen 23:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sfacets, perhaps you could provide a few examples of the POV problems, or point out particular sections that are problematic? I haven't participated heavily in these MT GA/R's, but its seemed to me that specific evidence hasn't been very forthcoming, and quite frankly, it makes the case to delist this article seem rather poor when the GA/R's occur so close together without any specific evidence to back up the POV claims against this article. Homestarmy 23:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This article is now being referred for reclassification/delisting every couple of weeks (or days!), in what appears to be a Chinese water torture approach to delisting. Some editors do not like the tone of the article, despite majority consensus, and recertifications for GA status. Lively, sometimes heated debates aside, it would be inappropriate as well as bad precedent to give the impression that just sending the article for review over and over again will get disgruntled editors what they want eventually. By the standards of those that want additional criticisms in the article, it is more "balanced" now that it was during the past 2 reviews, so it would be hard to justify actually delisting it now. Bottom line is the article is still well-written, well-balanced, and closely monitored. It should remain a GA-rated article. --Anietor 00:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Oh lordy. It's been what 3 days since the last review? As far as I can tell the discussion has to do with a lack of negative/critical content, which gives the article a positive slant. So, instead of bringing the article up for constant review, ADD THE CONTENT YOU THINK SHOULD BE INCLUDED. If it's well-sourced no one is going to (or no one should) complain. Drewcifer3000 00:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No comment - default keep I will not comment on the content of the article, as it appears that a small group of dedicated editors wishes to take this off the GA list by themselves making it non-neutral. On the one hand, by delisting it we encourage people who are being intentionally disruptive and acting in bad faith. On the other hand, the article MAY have genuine problems that need addressing and which mean that at the moment it is not GA quality. Or it may be well within guidelines, and the repeated attempts to delist it are bad-faith attempts to disrupt wikipedia (see WP:POINT). I am inclined to feel that default-keeping the article and speedy closing this discussion is the same as protecting a page; we take no stance on either side of the debate however we recognize that edit-warring is not to be rewarded for any purpose. The entire situation should be brought to mediation and/or arbitration BEFORE any action is taken here. Let's resolve the problem before making any decisions. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing has changed since last week. If the critics of this page want us to seriously review this article, they need to wait about 3 months before nominating it again. Otherwise, it will continue to be SPEEDY KEEP without reviewBalloonman 00:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I actually think that the neutrality debate has some merit; there should be a section about the criticism of Mother Teresa for not taking a social action approach in her workings. However, the fact that this article has been under review here with large consensus to "keep" twice in the past few weeks means that this article should be kept. If there are problems with the article's neutrality, fix them by adding a "criticisms" section, but continually nominating them here based on the opinions of the same few editors after two consensuses is not the way to go. I am sure this has already been brought up, but you might be able to take some ideas from User:Aplank/Criticisms of Mother Teresa, this website, and this website in order to create a Criticisms section. It will need inline citations. Raime 00:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the same reasons in the last two reviews this month. Lara♥Love 01:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Hilbert

• Result: Delist Giggy\^Talk 06:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Hilbert (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Un-uniform reference format, I also think many sections are undersourced or not sourced at all. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use [[WP:GA/R#David Hilbert|Good article review]] as the section heading.

Strong Delist - Pretty open and shut case. Poor referencing, weak prose, and the main image is up for deletion, just to name a few problems. Drewcifer3000 18:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delist - This article has major problems that need to be addressed. Referencing is inconsistently formatted, and the article needs more inline citations - there are several sections without any. Prose needs a lot of work. Lead is slightly short, could use some expansion. The fact that the the main image is proposed for deletion is obviously a major problem. The See also section is extremely long, and there are redlinks in it. Many of the articles listed in the section are already linked in the article. The The finiteness theorem section has three unsourced quotes that do not use proper format. Clearly, this article does not meet criteria. Raime 19:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Fantastically under referenced. This article is well below standards; lets leave it here for the requisite week hoping in good faith that someone can fix it. However, I would have had no problem had this been snowball delisted... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Awesomely (jab at Jayron) under-referenced. I agree that this is a mess. Could have been boldly delisted. However, it may be improved this week with this here... statistically not, but you never know. Lara♥Love 14:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You guys all know why I listed it here even though I know it's not going to make it. I don't want editors jump on my back because I delisted their favourite articles without first sending them to here. Seriously, at this rate I'll be quitting Wikipedia soon because they are chasing away good editors. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presidio of Santa Barbara

• RESULT: Keep article was significantly cleaned up and nominator changed position.Balloonman 15:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presidio of Santa Barbara (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)

(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Originally reviewed a year and a half ago, upon recent review I've found it to have problems mainly with a lack of inline citations, as well as a disproportionate lead section. Chief editors and WikiProjects have been notified. Drewcifer3000 19:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use [[WP:GA/R#Presidio of Santa Barbara|Good article review]] as the section heading.

