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 36) Good article reassessment (archive) (Page 34) →

Peterborough local elections

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page
Result: No GAR action, but all parties support relisting the article at GAN, with the original reviewer placing the article on hold until concerns are addressed. Geometry guy 19:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with decision not to list this as a good article, as per comments at Talk:Peterborough local elections#Good article nomination (3). Chrisieboy (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand why since you said it wouldn't take long to implement the fixes. Nev1 (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although it should not be taken as an indication; the history of the article showed reluctance to improve via GA review notes, as with Mouse nightshirt 's review.Λua∫Wise (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why bring it up if it should not be taken as an indication that it won't improve during the hold period? Although I would have liked to have seen the article being improved and the points you raised during the assessment addressed whilst it's here. Nev1 (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think the diffs between GANs demonstrate a "reluctance to improve" the article and many of the earlier reviewer's comments have in fact been addressed. However, I do not agree with some of the objections that have been raised in this review.

In particular, (1) the statement Although the powers of the Mayor have diminished over time, the role has retained its importance is hardly controversial and the very next sentence is followed by a ref. which supports the whole paragraph. I do not think this is just cause to fail under criteria 2a. (2) A list of civil parishes is not "unnecessesary detail" in an article about local elections. Parish councils are elected; and (3) I cannot accept that "it does not represent viewpoints fairly and without bias. Please consider rewriting the political control section." I have taken great care, in tone and use of language, to present the material in an encyclopedic manner here.

I believe the article meets the six criteria and therefore support it's listing; although I welcome the opportunity for discussion and resolution here. At a minimum I think it would have been only fair to have placed the nomination on hold. Chrisieboy (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I did not point to diffs, but actually to the fact the article has been on GAN for so long, and that based on a previous reviewer's experience (put it on hold for a week, but no one stepped forward to correct the problem(s) ), I thought it would be better to fail it, with the clear assumption that no one was looking after it... and yeah, apparently there were people looking after the article, proving my assumption was wrong. Anyway, how much the article has improved since its last GAN? Has anyone tried to address my concerns? and more importantly: Do you think it deserves GA status?? I think we should answer these questions before we point fingers at the "inexperienced editor".
Second, (1) I still think this important phrase needs sourcing, so that you do not get people on your back demanding its removal, it is clearly a POV, do not you agree? (2) A list of perishes could be put in a table perhaps (I NEVER said it was an unnecessary detail, but rather shortening it and making it more relevant) to make it neater, or might I dare saying putting it in a different article with a link (if there is no article already). (3) You did a great job there, but here is my concern : 

 Cllr. Abdul Razaq (Central)...... Cabinet Member for Efficiency and Business Improvement.

That paragraph might need a bit of work there. Also, other point which I have mentioned in the review:(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; Fail, The article should provide a broader historical background and relate more to the public and local sentiment

Kind regards; Λua∫Wise (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Auawise, are you willing to put the article back on hold if Chrisieboy undertakes to work on the article over the next few days, fixing issues that you raise? Geometry guy 10:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Auawise's remarks, clearly I do think the article deserves GA status, as I have already said. I think the diffs show considerable improvement and many of the previous reviewer's comments have indeed been taken on board. I do not agree that the phrase regarding the mayor's role is expressing a point of view in any way whatsoever and I do not think that the section Political Control needs rewriting in the way that has been suggested. I also feel that the section Local Government gives the "broad historical background" that the reviewer finds lacking. Chrisieboy (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answer- I have nothing against the article or the contributer(s) but respect, having said that, the answer to your question is "yes", I mean, why would you assume that I will do anything to stop it from being a GA? This is not true! you know what? Just leave it the same way I found it and I will list it as a GA right now (of course if you agree)!! Λua∫Wise (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, it would be a pity simply to return it to GAN, given the long delays that are likely. This is why I suggested that it be put on hold by Auawise, with problems being addressed by Chrisieboy and others. However, if Chrisieboy thinks it should already be a pass and is therefore reluctant to fix the article, then my recommendation will be instead to endorse the fail and suggest renomination at GAN. Geometry guy 20:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That would be my preferred option if others are in agreement. I am willing to have some dialogue and to try to reach a consensus though. It is clear to me that Auawise has acted in good faith. I am not suggesting this is suitable for FAC, but it is essentially a good article. Given the dynamic nature of this project and the subject-matter it will continue to evolve even if promoted. Chrisieboy (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we seem to have reached an agreement. If Chrisieboy gives us his word that he would improve the article, then I think we should take his word and make the article a GA right now, and skip the on hold period. If you agree Geometry guy and Nev1, I would urge Chrisieboy to relist the article and I will pass it. Regards Λua∫Wise (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread my comment above: I am not in favour of skipping the hold. However, if the article is renominated, then this is no longer a matter for GAR, and I will archive this discussion. Geometry guy 12:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, relist and put on hold? Λua∫Wise (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I think should happen. Nev1 (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yuna (Final Fantasy)

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page
Result: Consensus achieved, article delisted. Malkinann (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not meet the following criteria:

Link to the article when it was promoted to GA. Kariteh (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Apologies for the delay in listing this at GAR. This is due to downtime at the toolserver. Geometry guy 21:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Finns

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page
Result: Delist. The up-to-date comments all raise GA issues with this article which have not been addressed. Geometry guy 20:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too short lead. The "Swedish-speaking Finns" is tagged with ((contradicts)). BorgQueen (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've removed the ((contradicts)) tag, as I fail to see any contradiction here. Also expanded the lead to two paragraphs, as required by the GA guide. Martintg (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for wrongly blaming you. BTW, are you satisfied with the lead section? --MPorciusCato (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the lead looks quite okay now, in my view. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contradiction fixed now Narayanese (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the references, they all seem reliable (its publications and goverment sites), except perhaps number one (uses language to determine ethic group). The bits about Finland Swedes (sections Swedish-speaking Finns and Terminology) are largely backed up by references in the Swedish-speaking Finns article, and the Genetics of the Swedish-speaking Finns section explains why the Finland Swedes are included in the infobox. However, the bits about Wiik needs a reference (the one ref in there doesn't mention Wiik), and the ref for the number of Finns in Sweden is a political motion, it doesn't even mention a number! (another of the sources in the Finns article says over 450,000). Also, Subdivisions section lack refernces entirely. Narayanese (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mimicry

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page
Result: Delist. Substantial arguments have been put forward that the article does not meet the broadness/conciseness criterion. No counterarguments have been put forward. Geometry guy 21:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article I've contributed to a lot myself last year and hope to continue with. It was listed as a GA while I was away from Wikipedia over the summer and I was pretty surprised to see it listed. I had rated it myself as a start, and while I wouldn't necessarily object to a B class rating I don't feel it's GA material yet. There are a few areas that are missing in terms of coverage, and others that are probably covered in too much depth. Most of the article is on classification and only a little deals with evolutionary and theoretical aspects (signalling theory, modelling etc). I think we need to get a stable set of daughter articles first, then prune off some of the content and expand on other areas. After that a peer review would be desirable, then it might be reasonable to seek GA status, but I don't think it lives up to its current assessment. Richard001 (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, I'm glad that you're working on this article and that you feel it is too short, because you seem to be pretty well-versed in the subject matter. However, there is no such thing as a perfect article. GA is supposed to be about 60-80% as good as a featured article, which still isn't a perfect article. Is near enough good enough? -Malkinann (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from WhatamIdoing:

Richard001, I understand that this article isn't all that you hope it will eventually be. The official six GA criteria are:

  1. It is well written.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
  4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
  5. It is stable.
  6. It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images.

