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 30) Good article reassessment (archive) (Page 28) →

Spira (Final Fantasy)

Result: Delisted by nom. LaraLove♥ 17:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spira (Final Fantasy) (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article was promoted to Good status on February 2, 2006, but I have just looked over the page today, one and a half years later, and I think it is no longer worthy of being a Good Article. The article is largely told in an in-universe style, there's no section on the world's reception and criticism, and it has grown too large for only thirty individual references to cover. Can one of you look over the article and review it as soon as possible? That would be nice. Cat's Tuxedo 22:12, 26 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#Spira (Final Fantasy)|Good article review]] as the section heading.

First and foremost, Locations in Spira needs to be merged to this article. A LOT of trimming is needed, and the out-of-universe sections need significant expansion. I doubt there are enough hands to work on this right now, so it should be delisted. — Deckiller 22:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deck is right, the article needs to be fixed up to current writing in fiction criteria. Judgesurreal777 20:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So shall I delist the article now? Cat's Tuxedo 14:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what should be done, but if you delist it, please consider delisting Locations in Spira too, per the arguments above. Kariteh 14:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist still needs alot of work. Drewcifer 04:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article has already been delisted; it was removed from the GA list and tagged as a delisted GA on August 28. At this point, this should be closed and archived, or the article should be relisted under terms of premature delistment and discussion brought up here agiain. However, since much of the article is written in an in-universe standpoint, I think a bold delistment would have made sense in the first place. Other problems include the "Reception and criticism" section (which contains no text); this seems completely out of place in an article about a location in a video game. Also, there are many external links. Perhaps some can be removed? The "Languages" section is also a stretch; is that much information about a fictional language in the game really relevant in this particular article? Raime 22:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, but irrelevant since it has already been delisted. In-universe style, etc. etc. Wrad 04:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Golduck

Result: Relist. Issues addressed. LaraLove♥ 17:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Pokemon, removed because it has some guide-like content and (basically) because it has a cite-needed tag on the origin of the name. Gimmetrow 19:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist - Delisting the article without a review based on a few small issues seems hasty. Although I agree with the points Link to the Past made, I don't think they're grounds for delisting. Drewcifer3000 20:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the "biological characteristics" section is very in-universe. It's a fictional creature, so its biological characteristics are fictional, and should be treated as such. -Malkinann 06:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endose Delist Relist - I will change this if the in-universe issue is corrected. Lara♥Love 16:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC) IU issues resolved. Lara♥Love 20:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. The supposedly in-universe section is three paragraphs. Not an issue. Since the the "in-universe cleanup" tag has not been justified on the article talk page, it could be summarily removed. Gimmetrow 17:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the complaint about "guide-like" comment may have intended to reference WP:NOT#GUIDE, which essentially says that "saying how something is used is encyclopedic, but saying how to use it is not". I'd expect a Pokemon's article to have (sourced) information about the particular R-P-S arguments that make that Pokemon strong against x type or weak against y type. -Malkinann 01:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This review is pretty old, and 2 to 1 is pretty close to be archiving, anyone else have an opinion? Homestarmy 14:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I believe I fixed the IU problem.--SidiLemine 11:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - IU problem has been addressed, and article now definitely meets criteria. Rai-me 02:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silent film

Result: Delist Drewcifer 01:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

After re-review of the article I've found it to have the following issues:


Harold Pinter

Result: None, discussion closed at the bequest of nominator/chief editors Drewcifer 13:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Renomination. Relisted after substantial revisions. Previous review needs archiving (see below in 1.12). Thank you. --NYScholar 07:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old nomination/review can be found here. Drewcifer 19:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist Looks good to me. (By the way, I'm still working on getting a better picture, we'll see how that goes.) Drewcifer 20:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this. Thank you for archiving. Re: the image for the infobox etc.: I did find a "free" one (as stated from the Commons), though I think it's actually taken from an agency photo (the original make him look thinner and is clearer. It also happens to be illustration 39 in Billington's book, which is identified as copyrighted by Martyn Hayhow/AFP/Getty Images (not a free source); but it's in the Commons w/ a license no. (?). Please post a link to the image if you can on Talk:Harold Pinter. There are so many good ones, but they are not free. Since you wrote the comment above, I have revised the article substantially more to take account of another reviewer's comments (as well as earlier comments). Thanks again. I must log off Wikipedia to do my work! --NYScholar 00:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a second. I just realized that this is posted at GA/R and GAC. Please don't double post something like this twice: both pages are backlogged enough as they are. Just pick one and stick with it please. Drewcifer 05:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "double post" this; please check the archive. [A reviewer asked to have this previous review archived. I just asked for a link to the archived review to be placed on Talk:Harold Pinter to update the original link to the original review on this page. When you or someone else archived it, you did not archive the whole thing apparently. This entire part needs archiving too now? [I'm not familiar with these procedures, so I asked for someone else to do the archiving. I simply re-nominated it, as I say in the now-archived review and above (which was part of the comment that I thought would be getting archived. Please do the complete archiving. Thanks. The review is currently ongoing and on the talk page of the article.] --NYScholar 06:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that this GA/R should be closed and archived? Due to the ongoing discussion on the Talk page? Drewcifer 06:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Drewcifer, I really don't know for certain what the procedure is. But I think that the answer to your question is probably "yes." After I posted above, I learned that the user who I thought was a reviewer was just making "Comments" on the talk page of the article (to help out) but not doing a review and was not serving as a "reviewer" but just as a commentator.
I do not know what the proper procedure is relating to the "good article" nomination status of this article. The article was not reviewed after you first made comments about it in the previously-archived section of this page saying that it needed to be "de-listed" when it was not then currently listed in the nominations page. I followed the link that you or someone else provided in this section and just got to the preview editing page of this section. Laralove requested that the previous discussion (including your own earlier comments and my replies to them) be "archived" since I re-nominated the article for a new review.
If you don't know the procedure, please ask someone who does for assistance. I am logging out of Wikipedia to do other work and cannot carry on further discussion about the article's GA status at this point.
This page was on my watch list by default and so I saw your comment above. I can't find the archived discussion previously on this page, which is where all of this section needs now to be archived so that the GAR can move forward once a reviewer is assigned or volunteers for that task. Thanks. I had just asked for a link to the archived GAR discussions be placed on the article's current talk page so that people can access the entire history of discussions about its being nominated and re-nominated for GA. Thanks in advance if you can help with archiving and/or providing the link to the archived discussion (everything above and beyond that re: "HP "as GA nomination. Is it necessary now to have a section here? --NYScholar 01:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That "yes" may be incorrect. Please do the right thing; I don't know what it is now. You said that this section was "double" posted; now I'm not so sure it was. Is this the place for reviewers to post their review comments? Where else does one put them: whether to keep listed or to delist? etc. ??? --NYScholar 01:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)For context, please see: 155824913 (Diffs). Thanks. (Due to my being logged out of Wikipedia to do work for extended periods of time, my talk page is re-directed to my user page; please don't post comments on my [redirected] talk page. Thanks.) --NYScholar 01:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I think it might be a good idea to continue the discussions on the article's Talk Page. It seems as if this is becoming an increasingly complicated matter, which is a shame for an editor such as yourself who isn't interested in all the bureaucracy and just wants to make a great article. Consolidating the discussions down to a single point will help make things much simpler. So unless there's any objections I'll close and archive this discussion. Drewcifer 01:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No objection. Thank you. --NYScholar 01:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavus Franklin Swift

Result: Delist Drewcifer 06:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main editor Lordkinbote is a retired wikipedian. No other editors have more than 5 edits. WP:BUSINESS, WP:WPBIO, WP:CHICAGO and WP:Illinois notified.