• It's not exactly a huge article. It doesn't need that many inline citations. The current number looks to be adequate. Moreschi ^Talk 20:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's not huge, but it's not a stub either. 4 inline citations are a little too few. Raime 23:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems fine to me. I can gather that all the information in the first paragraph after the intro (which is a good length) comes from the book mentioned in the first footnote. The only point which might be contentious (that the Presidio was surrendered after it seemed that the war was lost) has a separate footnote. Good writing also involves not overciting. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most readers cannot predict which information goes with which book. That is why inline citations exist. Also, how can the lead be a good length, if it makes up more than 1/3 of the article? That is far too long for such a short article. 25 to 30 citations would be overciting for this article. 4 is not; it is most definitely underciting. Raime 23:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist - There are very few inline citations; I don't think even an article of this length can get by as a GA with 4 citations, especially when two are from the same source. The website is poorly cited; it needs a link to the actual site. The lead is too long. It may be well-written, but it is inappropriately long for an article of this length. Needs to be condensed, preferably with some of the information being transferred into the History section. Raime 22:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have copyedited the article and added website inline citations throughout each section. It now contains 14 citations (of which only 3 are from a book) and 7 cited sources. It should now completely meet criteria: any issues with prose have been addressed, there are plenty of inline citations, and the lead has been shortened to one paragraph, which is an adequate length for this article. Are there any other issues? Raime 04:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The current citation style appears to be something of a hybrid between Harvard style and a footnoted style. There are links to the web sites - it's just that you have to look from the "Notes" section up to the "References" section to find them. Personally, I think this hybrid style is inelegant and confusing, but it could also be cleaned up pretty easily. Ipoellet 23:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mistake. You're right, this does look messy, I'll change it to usual format, with the books listed as references and the websites as citations.
    • I'm finished. The books are left as is in the reference section, and the websites were merged into prose as citations. I also copyedited the article. Raime 04:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Four inline cites is plenty for a short article; they're not required anyway. I'll add more if you insist, but everything is from the listed references, so I don't quite see the point. Citations on every line, to a lot of us who write articles, looks silly, especially on uncontroversial topics. And if the nominator had bothered to look at the article or the edit history, he might have noticed that I addressed the original "objection" with these edits immediately after the objector appeared. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the thing is, this article is not short enough to get by on 4 citations. You're right, they are not specifically required, but they are preferred per WP:WIAGA. There are plenty of references, but without citations, no reader can see what information came from what references, and it can be seen as original research. I am not saying that every line needs a citation, but 4 is too few. See Sakurajima, for instance. This article is just as much of a "uncontroversial topic" as this is and is almost the exact same length. It was brought up here per lack of citing, and was fixed to include a total of 8 cited sources and a total of 17 inline citations. This article needs a comparable number, or maybe slightly fewer. 4 inline cites is not plenty for this article. 5 paragraphs of non-cited information is not up to GA standards. Raime 02:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I find the citations on Sakurajima inelegant and pedantic. I wouldn't delist it from GA on this basis, because I know there are many different opinions on the topic here. I'd like to know where in the world besides WP anyone cites sources as often as the Sakurajima article does. If it were a student paper in any of my classes, I'd grade it down for its garland of ibids. The Presidio article looks like what a well-cited academic article to me. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is about reliability, and sources must be given. When these sources are listed in a reference section without direct links in the article, it is not useful to readers who want to verify information. Wikipedia is not a student paper; it is an encyclopedia. Ample sources and citations, not a lack thereof, make for good articles. This isn't about opinions of "inelegancy"; it is about the verification of material to meet encyclopedic standards. Raime 03:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've never seen an encyclopedia article with half the citations of a good student paper. You're arguing in the wrong direction as far as I'm concerned. Please point me to another encyclopedia which cites like the Sakurajima article. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It doesn't matter which cites more; that is completely off topic. A student paper should not be compared with Wikipedia. The bottom line is that they are different; the rules that apply to one do not apply to the other. I am simply arguing that it doesn't hurt an article to have ample citations; I fail to see how that is going in the wrong direction. It also doesn't matter if the Sakurajima article has more references than a different encyclopedia. For the most part, average encylopedia entries are much shorter than the articles on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia articles cover a much broader scope. Point me to an encylopedia article about Sakurajima that goes into that length and amount of detail. What matters are Wikipedia policies of verifiability. Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards are not necessarily the same as that of a different encyclopedia. Anyways, this debate is getting pretty ridiculous; Drewcifer is correct. Debating the fine points of citations belong on policy pages, not here. Raime 21:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep - Well, I had no idea I'd start a big debate on in-line citations with the review, but I will say that this might not be the best place to debate the fine points of citations on Wikipedia. That's better suited for the policy pages themselves, since we just interpret the policy/guidelines here, not change it. Anyways, the article looks much better, but there are still a few paragraphs without citations. Namely this : "The Presidio's fifth and most influential comandante was the wealthy Spanish trader José de la Guerra y Noriega, who ran the Presidio from 1827 until his retirement in 1842." Besides being a one-sentence paragraph (which is bad), it doesn't have a source. Also the last paragraph of the first section. Small changes, which hopefully won't be difficult to fix. Drewcifer3000 05:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed the information about José de la Guerra y Noriega, as it was non-notable, written like POV, and not really notable to the discussion. I also merged the last paragraph of the first section with the second, and instated a citation. On another note, I feel that most of the debate was pretty relevant to this page, as it was mostly about interpreting the citation guidelines laid out per WP:WIAGA, and how many citations are needed in order for an article to remain a GA. Raime 06:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Cool, looks good to me, so I say keep. And yea, some debate is fine, I just know these things tend to turn into a debate over policy/guidelines rather than a debate about policy/guidelines. Texas Longhorns anyone? Drewcifer3000 06:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Could use an infobox if the main editors are into that sort of thing. We are citation counting now? Brother. I don't see anything particularly that I would be likely to challenge. The article isn't long enough for me not to pick up the books and read them if I was interested in the topic. Broad general objections like "there aren't enough citations" aren't really useful. It would be more useful if editors would point out what specifics they are wondering about citations for rather than just counting up the number of inlines and stating that there aren't enough of them. IvoShandor 07:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell from the way the article is now, since it has since been improved. But it was definitely lacking in references. As for citation counting ... well, whatever floats people's boats I guess. Drewcifer3000 07:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the citation counting, I was just clarifying that many improvements had been made in the citation/referencing area. But the article was poorly referenced, even for one of its length, and needed work. As for the infobox, what would be appropriate here? Raime 12:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It just not sufficient to say "no inline citations therefore no GA". The policy does not require inline citations as a matter of course - it requires them for quotes, contentious facts about living personages and material which is or is likely to be challenged - The nominator needs to tell us what his good faith challenges are regarding the validity of the material. And to discuss this in terms of "mmm... 4 is to little or 10 is sufficient" misses the point entirely - there is no requirement for a specific 'density' of citations, only that the article should be verifiable--Joopercoopers 09:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy. My nomination was pretty straight forward, and merely my opinion. That's why I brought it up here rather than just delist it myself: to get opinions and have a discussion. And the process worked: the article seems to satisfy everyone, and it will remain a GA.