In your opinion, which of these criteria are not met by the article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Richard's objections are that the article is not sufficiently broad, and that the portion of the article dealing with classification is overdetailed - criteria 3a and 3b, although he hasn't put it like that. -Malkinann (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3 would be the main one. It could also certainly be written better, and I have no doubt a specialist could find at least a couple of factual problems with it. It's also not very stable, though recently I haven't been editing much so I guess right now it's fairly stable. The images are good enough for GA, though we could still improve the media more (video and audio would make it excellent). Richard001 (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Reach

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page
Result: Delist Geometry guy 21:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this for GA almost a year ago. My main concern is that it fails criterion 2 (b) - particularly reliable sources. The use of George Starostin [1], Mark Prindle [2] and this website suggest that the article is using opinion pieces as though they were fact. The main problem is this - can Mark Prindle and George Starostin be considered professional music reviewers? That's what it comes down to. From the style of Prindle's writing, you'd think not, although he appears to be notable as a person (although that's distinct from making him a reliable source). Starostin's writing is much more coherent but he's notable as a lingustics professor and not for his amateur music reviews, despite being prolific at them.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loituma Girl

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page
Result: Delist. Geometry guy 21:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article fails:

Criteria 1: much of the Commercialization section is about the song, not the animation
Criteria 2: many facts are unsourced

For these reasons, I believe this article should be delisted. --Jedravent (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should all just be merged into Ievan Polkka?--SeizureDog (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's survived a deletion attempt. But it does not seem to be of GA quality. --Jedravent (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD was no consensus, so you could still try merging, as long as you leave a redirect. Geometry guy 12:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Girl in the Fireplace

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page
Result: List as GA. While the review raised several issues, and the article did not meet the GA criteria at the time, the issues were fairly minor, and the article has been improved in the light of this and comments here. It now seems unreasonable to require it to be renominated and the consensus is to list it as a good article. Geometry guy 19:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was up at WP:GAN and failed by User:Auawise on the following conditions:

I have never seen a plot section needing to be sourced, even in FAs of TV episodes- pick any one, eg. "Homer's Phobia". Secondly, seeing as images are routinely removed from tv episodes for being "too numerous", I hardly see how having one fair use image is "bad". David Fuchs (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC criteria do not, and should not be considered when assessing and article for it's status, other then that NFCC criteria are met. Good/Featuerd Artices are assessed solely on their content, not to encourage/discourage use of the type of media. As long as fair use is permitted on Wikipedia, article are not checked for including fair use media. In fact, most featured articles include non-free media. — Edokter • Talk • 13:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My objection to the previous assessment is that part of the reason this article was rejected was lack of images. The assessor seemed to want images for the sake of having imgages, and there are very clear barriers to this article increasing it's images, ie the WP:NFC, and I do not feel this was taken into account. Fasach Nua (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. Well written?: Not completely; e.g. the first sentence does not even mention the number of the episode.
2. Factually accurate?: Fail; The Plot section has no references at all (please note that I recognize the difficulty of finding resources for this section)
3. Broad in coverage?: Questionable; e.g. The episode must relate more to other Doctor Who episodes.
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Fail, one image only used with the infobox
Other criteria exist.
First, I admit that I have made a mistake with the image criteria. Second; How can a reader be sure of the plot without sourcing? I can go right now and start an article about an episode that it is entirely the work of my imagination, how can you be sure that it is true? I know and I have expressed my understanding of the difficultly of finding suitable resources, and you can see that in point number 2.This is an encyclopedia, and you can not be the source. The 're-nominator' took part of my review and made it sound as if it was bad judgment, Please see the entire review; he did not even bother to copy the link to the review or at least the criteria on which I, as a reviewer, failed this article. Regards. Λua∫Wise (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the disputed fair-use rationale for the image is the only clear-cut reason to have failed the article. The other reasons you've listed are either minor (such as episode number) or subjective (plot section has no references).
In retrospect, it may have been better to have placed the review on GA Hold rather than summarily failing the article. All of these issues may have been resolved by asking the editors to address these concerns. Just a suggestion - not a criticism. Keep up the good work. Majoreditor (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Auawise has reviewed the article as requested, and performed a compotent job in doing so. There have been significant improvements in this article since the review, however the version of the article that was submitted for a GA review failed to meet the standard. I fail to see why the editors of this article cannot accept this review, treat it as the constructive feedback it was, and which has lead to the recent improvements in this article. If they feel the new version of this article meets the GA criteria, then there is nothing to stop them resubmitting it,but the review on the old version remains valid Fasach Nua (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree that the old review remains valid - there is a clear consensus here that sources are not needed for the plot of episodes, which was one of the reasons given for failing the article. On the "significant improvements" - some, such as the putting of the episode number in the title, were as a direct result of the old review, but others are as a result of the reassessment procedure. Sometimes, GA re-assessors edit the articles boldly to help bring them up to speed on issues. Copyediting is one of the biggies, because it's hard for someone who has been constantly working on an article to see the grammar niggles. I see Geometry guy's done some copyediting, and that the lead has expanded a bit, (probably to help bring it in line with WP:LEAD) but that's not changed the bulk of the article - the changes are not significant enough to warrant renomination, I think. diff FA does not stand for "frozen article", neither should GAR. -Malkinann (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Malkinann is correct. GAR focuses on an article's current version. Majoreditor (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page
Result: Endorse fail. The review was supported, and the article needs a good copyeditor. Geometry guy 20:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Failed because of

  1. a (prose): b (MoS):

"Sorry, the prose is terrible"

Articles should really not be immediately failed on prose and MoS mistakes, especially trivialities such as accidentally leaving in an "and" or using "on" instead of "with" - proven by the fact it took me only nine minutes to fix the objections. As I've written GAs and FAs before, (hell, one episode passed FAC last week) I do know the quality of prose that's required for GA/FAs. Will (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will, I understand your point about failing the article versus placing it on hold. Some reviewers take different courses of action. In any case there were legitimate criterion #1 concerns which kept the article from passing outright. You may want to continue to sharpen the prose and address MoS concerns -- and then re-nominate the article.
I'm unsure of what to say about the length of the plot summary other than (a) it does seem long, given the article's length, and (b) guidelines on plot summary aren't always followed. Majoreditor (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a "plotectomy" - the plot summary is now under eight words a minute (574 words/71.9 minutes). Will (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't this: "The Doctor also uses the catchphrase allons-y in the episode, a running gag originating in "Army of Ghosts", where he muses that he should use the phrase more often, particularly if he met someone called Alonzo, so that he could say "Allons-y Alonzo".[10]" be better suited for the Army of Ghosts article? -Malkinann (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC) +:The running gag does get uses a lot (definition of one, I suppose) during the third series. He actually does use the phrase "allons-y alonzo" in the episode. Will (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way it's written, "where he muses", implies that the Allons-y Alonzo musings cropped up in Army of Ghosts, not in Voyage of the Damned. As such, all the Alonzo stuff would be better suited to Army of Ghosts, not here, and it should simply read "The Doctor also uses the catchphrase allons-y in the episode, a running gag originating in "Army of Ghosts".[ref]" -Malkinann (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The episode also includes several references to outside the show's fictional universe: Most notably, the episode is dedicated to Verity Lambert, Doctor Who's founding producer, who died a day before the show's forty-fourth anniversary. Why the capitalized "M" following the colon?
  • The scene in general had to be carefully manufactured due to health and safety concerns, in particular, some shots in the forklift truck needed a stunt double as Minogue did not have the adequate license. This sentence is complex and awkward.
  • The song is loosely based on the episode, from the captain's point of view regarding the Doctor. Not the sharpest of prose.
The article will pass GA if it has the benefit of additional copy editing. However, GA review isn't the best forum for fixing articles. Consider re-nominating after the issues are addressed. Majoreditor (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, in my opinion, the prose is essentially the only remaining problem with the article, apart from (perhaps) a few very minor examples of OR by synthesis (e.g., were the host "reprogrammed" or just "programmed"?). I'm sorry that this review is a bit brutal: good luck improving the article. Geometry guy 11:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does it look now? Will (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its still being edited. I endorse fail because there are too many grammar and punctuation errors, I understand it is only human to make mistakes but this article needs to be polished (literaly!) before it can go up for GA status again.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Have you thought about listing it at WP:LoCE? -Malkinann (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse fail - I would say this is a tough one to call, but overall, it is a fail. Problems pointed out by the reviewer should have been corrected and the article relisted at GAN, NOT GAR-which is put there for a reason folks!- Cheers. Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 16:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planetes