This article has many sections that are unreferenced. I have not examined the article beyond its referencing and nothing else jumps out at me. However, I feel the article is substandard and hope that it gets adopted by someone who can clean it up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Claims and such", "All relevant facts"???!??? Examples please. --Joopercoopers 08:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Albania

Result: Delist Drewcifer 06:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Albania (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Firstly the lead includes irrelevant info such as the political nature of the country. The prose is not all that great and the article is full of redlinks. There are ((fact)) tags in the article and there many unsourced claims such as "music is considered the most sophisticated in the country" in the city of Korca. The further reading section is small for some reason and the books in that section are not in cite book format. T Rex | talk 23:46, 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#Music of Albania|Good article review]] as the section heading.
  • I also trimmed the further reading section (It was basically one writer's bibliography which violated WP:UNDUE) Cite book format? Templates? Those aren't required. The books have at least author, title and publisher, and ISBN if available (anything published before 1966 is highly unlikely to have an ISBN at all btw (See ISBN)), it doesn't matter what format they are in, this isn't FA. IvoShandor 09:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think that considering the political history of the nation had influence on its music that a couple sentences relating the two aren't unwarranted, the lead doesn't go into too much detail about that anyway, it mentions it. The fact tags should be cleared up but this article could easily be fixed, are the main editors around? Does anyone know? IvoShandor 09:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sound sample fixed. Delist unless someone can source the info, because the article is underreferenced. Most of the other smaller issues should be cleared up (except for the small and odd typeface in the notes section, I would add some refs if I knew anything at all about the topic, which I do not, it doesn't look like there are main editors and there doesn't appear to have been any kind of GAC review originally. IvoShandor 09:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goleta, California

Result: Delist Drewcifer 06:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goleta, California (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Has cite needed tags, not many citations for an article that size. Except for the History and Urban environment sections the rest are small and do not contain much besides bot generated information. Fair use images don't have rationales. T Rex | talk 16:24, 3 September 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#Goleta, California|Good article review]] as the section heading.
Delist per nomination. Drewcifer 04:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American football

Result: Delist by a vote of 7-1

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Very little references and no section about American football competitions. --Kaypoh 06:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for more sources is fine and good - I love sources. But that is all it is, a request. There is no minimum number of sources that must be used. There is no mandate to act on a general request for more sources.
I totally disagree also about what is indicated by the Talk page. Counting Shudde's post saying that the article was going to be put up for GA review, there were only 4 posts in the entire month of August. The older issues have been dealt with through discussion. There are no contentious points active there at all. Johntex\talk 14:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real Madrid C.F.

Result: close review since the article was simultaneously nominated at GAC and FAC. Please limit nominations/reviews to one place at a time. Drewcifer 11:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Best article on Wikipedia! Please review this because i think the failure was a mistake.--Hadrianos1990 15:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC One

Result: Delist by a vote of 6-0

BBC One (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Weak lead, it is very stubby in places, it could use a good copy-edit, and referencing needs to be cleaned up. Lara♥Love 20:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nomination. Drewcifer 04:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Comet of 1882

Result: Keep All issues fixed, all delist votes have been withdrawn.

Great Comet of 1882 (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

No inline citations, lacking in references as well. Was promoted way back in September 05. T Rex | talk 19:26, 27 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#Great Comet of 1882|Good article review]] as the section heading.
Again - please provide details of the quotations or aspects of the article you think are sufficiently surprising to require inline citations. We need specifics to make the GAC actionable.--Joopercoopers 12:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NBA on CBS

Result: Delist by a vote of 6-0 - Shudde talk 04:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article was passed today by HiDrNick but seems to fail a number of significant good article criteria.

  1. The article is quite long and goes into many unnecessary details.
  2. Although verifiable citations are included for direct quotations, numerous statistics (such as Nielsen ratings) are not referenced anywhere in the article. There is a separate article (under the ratings section) that details these references, but they need to be present in this article as well. Also, numerous sections have no references at all. The Tape Delay section has only a couple references and is over 50% of the article.
  3. The references section is not in line with WP:Footnotes and/or WP:CITE whatsoever. They are different descriptions that link to one of a few articles. They need to have publisher, date, source, and title of work listed rather than what is currently listed.
  4. There seem to be hints of WP:POV throughout the article, although this could be solved with more citations.
  5. The header is not a concise summary of the entire article, but rather an introductory paragraph. Noetic Sage 05:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto

Result: Previously delisted incompletely. I completed it.