Also, to quote the GA criteria directly: "cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles." Ok, but then there's two footnotes, one of which says "Unambiguous citation is best done through footnotes or Harvard references at the end of a sentence (see the inline citations essay). It is highly recommended that the article have a consistent style of footnoting. Articles one page or shorter can be unambiguously referenced without inline citations. General statements, mathematical equations, logical deductives, common knowledge, or other material that does not contain disputable statements need not be referenced." The way that is worded, it is highly up to interpretation.

My interpretation of it is this: any complete thought that is not common knowledge must come from some source. If a fact comes from a source, you should reference that source. Pretty simple really. That is my own interpretation of the criteria, and I can assure you I am not alone.

I challenged the article's lack of references not because I assumed bad faith and that they were made up, but to increase the verifiability of the article. If we know where a fact came from, then it is verified.

Finally, I never stated any number of references as being good or bad, merely that the article had too few. I can't imagine why I'm being so criticized for asking for review and discussion - isn't that the whole point of Wikipedia? Drewcifer3000 10:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you see Wikipedia:When to cite for the FA director's interpretation. --Joopercoopers 11:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm not sure I see your point there. This too is up to interpretation, and I interpret that as agreeing with my statments above. Mainly, the examples given in "When a source may not be needed" do not apply, since just about anything related to the Presidio could not be considered common knowledge, and I doubt subject-specific common knowledge. Also to quote the same section: "It should always be clear where the editor has taken his material from." Like I said I fail to see your point there. Drewcifer3000 16:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks like the cites problem has been largely fixed, and I see no other problems... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Comment lotsa whining here about too many cites in an article. I don't care what the FA director (Raul) says; Wikpedia is FAR less credible than other encyclopedias, 'cause we are "the encyc. anyone can edit." Verifiability = Credibility let's stop pretending we're something we are NOT. -- Ling.Nut 21:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:((infobox_nrhp)) works well for these types of places, if you need any help with filling out some of the info, I can do it for you, just let me know. I was going to reply to some of the comments here but, nah, doesn't matter that much, I already said my piece. : ) IvoShandor 09:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]