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: Delist. bibliomaniac15 23:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to have passed GA in 2006, but that version did not meet the GA criteria, nor does this one. It is not well-written, is badly formatting and does not follow the Anime/Manga MOS, is not well sourced and appears to contain a lot of OR , and it has an excessive amount of non-free images added for decoration purposes. At best, it is a B quality article, but it needs more work to be a GA and I feel it should be delisted because of this. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the plus side, the character descriptions really are that, and not plot summaries of what each one did. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Ivan

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: No action. Geometry guy 23:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article, despite reaching A class in the past, was strewn with grammar problems, red links, no consistent reference format when I found it on February 1. While it has improved since then due to the efforts of a couple editors, I'm not quite certain we've improved it enough to meet GA standards nowadays. Any comments pro or con GA status for this article would be appreciated. If it no longer meets standards, please comment as to what needs to be fixed, in your view. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • MoS concerns: Full stops are used for image captions despite caption not being a full sentence. There are also issues with sandwiching of images and tables.
  • Reference concern: Retirement section needs to be sourced.
 Done Thegreatdr (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broadness concern: impact on areas such as Venezuela, Cayman Islands, Jamaica and others is apparently substantial enough to warrant headers, but these areas do not receive coverage in “Aftermath” section.
ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acamprosate

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: Delist. This could have been individually delisted. It manifestly fails many criteria, e.g. WP:LEAD as well as the issues below. Geometry guy 23:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My main concerns are that the article broad enough and that it goes into unnecessary detail. Specifically, the section detailing the results of a single study is too much detail for an encyclopedia, and was recommended for removal with the original GA comments. Without that section, the entire article is only three paragraphs long, one of which is a quote from the FDA. While there's no rule against GA stubs, but I'm sure this subject could be significantly expanded. --jwandersTalk 06:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dante's Cove

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: GAR was unnecessary for this: as detailed below, it manifestly fails the criteria and could simply have been delisted. Geometry guy 23:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO fails 3)broad in its coverage. A)Links to the episodes article but Does not have a synopsis of episodes. Should be written in summary style. B)WP:UNDUE to "The Religion of Tresum" and "Saint". Tags had been added to the article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Lead does not adequately summarize the article (WP:LEAD). Saint and Religion of Tresum are entirely in-universe(WP:IN-U).
2. Heavy reliance on primary sources (violation of WP:V/WP:RS). No reviews at rotten tomatoes apparently resulted in this statement: “Formal reviews for Dante's Cove have been light and the series has failed to attract enough reviewers at Rotten Tomatoes to date to garner a rating”, which is, at best, synthesis (i.e. OR) and statements such as “Whether this establishes that the two series are indeed set in the same location remains unclear” also appear to be OR.
3. Broadness concerns: no explanation of typical plot, situations or storyline; episodes is not expanded upon; and statements such as “the cast and crew of the two shows socialized during the shoot” are unnecessary detail and not relevant to the topic (summary style violation).
6. Fair use tags for DVD images are entirely scant and inadequate. Additionally, minimal use is required per WP:FUC (i.e. at most one can be used to a depict a DVD cover). We can only use fair use if exclusion would be a detriment to understanding the article; this article is not about the DVD releases.
It’s concerning that the reviewer left minimal comments and didn’t even leave a signature. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been bounced around in the GA process for months. I wonder if you have any notion just how discouraging it's been watching this article get ignored, failed for basically nothing, relisted, delisted, contradicted, on this near-endless cycle. Great Wikipedia experience. Thanks to everyone concerned. Otto4711 (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hillsboro Civic Center

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: Listed by reviewer. Geometry guy 23:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Going by the inexperience of the reviewer and their follow up responses, I feel the reviewer is not as familiar as is needed with GA criteria. Thus I do think this meets GA criteria and should not have been failed. See above remarks for further details. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Reference to remarks is on the article's talk page, and the original reviewer has withdrawn their assessment. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That said -- the article is well constructed and come darn close to passing. Many GA reviewers would have placed the article on hold, allowing Aboutmovies the opportunity to address concerns. I'm sorry if I digress from discussing the merits of the article, but it's worth noting that GA-Hold is a good tool to employ in these circumstances. Majoreditor (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the comments. I think I've addressed the issues raised and will re-list at GA. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Garci scandal

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page
Result: Delist. Majoreditor (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this article for GA status on 2006 but sadly it's quality went downhill since there are lots of maintainance tags. --Howard the Duck 05:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I've followed the archiving instructions (I think) and am crossing my fingers ..... Majoreditor (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preity Zinta