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Article seems to be below standard with regards to WP:WIAGA criteria 2b, specifically that there are tags and headers asking for additional referencing, as well as several sections that make unverifiable claims, and thus need inline cites to make these claims verifiable. I recommend that we delist the article, if changes cannot be made to bring it up to standard. Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is already delisted, since 4 September. Gimmetrow 00:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it is. My bad. Looks like someone changed the talk page, but never actually delisted it; it is still on the GA list... In that case, I'll get on moving it off the list. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Texas at Austin

Result: 2 to 2, No Consensus
(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article contains a large, mostly unreferenced trivia section. It also contains a possibly-unfree image in the "Notable people" section (disclaimer: I am the one who listed the image PUI and its status is still undecided). →Wordbuilder 20:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Henry Rollins

Result: No Consensus default keep. As an aside, this article has remained on GAR so long that many of the earlier comments, whether keep or delist, refer to an article that is so different from what the article is today that it is impossible to determine consensus at this time.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has an unnecessary trivia section and a very large amount of lists. Article also lacks a section on the criticisims of the artists work. --Tarret 03:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still under-referenced. Fact tag near the end (although, there needs to be additional references past that one tag). Also, the inclusion of the official website external link in the body needs to be removed. Lara♥Love 13:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. (Removed the external link). It needs more references and expansion; it doesn't cover Rollins career in Black Flag too well. CloudNine 13:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just discovered this GA/R (can the Alternative music Wikiproject be notified in future?), and I may be able to save; I've got access to several good references. Removed the trivia section. CloudNine 06:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Will improve and send to WP:FAC soon. Referencing and expansion is still ongoing though. CloudNine 11:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. That page is an earlier version of the article. See the bottom of the page. CloudNine 14:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amazing. Does that mean it isn't suitable as a source?
Additionally, large parts of the article are still unreferenced or in need of more referencing, such as the entire Rollins Band section, and most of the Black Flag section. Plus, the article contains no reception of Rollin's work, for an artist of his type there is LOTS of criticism (positive and negative) out there to draw from. This article makes NO review of the reception of his work, which again, seems to indicate a lack of broadness required for a GA. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I agree. Still referencing and expanding; I'll create a 'Legacy' section soon. CloudNine 10:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another suggestion: The Works section should have a paragraph or two talking about his works. That's not to say you should just list them, but give a brief overview of both his solo works and works within a band. Just having a link for a section isn't all that great. Drewcifer3000 03:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like CloudNine is still working on the article, but I still don't think it meets criteria. Since it has been here for a month, and there still seems to be alot of work (criticisms, prose cleanup, etc) I'd recommend delisting the article for now with an invitation to renominate the article here when chief editors feel the article is ready. However there is no consensus here to delist, so at least archive this discussion and hope for the best. Drewcifer 10:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had too much time to work on the article recently, although I think it's improved greatly since the initial version. (My priority is the Rollins band section) I'm not sure about including a "Musical style", "Criticisms" or "Legacy" section; Rollins' only solo releases have been spoken word, and I've not read many criticisms of them. What do you think? CloudNine 10:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I take part of my comments above back. Criticisms are usually reserved for specific articles or songs, since people's opinions might change drastically. I guess my only concern with the article is an overall lack of breadth (the whole is one big Biography section), but I'm just not sure what else to add. Catch 22 I guess. Drewcifer 10:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any available information on his personal life? Lara♥Love 15:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a lot. He's not married, so I expect the article, past his early life, will only cover his professional life. CloudNine 11:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm hoping to work on this article again today. Could you point out the prose that reads like a fan-site? CloudNine 09:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I have not yet been shown examples of fan-site prose in the article, so it's hard to act on this delisting. ((fact)) tags will soon be addressed. CloudNine 11:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This review has been going for more than a month now. I recommend we delist the article until editors feel it is ready to be reevaluated, at which time a fresh review can be started. Drewcifer 06:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There have been major changes! I've made 130 edits to the article, in which time I've made the biography section fully comprehensive, reorganised the article, removed the trivia, referenced several uncited facts. What is the article lacking in broadness exactly? [Here's a diff and the old version. Most of these issues have been addressed; if you just want more references, they can be provided. I'm working on this article today. CloudNine 09:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There have definately been major changes, and the article is definately much better. There do seem to be a few lingering issues though. You can have a few more days I suppose, but it's not like we're gonna hold you to a deadline or anything. I just figured it's been up here a really long time, and that it would be better to re-adress this issue starting from scratch whenever that time comes. I didn't mean to downplay the substantial improvements that have been made, it was just a pragmatic suggestion. Drewcifer 09:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks! There wasn't any work done on the article until about half-way through its review. What would you say was the top priority? CloudNine 09:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to imply that no work had been done ever on this article, just that the issues that I saw when I first looked at the article had not been fixed since I had first looked at it. The biggest issue remaining is the expansion (with full referencing, of course) of two sections: Musical style and Radio and television appearances. Also, the radio and television section continues to be largely unreferenced... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be a Negative Nancy, Jayron, but I given the recent changes to the GA criteria (diff) I don't really see what needs to be referenced. Anything specific you had in mind? Drewcifer 05:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While the Henry Rollins Show section and the Other Appearences section do not contain any information that I would find contentious, as there is nothing there that is not referenced directly to the shows in question (Rollins appeared in XXXX is plainly self referenced to the credits of XXXX and does not need any further referencing... I know this) HOWEVER, the section on Harmony In My Head contains several statements I would think beg referencing and are easily challengable, such as:
  • "The show aired every Monday evening, with Rollins playing a variety of music which could mostly be classified under the broad rock and roll umbrella" According to whom? If someone classifies something, that's analysis. We do not provide our own analysis of his show. WHO has decided that his show plays this type of music. I am not denying that it does. I only note that this is a statement of opinion, and note that we do not provide opinions at wikipedia, we report the opinions of others.
  • Also, "Drawn almost entirely from Rollins' own extensive collection" is a surprising fact. I would want to know what this statement is based on. Is there a published account or review or interview somewhere where this statement is verified?
  • "Rollins posted playlists and commentary on-line, but due to fan demand, these lists were expanded with more info and published in book form as Fanatic! by his 2.13.61 imprint in November 2005." Really? Is this why it was published? Fan demand? According to whom? This sentance provides analysis. Analysis is opinion, and challangable, and thus needs reference.
WIAGA says that challangeable statements need inline cites. Simple statements of easily checkable facts (He appeared on XXXX show on YYYY date) don't seem all that challengable. However, in situations where critical analysis is done (That some sort of music belongs to one genre or another, for example) or where superlative or otherwise unusual claims are made, they are challengable and need references.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(dedenting) Indeed. That's the only section I haven't tackled (apart from expanding Musical style), and it's the only one with problems. CloudNine 07:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Time for the weekly Should-we-finally-delist-this-article-and-let-it-be-renominated-when complete-or-allow-it-to-remain-a-GA-while-incremental-progress-is-made check. So, should we finally delist this, or should we give it another week (this may be a GAR record, for the record)--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I say delist it. We should treat this the same as a review. on hold for a week, if it doesn't pass, delist. Wrad 04:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What issues are remaining? There's not really a consensus to delist; there's at least four keeps (with a conditional keep that I reckon has been met). CloudNine 11:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, but what I meant to imply is that a consensus to delist was not obvious (especially as others have voted keep). CloudNine 16:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Cricket World Cup warm-up matches