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: List as GA per WP:SNOW and following comments from failing reviewer: “I recognize that this is a very good article. I know many now support it. I think it is GA in many respects. I have no problem if it gets promoted against my fail". ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I am sort of an uninvolved party here, just starting this Good article reassessment on behalf of the others involved. I had initially provided a sort of "Pre-GA review review" on the article's talk page, I didn't want to review the article myself because I had been requested to do it, and because I didn't want to skip ahead of other GA candidates. My Pre-GA review notes are still on the article's talk page. TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) did his own GA review, put the article on hold, and then failed it, for lack of Western reviews of Preity Zinta's work. (I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just summarizing what occurred). I'd like for some other traditional GA Reviewers to take a look, because a few of the editors who were working on the article disagree with the GA Review. Cirt (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note. The reviewer asked to add reviews from The New York Times. I added one. But there are no others. He kept on asking for "well respected Western newspapers".
A) This requirement is not supported by the WP:WIAGA criteria.
B) I can't invent them. I found only one NYT review describing her performance in the film Salaam Namaste (which makes its presence on the article) and nothing else.
Apart from that, all the refs are reliable (mostly Indian newspapers, and leading websites), reviews are representative and represent the majority view; there is one NYT review (the only I could find. There are no other reviews. What can I do?) and two reviews from Variety.
Why should I care for Westerners/Easterners? Nobody said that she's an international superstar. She is an Indian actor, not an American one. She works in the Indian film industry. Using reviews from Indian newspapers, is pretty obvious. It is important to present representative comments by critics from well respected newspapers, regardless of what country they are published in. The Times of India, The Hindu, The Tribune, Rediff -- all of them are reliable and well respected, not less than American newspapers. And there are three Western reviews. Shahid • Talk2me 17:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't much like your statement "why should I care for westerners". You state many times in the article that certian films were internationally successful and if so you are going to have to include one or two American reviews to try to get an even coverage of it (which you have and as it is I think it is fine, I thought you wanted to remove any whatsoever). The majority though should quite rightly be Indian reviews and the Times of India should be regarded as a sort of Indian euqivalent to a source as reputable as the NY Times. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 17:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I said "Why should I care for Westerners/Easterners?" and by saying that, I mean that it doesn't matter who the reader is. The matter is that there is a reader and he does understand the matter, regardless of what country he comes from. As you yourslf said, would anybody on the Angelina Jolie article expect to see reviews from Indian newspapers?
Secondly, there are Western reviews. Two from Variety and one from NYT, the only I could find.
The fact that several of her films did well internationally, doesn't make them American or Western. The films are Indian, and it is expected to add Indian reviews. But just for the record, Kal Ho Naa Ho, Veer-Zaara and Salaam Namaste (Bollywood's top-grossing films overseas), all of them are accompanied by Western reviews: Variety, Variety and the NY Times, respectively. Shahid • Talk2me 18:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think your're misinterpreting what I am saying and vice versa. I fully agree that the vast majority of sources should be Indian as long as they are reputable sources. I thought you were disagreeing about using any western or eastern reviews at all even for the internationally released films and were thinking about removing them. As I said, as it is, the proportion of reviews is exactly as I think it should be and it would be silly to try to use more American reviews in comparison. I see you were talking about readers rather than reviews of which I fully agree with you and think it is extremely important to not write the article specifically for somebody in the west or east. Wikipedia is global and this view that it should be written for an American is not valid. Sorry to chip in Shahid ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 18:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
That's exactly what I say. I can't invent them. I found one NYT review and added it. Your note is precise, western sources would be a nice supplement, and that's what I did; I added two from Variety, and one from NYT. What else can I do if there aren't any other? And in fact, she is an Indian actor who works in the Indian film industry, the obvious thing is to add comments by Indian critics. Shahid • Talk2me 18:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By saying "stacked refs" - I mean, multiple sources in one footnote. The case is that some sources were cited to backup the same claim, so I collected them into one footnote. I thought, instead of having a [1][2][3] it's better to have only [1]. Please see ref number 7 in the article. So is it prohibited? Shahid • Talk2me 14:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what's going on. Although I don't know of explicit prohibition, I don’t know of precedent either; it certainly seems to be against “house style”. I think I’m with Tony on this one; it posses certain organizational and consistency concerns. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will format. Shahid • Talk2me 16:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. But it looks a bit loaded (She was ranked second for the subsequent three years.[86][87][88]) Is it really a big deal, putting more than one source within an individual footnote? Shahid • Talk2me 17:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red XN not done. At least two refs remain stacked (with multiple citations in a single ref). There should rarely be as many as three refs follow a single punctuation mark. You may want to reorganize the article. However, since I only see one triple ref point in the article it may be O.K. The fact that you had to unstack some refs means the article as it was was not supported. Thus, this GAR should fail. However, with minor modifications it might pass.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I continue to believe that the majority of the following words should be linked (this was the original list): single mother (seems to be linked twice later in the same paragraph), heroine, columnist, car accident, Los Angeles (using ((city-state))), commissioned officer, Indian Army, literature, basketball, boarding school, psychology, criminal psychology, modeling, audition, commercials, catalogs, middle class, fiancee, Delhi, poetry, screen time, lead actress, Killer, critic, prejudice, reporter, protagonist, junta, accolade (transwiki), patriotic, hospital, ensemble cast, affair, Telethon, humanitarian, Blood donation, army base, temple, and paranoia.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, stacked references do not constitute a sufficient reason to fail a GAN, when actually there isn't a formal prohibition. I will finish tomorrow. As for the words, I'll ask Sandy for her opinion. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 00:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now Green tickY Done! Shahid • Talk2me 18:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the refs are no longer stacked after these edits: [3] [4] [5]. They were part of the fail. Do you have any further comment on the linking which by itself would not be a reason to fail, but which was an issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has not been addressed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the lead is very important, and I expect this is an issue that could be fixed with a single sentence. Geometry guy 20:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that as a GA reviewer, when I note that this article fails to give a comprehensive explanation of the actresses critical recognition in the first paragraph as almost all other positively reviewed actress articles do, that adversely affected my review decision. I like the article and wanted to pass it. There were too many suggestions that I thought could have been addressed that weren't for me to do so, but I continue to acknowledge as I did in the review that many would pass it with few changes. I am just saying I did not flip a coin and say well I guess I should fail her. There were many things that could arguably be done to improve the article. I still think it remains underlinked, I think the lead fails as noted above. I recognize that this is a very good article. I know many now support it. I think it is GA in many respects. I have no problem if it gets promoted against my fail.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 09:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my own personal opinion, the solution to this issue, and the related issue of multiple footnotes citing different parts of the same source, is to use separate "Notes" and "References" sections as described by WP:CITE#Shortened notes. This is mildly encouraged by WP:Footnotes#Style recommendations, but is certainly not a GA requirement! Geometry guy 20:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure you are aware of the problem. Separating notes and refs is not the answer to this problem. These are all citations (to the best of my recollection). Think about a single point that is supported by multiple ((cite news)) or ((cite web)) citations. The question is whether it is Kosher to do something like this: <ref>((cite web))((cite web))((cite web))</ref>. I call this stacked refs. I.E., a single ref with citations stacked in it. No one seems to have any policy guidance. I would like to know what is preferred because as mentioned above I have my own concerns with an article I am authoring because if stacking is preferred I have to rework the last paragraph at Joanne Gair.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 09:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand the problem, and I believe that "stacking" is neither preferred nor discouraged. Sometimes it is helpful, sometimes not. Concerning notes and refs, I agree that this is not the answer, but it is one approach that can help, as long as the citations have author and year information: your example then becomes e.g. <ref>See (Tiger, 2006), (Guy, 2007) and (Georgia, 2008).</ref> with the cite web templates in the references (or possibly external links) section. But I digress. Geometry guy 09:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, when the Intelligent design article was recently in FAR, it looks like what had been a string of 6 references, one after another, at the end of a sentence has since been "stacked" into 2, and that the article remained an FA thereafter. So, on that basis, I guess there is cause to say that stacking references isn't a necessary impediment to GA, or even FA, status. And, although my own judgement regarding this article is clearly open to quetion, and I might be counted as an involved party, I can't see any reason not to give it GA status. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "policy" guidance I know of. Named refs cannot be combined, so successive refs are inevitable on a large article with named refs, but having more than two or three successive refs tends to look "unstylish" to some. This has been noted at FAC before, for instance: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Islam/archive2. Gimmetrow 19:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you say named refs can not be combined, I think you are supporting unstacking. Please clarify.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the article looking at the sources and tried to find a few more myself. I think the article makes excellent use of English language sources, and provides a good sprinkling of international sources where relevant, but I have a few suggestions. First, there is a large Indian community in the UK, and several of the films have been successful there. It may be that UK based media are a good place to look for international sources. I also wonder if there was any Australian reaction to Salaam Namaste. Having said this, my own search for a UK review of Kal Ho Naa Ho found a New York Times review, and my search for an Australian review of Salaam Namaste found a BBC review! (The latter might be useful: I can probably retrieve the link if you don't find it.) Geometry guy 20:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have all the links to all the reviews, thank you. The Kal Ho Naa Ho NYT reviewer almost does not comment on Zinta's performance. As for BBC -- all the BBC reviews are written by Indian critics and journalists. It is a special section on the site monitored by Indians. She even once won a "Best Actrerss" poll at BBC film cafe. See her awards page. But the review is poorly written, and there is no detailed comment about her performance. It only says that she and her film co-star played the role convincingly. I also looked for some Australian reviews for Salaam Namaste, but did not find unfortunately, but I added a NYT review so it's great. BTW, Kal Ho Naa Ho, Salaam Namaste, Veer Zaara were the top-grossing Bollywood productions of their respective years in the overseas market. The BBC also comments about:
  • Her performance in Armaan, "Gracy Singh gives a pleasant performance but somewhat gets over shadowed by the superb acting of Priety Zinta." - but I can't add that because it's a bit unfair isn't it?
  • Her performance in KANK, "Preity Zinta too gives her best. Watching her in the scene where she confronts Rani during the wedding reception makes you realise how excellent she is as an actress."
Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 22:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have it well covered: as I said, my own efforts were rather unsuccessful, but I'm glad if they were a small help! What I really wanted to find was not a review but another profile piece on Zinty in a reliable international source. Instead I found an unreliable UK fansite! Sigh. The internet owes a huge debt to Wikipedia, and it is not paying it! Geometry guy 22:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my view these minor issues are not significant enough to prevent listing this article as a good article. I hope that the suggestions made by the reviewer and in this discussion are appreciated, and will be considered: this does not mean following all suggestions, but considering them in the light of improving the article. Since the reviewer has indicated that he has "no problem if it gets promoted", I believe that this discussion can be closed fairly soon. Geometry guy 22:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please give more examples of bad prose? Shahid • Talk2me 12:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure: the following are just my opinion; if you take the article to FAC, you may receive more extensive and professional copyediting advice.
  • The lead: the last sentence of the first paragraph "Following this,..." (what/who was "subsequently credited?).
  • Early life and background: "Zinta, a self-confessed tomboy" (tries to do too much, and may involve a bit of OR by synthesis); "particularly William Shakespeare and poetry" (awkward); "Although she earned a degree" (WP:WTA: implies people with degrees should not become models); I fixed a couple of other minor points.
  • Early career: "canceled" (I saw "modelling" earlier, so I assume the article is written in a variant of English, such as English English, which doubles final "l"'s like this one); "Introducing Zinta,..." (long noun phrase).
  • Breakthrough: "even credited" (why "even"?).
  • Success: "Zinta's next release..." (she didn't release it); "at different award ceremonies" (do you mean "several"?); "and, among other awards..." (separate sentence would probably be better); "a story of two men" (presumably these are played by the co-stars: the sentence could be reworked to clarify this, e.g., "a story set about two men, played by..., who love the same woman." This also replaces the gerundive by a subordinate clause); "cynosure" (I had to look this up, and so will many WP readers; "pivotal role" or something similar might work better); "acting performance" (are both words needed? Anyway, your prose is much better than that of Rajeev Masand!); "after heavily shooting for" (reminds me a bit of Eats, shoots and leaves! I'm not sure if actors and actresses can be said to shoot a film).
  • Columnist: "The column caught the worldwide attention of readers..." (surely you don't mean that! Also, I hope those emails were not only "addressed", but actually sent :-).
  • Humanitarian work: "During her years..." ("film industry" presumably - and several charities).
  • Personal life: "Zinta used to visit..." (why "used to"?).
I hope that helps. Geometry guy 19:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your involvement, help and suggestions. Much appreciated. Please tell me, do you have some idea for "after heavily shooting for" as pointed above?
Also, the prevention of using "her release" strikes me as a bit odd. Does it really imply that she released the film?
As you pointed out, the thirs paragraph in the success section has this "and, among other awards...". Your suggestion is to divide the sentence.. but it doesn't look good IMO. Do you any suggestion please? Thank you, Shahid • Talk2me 20:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made a couple of edits. The first point really requires reading what the source says. For the second one, I'm not sure how flexible one can be about "release", but your fix works well, and I've suggested another fix in the same paragraph. For the third point, don't be afraid of short sentences in an encyclopedia article. This phrase is no more linked to the previous one than any of the other sentences about the film. Geometry guy 20:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: Keep. The case for instability was not manifest. The case for lack of neutrality was generally refuted. Geometry guy 23:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contacted WP:CHICAGO, WP:ILLINOIS, WP:USPE, WP:WPBIO, WP:USC, User:Tvoz. (User:Wasted Time R already involved in discussion.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 06:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article still be considered GA status? A quick look at the edit history and the arguments on the talk page shows that this article no longer meets criteria #5: "The article is stable". I realize that this is probably only a temporary condition, but it will most likely last at least until the general election in November. Do we really want to display this article as a good article for the next 9-10 months when it obviously is suffering from multiple on-going edit wars? Previously, it was an excellent article and deserved the GA status, but lately I can literally refresh the page and get a different article all day long. I suggest is be delisted until it again becomes stable. (In the interest of disclosure, I have only made 2 or 3 edits ever to this article and am not adamant whether or not those get reverted.)--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 16:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise content disputes should be resolved on the article talk page, or using dispute resolution processes, and not GAR. In particular, for articles with political significance, there is a danger that GA status will be used as a political football, which is something I hope anyone who cares about GA will oppose at every opportunity! :-)
So what is the situation here? The most recent diff probably illustrates the kind of changes that are going on at the moment. This restored a sentence to the lead which may or may not be OR: by WP:LEAD, it should be covered later in the article, so the OR issue hinges on whether it is, and whether citations are provided: see the talk page discussion for information about this.
However, that aside, if you take the current version and go back a few days (I went back three) to a previous version by the same editor, you get this diff. There is actually very little change: the main difference is that content has been added to the "College" section, and the super Tuesday results have been updated.
I don't see article quality being compromised here. I also don't see unstable change, just good old fashioned incremental improvement. I suggest, as in the previous GAR, that we leave it to the editors to sort out their differences on article talk. And actually, from what I see, they are engaging each other in high quality discussion. Geometry guy 18:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6 June 2007 GA version
11 February 2008 (current version).
  • So, even if no other issues were even raised, that doesn't matter? That seems a bit silly, but okay. It would seem if the nominator was only concerned with one aspect, and that aspect is shown to not be any sort of real problem, then the review would close quickly. I'm not sure I understand the point of undergoing all this rigamarole, when it's basically two or three POV-warriors that continually rehash the same NPOV "concerns", and who pop in from time to time to try to insert their views into the article. I'll leave this discussion to those of you who are more familiar with this process. That an article can be nominated for review on such thin evidence is discouraging to those of us who work hard to make it a good article, no matter our political views. (And mine are quite clear, and not biased for Sen. Clinton, just for the record M.ge.) Bellwether BC 00:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone can nominate an article for GAR at any time, although inappropriate nominations may be procedurally closed: this happened for the previous GAR nomination of this article. As for considering all of the criteria, this is again because GAR focusses on whether the article meets the criteria, not on editor disagreements and content disputes. I'm sorry that you find this discouraging, but the plus side is that if this discussion closes as "keep" it is not merely a rejection of the nominator's concerns, but a reassertion that the article is good, and the GAR can be quoted if the status of the article is challenged again. Geometry guy 18:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is surprisingly good. There are minor MoS problems and some dead links needing repair; these issues don't merit de-listing. And yes, there have been POV issues which creep into the article. However, the consensus process is doing a decent job resolving POV creep.
Thoughtful individuals may disagree on the definition of article stability. To me, this one is more stable than wobbly. Sure, it's a frequently-edited article subject to periodic, short-term edit wars. However, the edit wars tend to play out quickly; so do most of the less dramatic content disputes. Recent disputes over relatively minor issues don't hurt the article's overall quality. Majoreditor (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GAR evaluation uses the same standards as GAN. GA-listed articles don't enjoy free passes here. Check out some of the other GAR discussions as examples. Majoreditor (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My initial comments above about the stability of the article stand. Further I have not found any serious GA issues with the article in any other respect. I tried to fix a few minor points on my read-through, but did not fix every issue I found, only a few indicative examples. For instance, I think there is a tendancy to wikilink long phrases, which is not helpful; there is also a tendancy to cite sources mid-sentence, which is sometimes necessary, but it breaks up the flow for the reader, and so it should be minimized. There is also a tendancy to pile on noun phrases, where a good encyclopedic style would use multiple sentences, or at least semicolons. Tony1 has a great guide on issues like this. These are mostly not GA issues, though.
I changed one section heading to a more neutral title: describing HRC's First Ladyship as "uncharacteristic" is an implicit, unsourced suggestion that there is a "characteristic" role. That may be true, but it needs to be sourced in the article, not implied by a section heading. The external links need some formatting, and access dates would be appreciated. I made a start by adding cite web templates, but there is still some tidying to be done here. I have to say, though, good work! As Majoreditor suggests, reading the edit history is a bit painful, but reading the article is really not unpleasant at all! Geometry guy 21:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your initial comments may "stand", but they are not any truer than they were when you initially made them. Bellwether BC 00:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, saying your comments aren't true is not a personal attack in any way. Your accusations against the editors who dare oppose you ("like reading a BLP on Richard Nixon with only a passing mention of Watergate") smacks of a real POV-based tirade, and should be disregarded as such. This doesn't mean that you are a bad person, it just means that your opinions on this article are incredibly wrong-headed. You should also refrain from simply removing people's comments as a "personal attack", especially when they weren't a "personal attack" at all. Bellwether BC 04:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would respectfully suggest that both of you try to lower the temperature a little, and think twice before adding comments to this discussion which supply no new relevant information concerning the question of whether this article meets the criteria. Thanks, Geometry guy 09:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck comments, but left small note, that is simply procedurally correct. Bellwether BC 13:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "polarizing" material is a long story, but to make it short, once reworked it will be coming back stronger and better than before. It wasn't in the article at the time of first reaching GA, in any case. It was added in preparation for FAC, during which discussion (and until very recently) it wasn't objected to. I don't see its temporary removal for renovation as a cause for de-listing, although I strongly feel the article is less good without it. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues such as stability and neutral point of view have a subjective interpretation, and for as long as HRC remains a presidential candidate, there is little chance of clear blue water between this article and the borderlines, so I understand and respect that some editors may feel that this article is sailing, or in danger of sailing, too close to the wind. For now, though, I cannot see any case for delisting this article, but I urge regular editors to be respectful, thoughtful, and engaging towards any new input to the article, and hope the article will continue to improve! Geometry guy 22:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every Sunday