Result: Delist 6-0; also GA does not handle lists.

(Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

I was doing the review of this article as a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force sweep. I do not believe that this article qualifies because I think that it is predominantly a list and should probably sent to FLC where necessary. The main substance of this piece is that there is a short section on the format of the warm up matches, and then a very large table of statistics and scoreboards. The tables far outweigh the actual prose in the article which actually discuss the actual cricket so I don't think that it is an article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Without statement of the article quality; GA just does not handle lists, and this is essentially a list article. WP:FLC is the proper place to go. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Agree with above. This is a list (a good one at that), and should be nominated at FLC. I don't think it'll have too much trouble being nominated there. Drewcifer 07:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist While I think this topic could conceivably be an article, its currently a list as far as I can tell. Homestarmy 02:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as writer of the article, I asked for a GA review as I really don't see much difference between this and the main article (2007 Cricket World Cup)... Is it just down to the amount of prose in it, or what? Not that I mind this being delisted too much (I'm abstaining due to the obvious COI, fyi), really. Cheers. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 03:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Needs more prose to be considered GA. Is really a list. - Shudde talk 04:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist purely on the basis of "improper venue" and suggest writers consider moving it to FLC - it seems that it would not take much work at all to improve to their criteria. Orderinchaos 09:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per above comments. Definitely seems like it belongs at WP:FLC rather then here. Rai-me 02:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderball (novel)