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: No action. Article has been renominated, as suggested here, and is now a GA. Geometry guy 11:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article is being assessed properly because of its length. It was initially quick-failed basically for being too short. This is an article for a short film, and there is no length requirement for Good articles other than they not be stubs.

The second assessment again basically said the article was too short. Again, there is no minimum length requirement. It also says the prose is "confusing." I'm stumped as to what about the prose is so difficult to grasp. It says that the lead is not detailed enough but gives no indication as to what details from the article are not summarized in the lead. Nor do I understand critiques like "As for the next paragraph, the two sentences seem to be lacking details. Just to clear things up, they do not need more details...." How exactly can a paragraph be lacking in details yet not need more details? It makes no sense!

As for the reference critique, I really wish everyone who reviews GA nominees would get on board with one idea on the way to write references. One reviewer says to use the Author, page number format and fails articles without it and another fails articles that use this format. Casablanca (film) uses Author, page for a number of its references and it's a featured article! Are we holding good articles to higher standards than featured ones now? And speaking of references, the reviewer states that two sentences seem "opinion-y" but in each instance they are referenced by citations in the following sentence. Does there really need to be a separate citation to the same source and the same page for each of them? Otto4711 (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Criterion 3a (there is no criterion 4a) asks if the article "addresses the major aspects of the topic" and has a footnote that explicitly states that the requirement is "significantly weaker than the 'comprehensiveness' required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics." Suggesting that I prove that there are no possible additional details that could be included indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the good article criteria on your part.
  • Neither is there a requirement in the criteria that references be in the format that you're demanding. Criterion 2a requires a reference section and links to Wikipedia:Citing sources which is a guideline and is to be approached using common sense. This article has nine footnotes. Do you really think that anyone reading the notes section is going to look at, say, note 4 "Clarke p. 76" and not be able to figure out that it's the same source as note 1, mandating that all of the information from note 1 be repeated in a separate bibliography? Or that note 7's "Juneau p. 27" is so distant from the information in note 2 that it will stump them? This supposed requirement for a separate bibliography before listing a GA is not borne out by the reviewers of any of the ten articles that I've gotten listed already. I suppose it's possible that all ten of those reviewers are wrong and you're right but isn't it possible that it's the other way around?
  • If you thought that a couple of the sentences were awkwardly written, you could have placed the article on hold to give me the chance to work on them instead of failing the article. I have broken the offending sentence down and rewritten it, and have also added the detaill you wanted to the lead. Otto4711 (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, I am just giving you my opinion. If you really feel that my judgment it wrong, then just request another nomination. It is not necessary to search for ways to negate my review. As for the first bullet you had, you are probably right and I am just holding the article's coverage to a standard higher than it should be. As for the references, the change that I suggested is very trivial. If you want I could fix it. The statement on the form of the references was just my own opinion that I adopted when an article I nominated got such an opinion and was failed because of it. I apologize if the such opinion is not used in practice, but still I think that it is not that big of a deal that we need to argue over whether a citation needs to be copied and pasted into a section at the bottom of the page, which could take a maximum of five minutes. Finally, as for your third bullet, I would have put the article on hold if the prose was the only reason I failed it (the other reasons happen to be the ones you disagree with). In conclusion, though, whether I am right or wrong with any part of my review, there is no minimum time between nominations (as you probably know from experience), and it only takes about five minutes to renominate the article. And if you do renominate it, I guarantee I will have the common sense that you want a second opinion so I will let somebody else review it. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 22:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am simply following the instructions laid out at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. I responded to your review here (which, I'm sorry, I found very confusing to read; I would suggest that if you review GA noms in future you use bullet point as seen here or better yet copy and paste the GA criteria and respond to each as is seen here) and I responded to your comment about this reassessment. This is an attempt to build consensus about the article by involving a wider array of editors. Personally I don't like GAR because it seems to generally take about a month to get one completed but if I think the article isn't being reviewed reasonably because of its length then it doesn't make much sense for me to keep putting the same short article back on the list.
  • Suit yourself, but I guarantee that since the previous reviewer seems like he had no idea what he/she was doing and my review was just withholding too high a standard for the article, that you were just unlucky. Maybe if somebody who reviewed one of your previous GA nominations might be helpful if you nominated it again. Either way, maybe other editors will comment on this page sometime soon and we can reach some sort of consensus. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 23:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and if you a little more closely at WP:CITE#Harvard referencing and at Wikipedia:Harvard referencing, you will find that the extra referencing section is necessary. If you decide not to use that style of referencing, then if you read the previous sections of WP:CITE, it says that you must provide full citations. If you can find some sort of exception or something that I missed that allows otherwise, please tell me so I do not criticize it again. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 23:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the original image. The one inserted isn't from the film. Majoreditor (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. Sorry about that. I was not sure. Oh well, the article needs a better image. Maybe if there were any screenshots of the film or something. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 21:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the lead could be better developed, it complies with WP:LEAD standards. And I'm perplexed by the reviewer's remark about proving that "there are absolutely NO more possible details or sub-topics that can be included", as I'm unaware of GA articles needing to clear such a high hurdle.
Overall, it's is a pretty good short article with no major problems -- just some small concerns. I doubt there's much more material to incorporate since the film is a tiny topic. That's fine, as short articles can qualify for GA status.
Otto, the best route may be for you to fix the few small issues that have been raised and then re-nominate the article at GAN. Many GA reviewers would have placed the article on Hold, allowing you time to address concerns. However, different reviewers have different styles, and the decision to employ GA-Hold is subjective. Keep up the good work. Majoreditor (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you let me know which phrases specifically you think are problematic? Otto4711 (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I apologize for holding the article to such high standards during my review. Hopefully this article will be able to pas GA and maybe even go further than that. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 04:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine by me. If you would care to weigh in on the article itself that would be appreciated. Otto4711 (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goldmoon