Result: 6 to 1, counting opinions elsewhere. Delist
Listing

Talk:Thunderball (novel)

Two fellows, Alientraveller and Awadewit seem to have forgotten the difference between a GA and an FA. Their demands are endless and have failed this article twice, saying that controversy section needs more sources (It has seven) and add this style section and that section. Bloody hell! Vikrant Phadkay 08:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL. Alientraveller 11:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But what about Awadewit comparing it with FAs? Is this called GA reviewing? Vikrant Phadkay 14:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse failureAnd the article does NOT meet GA standards for the following reasons:
  • Criteria 2 (b): In-line citations lacking from several ideas that beg them, as ONE example, (and there are more, so fixing this ONE will not fix the entire problem): "the Daily Express suddenly cancelled the strip (per Lord Beaverbrook) on February 10, 1962, when Beaverbrook and Fleming disputed the rights to the short story "The Living Daylights"." This is an interesting analysis of someone motivation. Statements of simple fact (X did Y) may not be challengable, but statments of analysis (X did Y because of Z) are challengable and require citations to sources where said analysis occured.
  • Criteria 3 (a): An article on a work of fiction that contains NO section on critical reception seems well below broadness. This was the central theme of Awadewit's failure notes. Awadewit didn't say she was comparing this article to FA standards and endorsing the failure based on that. Awadewit was giving some articles to use to model this article on. If your goal is to make this the best possible Wikipedia article it can be, you could do no better than to model the format of the articles she lists. But this seems to easily fail the broadness criteria if the information exists (Flemming is a well analyzed author; there is HEAPS of literary criticism on him, and that this article makes no use of it makes it fail 3 (a).)
  • Criteria 3 (b) or 1 (b-layout): While we're at it, the controversy section seems out of balance with the rest of the article. In the first case, it seems to be mostly about the controversy surrounding the production of the FILM, and thus really not belonging in the article on the NOVEL (thus being unneccessarily detailed per 3 (b) ) AND, what inforamtion is kept about the production of the film really belongs in the section on adaptations (per 1(b) and layout).
  • Criteria 1 (a); using correct grammar. Proper paragraph organization is part of good grammar. The second paragraph of the lead, for example, is about the film adaptations, then there is a random sentance about a plot device (SPECTRE)?
  • Criteria 1 (b-lead): The lead itself is NOT a true summary of the article. It omits parts of the article (no part of the plot summary appears in the lead) AND it introduces information not found in the actual article (HERE is the missing criticism. If its here, why is there no criticism section???)
Is that enough yet? This is well below GA standard, and continues to be after several reviews. In the state it is in at this time, it is not GA ready. I suggest making the above fixes and renominating at GAC. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay controversy

Result: List 3-0-1 (see also: [[Talk:Essjay controversy#GA|second opinion on talk page)

Nominated at WP:GAC by Kaypoh at 05:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC). I have done an initial review, and I think it mostly meets the criteria, with a couple of concerns. Primarily, this is a very controversial subject, and pertains to wikipedia itself, and I don't feel that one editor should make the decision alone to list this as a GA, nor do I want an inexperienced GA reviewer to quick-pass this article. Additionally, it should be noted that the article failed WP:FAC only about a week ago (here's the archive of that), though it's equally important to note that the FA criteria are still different than the GA criteria. Dr. Cash 23:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "Academics" section doesn't start by saying where specifically these academicians and students are, since the only sources are for England and America, that should probably be spelled out more explicitly. Homestarmy 00:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor has given their own opinion already saying it should probably pass, is there anything to do here? Might as well take off the hold if there's nothing... Homestarmy 03:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RevoPower

Result: 5 to 1, List as GA
RevoPower (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

The reason given on the talk page is very stand-offish, and doesn't actually explain how the article fails to meet WIAGA, just that the person who reviewed it didn't like it. The information in the article is as accurate as possible from reliable sources, and the reviewer offered absolutely no basis for their accusation of the article being an advertisement. The review offered absolutely no way the article could be improved, and pointed out no problems with sourcing other than apparently accusing the manufacturer of releasing fake specifications, and saying that a third party source is needed. The reviewer offered absolutely no reason why these sources were unreliable, or where reliable sources could be found. The reviewer additionally said that there was too much speculation, but didn't actually show any speculation, looking it over myself there is no speculation that isn't backed up by what the company says, and even the shortest look at WP:CBALL shows that speculation is in opinions and original research, not in future events. The review reeks of WP:IDONTLIKETHECOMPANY, not that the article itself doesn't actually meet the requirements for being a good article. Now, obviously if it wasn't worthy of being a good article, I wouldn't want it to be one, but the review gives absolutely no reason why the article doesn't meet the GA Criteria, except barely touching on reliable sources, only to say that the company isn't reliable enough to give the specifications and motivations behind their own product. Going through the GACR, 1 I feel is met, there are probably a couple errors but nothing that couldn't be spent by having a couple more sets of eyes look it over, 2 is the only thing the reviewer seemed to touch on, but again everything in the article is sourced, with nothing controversial that would make a primary source unacceptable, 3 I also feel is met, given that the article covers the major aspects of it, even though it is short, because there isn't much to say, 4 I also feel is met, although the reviewer disagreed and called it little more than an advertisement, without actually saying what was written like an advertisement, 5 is definitely met, I think there's been one vandal in the entire time the article has been up, and that was a bit of NPOV OR, no page blanking, most contributions to the article are minor things, like fixing acronyms and such, 6 is definitely met given the high quality photograph of the object that the company donated. I really wouldn't mind this article failing if someone gave a decent reason as to why it didn't meet the requirements, and didn't personally attack other editors in their review. If someone could give a decent reason as to how the article itself has problems that couldn't be quickly fixed, I'd be fine with it, not statements about the thing itself. lucid 05:04, 1 September 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#RevoPower|Good article review]] as the section heading.
  • Changing to keep or list (whatever's appropriate, can't remember) per the work done to diversify sources. It was never my contention that this particular company was making erroneous claims, just that that can be the perception, thus if something is declared good, it should have the best, independent, sources available. Thanks for your work here and sorry I wasn't more help, I have been on a semi-wikibreak, mostly discussing a few things and working on some stuff in my user space that isn't quite ready for the limelight yet. : ) IvoShandor 06:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The burden is on you to prove the source is reliable, its neutrality is disputed here, it would be best if you just brought some independent sources, they shouldn't be too hard to find I would think. Since you ignored this part of what I wrote: There is also absolutely no indication who authored the material, most likely a PR rep. The article is primarily based on this self published source as well, which is directly in violation of the section of WP:V you have linked above. I have reposted it for you here, this alone is enough reason to oppose the use of the source. As for assertion, I meant assertions, as in statements of fact that are cited within the article. I wasn't questioning the notability. Why are you linking to WP:NPA in your edit summary. I didn't attack you at all, I looked at the article and the source and made a comment about it. If that's a personal attack, then I don't know what to say. IvoShandor 09:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, just balance out the sources with more independent ones, and the use of the company website becomes no problem. When the entire article is based on it though there is no way to know whether any of information has ever been confirmed independently, or fact checked. IvoShandor 09:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as showing the source is reliable goes, I'd have to say that keeping in the company's specifications because everything else has higher MPG is a pretty good sign that they aren't making their stuff seem better than it is. Anyway, I've added more secondary sources, there's still a few more out there but they don't have much new, or are borderline reliable/notable (see the talk page for one), and removed some stuff that wasn't really needed and only really linked to the company's page. It's fairly well balanced now-- the FAQ is still used a lot, but it's needed to give a broad scope of the Wheel. --lucid 13:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure if i'm looking at the right section, but when I see the latest GA nomination failed heading, it sure looks like the reviewer gave several legitimate reasons for failure, such as the article reading like an advertisement, among other things. Not even commenting on the accuracy of the review, I really don't think the basis given for starting this GA/R is accurate at all. Homestarmy 16:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the accuracy of the review is the entire point. --lucid 16:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said that the review "doesn't actually explain how the article fails to meet WIAGA, just that the person who reviewed it didn't like it. ", but the only review I see nearest to the bottom doesn't appear to be like that at all, quite the contrary really, there seem to be several WIAGA-relevant objections. Homestarmy 16:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant, maybe, explanatory no. Saying "it reads like an advertisement" without actually providing something that reads like an advertisement, or saying that the sources are unreliable without actually showing where a source is wrong, or at the least contentious enough to not be reliable is little more than saying "I don't like it, here's a few blanket statements that could be said about any article without anything to back them up, that way they can't be disproven" --lucid 16:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see then. While I don't agree that specific examples of deficiencies in articles always have to be specified, I guess I can see how you could interpret his review to be meaningless. I'll give the article a closer look. Homestarmy 02:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Comment Well, reading the article, I don't think it really is an advertisment. It just appears that way because what's there is mostly positive in nature, though I don't think its written in a non-neutral way, its just that all the facts about the subject presented here are fairly positive. Lucid, is this really all the material available on this subject? No criticism or anything else? Homestarmy 02:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. It's unreleased, so about the only criticism is people on message boards, which is obviously WP:UNDUE and not an RS. The closest thing to criticism is PopSci showing a meter from "Loafer" to "Lance" on the RevoPower article, with the arrow pointing to "Loafer", but that's not much of a criticism really, not to mention it can't really be cited because it's not in text. It did make a pretty big sweep through the blogosphere awhile back, one of them might have some criticism, but even the more popular blogs are generally not reliable sources. Of course, once it is released, it will probably get a surge of media attention, and I can look around then. If it's as popular as they're hoping for (100,000 units in the first 6 months, I think, I don't have the exact quote here) it wouldn't be surprising to see a bunch of towns passing laws and telling people they are/aren't ok and such on it, like those electric RAZOR scooters that were so popular a couple years back, or pocket rockets, or Segways, or any number of other weird transportation things that have come up in the past few years. Of course, if it gets in magazines that get to review it I'm sure there will be plenty of criticism, not to mention people complaining about how it's 'eliminating the point of biking' or something to that effect if it really catches on. I'm already thinking about the future of the article to be honest, I figure there will probably be a "Legality" and "Reception" section once it's released, and probably a new section for new types of wheels, as they are released (the four-stroke, hybrid, etc. models they mention) --lucid 04:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Hungary