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: Delist. Reviewers noted a lack of real world content and reliable secondary sources. The lead also fails to summarize the article. Geometry guy 17:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed this article, and found it to be deficent one one very imporant regard: there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability of this fictional character outside of the primary source material.

The article itself goes into great detail about these primary sources, quoting extensively from them. As a result, this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT because it is a regurgitation of the primary sources.

Following a review of this article, I added the Notability template so that this issue would be addressed. It was removed by ReyBrujo on the grounds that "Notability asserted in the article itself"[10], an assertion that I believe is not in accordance with WP Guidelines WP:V and WP:RS, and I have brought this matter to his attention.

It appears that the requirement for reliable secondary sources was ignored in this article's Good Article assessment, and this issue should now be addressed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to go back and get some author interviews from Dragon and White Dwarf. Dragon was published by the same publisher, yes, but I am going to be looking at the interviews. White Dwarf was an independent publisher. ReyBrujo: I'll forward any information I find and we can decide how to use it. Web Warlock (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riverwind

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: Delist. Reviewers noted a lack of real world content and reliable secondary sources, and questioned whether two non-free images are needed; one low resolution non-free image should be enough. Geometry guy 17:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed this article, and found it to be deficent one one very imporant regard: there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability of this fictional character outside of the primary source material.

The article itself goes into great detail about these primary sources, quoting extensively from them. As a result, this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT because it is a regurgitation of the primary sources.

Following a review of this article, I added the Notability template so that this issue would be addressed. It was removed by ReyBrujo on the grounds that "Notability asserted in the article itself"[11], an assertion that I believe is not in accordance with WP Guidelines WP:V and WP:RS, and I have brought this matter to his attention.

It appears that the requirement for reliable secondary sources was ignored in this article's Good Article assessment, and this issue should now be addressed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin has an issue with all the RPG articles and looks for any reason to cast doubt or disparity on them. This is request has not been brought in good faith and it certain part of his biased agenda against RPG articles in general. But do not take my word for it, observe his edit pattern since Sept 2007. Web Warlock (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gavin reads "should" in this case as "absolutely must, or it needs to be deleted with extreme prejudice". BOZ (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep comments relevant to the GA review/status. Gavin and/or his motivations is not the topic here. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allah

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: Procedural close. GAR is not proving to be helpful right now. Although the article was stable at the time of review, this is not so clear at present. Once the current intensive editing settles down the article can be renominated. If further problems arise, a new GAR discussion can be opened. Geometry guy 17:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was quick-failed by User:Jackturner3 on the following grounds:

  1. There are a lot of problems with the prose in this article...
  2. It is not focused and nor does it cover major aspects since "I’m sure there is a lot more that could be said about Allah in Islam in this article since Allah commonly connotated with Islam. If more could be added regarding the use of Allah as a name for God among Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews, that would be beneficial as well."
  3. It is not stable.

I replied to User:Jackturner3 on the talk page of Allah and left a note on his talk page but it seems that he is too busy with other articles so I am bringing the case here.

The reason number 3 is incorrect. There has been no editwar at least since a couple of month ago. The reason number 2 is incorrect since: As mentioned at the top of the article, "This article is about the Arabic word "Allah". See God in Islam for the Islamic conception of God." We discuss the history of the term and its usage in English etc here. There is indeed a subsection associated to the concept of Allah in various religions. There, I have given some more space to Islam but I don't think there is anything Islamic in the term Allah. It was used before Islam and is the only word for God that Arab Christians use. The association of the term with Islam is due to those who were engaged in Comparative religous studies which is at the bottom of it "artificial". So, I think pointing out to the main article and providing a summary here is sufficient.

I have also tried to address reason number but I don't think the article deserves quick failing.

I would also appreciate any other feedback you might have that may help improving the article.

Regards,--Be happy!! (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The concepts associated with the term Allah (as a deity) though differed from tradition to tradition. The parenthetical statement is awkward, as is the use of the word though.
There are also MoS issues. Some of the paragraphs and sections are a trifle short. And footnotes referencing sura and ayah should mention the Qur'an as the source: for example, Qur'an, 6:100, rather than 6:100.
I agree with Aminz that the article is stable.
Some sections need to be broader in coverage. For instance, "In Christianity and Judaism" could be expanded to deal with the unique treatment of Allah among Arab Christians and Sephardic Jews. For example, the Trinitarian formula among Arab Christians is typically expressed as "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, One God". The "One God" phrase is unique to Christians living in Muslim-dominated lands, resulting from Christian Arab's need to "prove" their monotheism to their Muslim neighbors.
The article has come a long way, but still needs additional work before it's ready for GA listing. You may wish to have another editor or the League of Copyeditors help address prose and MoS issues. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Majoreditor for the feedback. I have made some changes accordingly.--Be happy!! (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the reasons above. But the article was not put on hold, that's why I said it was quick-failed (my usage seems incorrect per your comment though). --Be happy!! (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, see WP:QFC. Holds, by the way, are not required and are used at the discretion of the reviewer. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Indeed, I didn't "quick fail" the article. I actually read the article and commented on it; had it been a "quick fail," I wouldn't have bothered to read the article in the first place. Additinoally, more than 20 edits in a day is excessive and, to my mind, contributes to instability. -- jackturner3 (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, thanks for reviewing the article. one reason that I requested for more feedbacks was that I felt you ignored me when I left a comment in response to your review, even after I requested for some clarification on your talk page. I still feel there is some misunderstanding between us. Can you please let me clarify the 20 edits per day?? There was only one edit on the day you failed the article(14th). There was many edits before the nomination of the article for GA (11th) in preparation for nomination. None of those edits were subject to edit war however.
Anyways, thanks again for reviewing the article. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is stable. It's not averaging 20 edits per day; even if it were, it's relatively free from edit wars and content disputes. Compared to Hillary Rodham Clinton (see above GAR discussion) it's quite stable. Majoreditor (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't claiming that there was an edit war going on, only that the nuber of edits a few days before the review made me stop and think a moment. But, I didn't fail the article for the edits, I failed it for the content reasons. -- jackturner3 (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. F. Skinner