Result: 5 to 1, Delist. Also, despite being a late archive, the article content doesn't seem to of changed much.
Music of Hungary (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GAR, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

A good majority of the popular music section contains original research, I wasn't sure if this was enough to be delisted. This with all the other Music of X articles were primarily written by User:TUF-KAT who has since left. T Rex | talk 11:34, 24 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#Music of Hungary|Good article review]] as the section heading.

Weak delist - Certainly not beyond help. The popular music sections in particular need some formatting and referencing. Drewcifer3000 16:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Unless someone takes the initiative and fixes the referencing issues. At the moment, it doesn't meet criteria. On another note, it's good to see the new template being used *feels special* :) Giggy\Talk 06:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - the lead section is also a mess. PrinceGloria 08:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Stubby sections, unsourced info, external jumps and the citations need formatting. LuciferMorgan 12:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Intro seems to have been fixed up. Good enough for GA, just fix up the pop culture. Wrad 04:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm undecided on this. There's a lot of good stuff well set out in it but I have a couple of scope and potential OR issues. What would make me move into the keep camp would be the following.

Delist - Lead needs to be trimmed, there is information (as noted above) that needs citation, sources need to be consistently formatted, I'm not sure why bullets are being used in the Popular music section, but that needs to be worked into paragraphs. There were some other little minor things, but I fixed them myself. LaraLove♥ 17:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ stuff
  2. ^ and junk
More