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: Endorse current status (not listed), but encourage editors to improve the article and renominate! Geometry guy 21:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any explanation on the Discussion page as to why teh article was delisted -- I found one critique that there were not enough sources -- that seems not to be the case anymore. Thanks! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have been de-listed by Cswrye in December 2006. The article has been tagged for cleanup of a section and lack of citations for one or more sections. Majoreditor (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is MoS? Thanks for your help! We'll get working on getting this article up to snuff! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MoS stands for the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Majoreditor (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should we close this for the time being, we'll work on it and then re-apply? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy III

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: Delist FightingStreet (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked over this article, and have found it does not qualify for GA status in that the article is not broad in its coverage:

I find it important to note that the article Final Fantasy III is part of a Featured Topic, and therefore deserves and requires that it is a GA in nature and not simply in name. --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The plot is usually the less important part of these articles, today most reviewers prefer to have more "out of universe" than content dealing with the fictional material, personally I would like to see a 'reception' section. For a issue like "needing a more extensive plot" bringing it to reassessment without actually leaving a note in the talk page or other venue in order to discuss it seems premature. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Chanology

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: List as GA. There is no sign that this article is currently unstable, and all recent arguments support listing it. If it becomes unstable, editors may initiate delisting in accordance with the delisting guidelines or open a new GAR discussion in the event of uncertainty or disagreement. Geometry guy 21:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Chanology was reviewed by Lyoko is Cool (talk · contribs), and successfully passed and listed as a WP:GA. Sceptre (talk · contribs) then summarily delisted the article's GA status, citing WP:WIAGA, point (5), article stability. The article does happen to be semi-protected, but that is only due to vandalism, and WP:WIAGA clearly states: Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. In his delist comments, Sceptre (talk · contribs) stated that due to ongoing protests that members of Project Chanology are involved in, the article may change in the future. This certainly is possible, but I do not think that that possibility should preclude the article's viability for a current WP:GA status listing at this point in time. Lyoko is Cool (talk · contribs) felt that it passed all the criteria, as do I (though I could not do the GA review, as a significant contributor to the article itself). Cirt (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are more protests planned for a few months out. Should the article be prohibited from ever attaining GA status, just because a sub-subsection of the article will be updated occasionally? I agree with OhanaUnited (talk · contribs), who rightly stated Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Cirt (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one has raised any concerns/suggestions as to any of the other criteria other than criterion 5. Cirt (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So does that mean you would support relisting the article as a WP:GA? Cirt (talk) 00:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For now yes, as I have not seen any valid reasons for its delisting. DigitalC (talk) 00:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the clarification that you support relisting the article as a WP:GA. Cirt (talk) 00:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let someone else answer that one, as I am a significant contributor to the article and would not have been the one to do a GA review in the first place. But I will say this much: several other editors have commented both above in this discussion, and on the article's talk page, that the move of quickfailing the article's GA status seconds after it was passed as a GA, instead of first taking it to GAR, was an inappropriate way to go. Cirt (talk) 05:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm almost 100% sure this is the track record for shortest timespan between listing and delisting a GA. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, it wasn't seconds, but minutes - 8 minutes from the GA Review and pass by Lyoko is Cool (talk · contribs), to the GA quickfail by Sceptre (talk · contribs) (As stated above, there was no GAR in-between). Cirt (talk) 07:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lyoko is Cool (talk · contribs), I agree with you, but better to let someone else do the actual relisting. Cirt (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note. This is not a vote. In terms of weight of argument, the percentage support for listing is much greater than 82%. Geometry guy 21:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And my sentiment remains that as long as the article remains stable and the additional potential sources are added in such a manner so as not to change the structure/dynamic of the entire article, but rather only a sub-subsection of the article as a whole, that this should not preclude the article from being relisted as a GA. And then at that point, the article should not be delisted from its GA status every single time a new protest is announced. I think if you look above you will see that many other editors have already expressed a similar sentiment. Cirt (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Just because there will be edits in the coming weeks does not mean that the article will become unstable. If it does, then (and only then) should it be delisted from GA. DigitalC (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Meantime we still have the matter of this ongoing WP:GAR. Several above editors have expressed comments that there is a snowing sentiment towards relisting as WP:GA... Cirt (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Kennedy assassination

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: Delist. Sweeps observations endorsed, and no improvements forthcoming. Geometry guy 22:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed this article for the GA sweeps, and after leaving the article on hold for the issues raised, only a few were addressed. There are still issues concerning sourcing, and instead of just delisting it, I have brought it here for consensus. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stargate (device)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: Delisted Geometry guy 22:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After two failed FA nominations (which claimed this article was full of original research), this article was promoted to GA status in May 2006. It has been listed in the improvement drive of the Stargate WikiProject for at least a year (when I became an active editor), but I still see a lot of original research and in-universe perspective. Before start some work on the article (including cutting about half of its current content), I'd like others to confirm that the article no longer fulfills the GA current criteria (lead, fiction, original research, images) and requires massive cleanup to become Good again. I fear others' resistance to cleanup otherwise (founded or unfounded). I particularly ask here because I have kind of a conflict of interest as a fan of the franchise, and have no previous experience with Good Articles about fictional items. – sgeureka t•c 17:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this article qualifies for GA anymore. There are multiple reasons for this but my main one is the overcrawling of fancruft, specifically this "kawoosh" nonsense. Carter uses it maybe twice, a dozen or so seconds apart, to refer to the unstable vortex. The adoption of this term throughout the entire article is the ultimate example of pedantic fanboyism and needs to go before this article can be half decent.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 01:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That issue aside, the article has OR tags, which are a no-no for GA status.
If you want to go the extra mile, you can try to square the operations section with current thinking in theoretical physics. The article doesn't accurately represent what happens to information passing through an event horizon (see Penrose, 2004). But, that's why it's called science fiction.  :)
I recommend de-listing the article. You can then focus on improving it; when it's ready, it can be re-nominated for GA status at GAN. Majoreditor (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm X

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: Delisted per unanimous consensus PeterSymonds | talk 18:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article, listed in 2006, has lost some of the GA criteria. Some paragraphs are short and stubby; there are ((clarify)) tags in the article; and the "need additional references" banner is at the top of the article. The tags also indicate prose problems; for example: "Soon he developed a voracious appetite for reading, then astigmatism", followed by the "clarify" tag. PeterSymonds | talk 22:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be good tos have a section devoted to his beliefs. --68.161.152.76 (talk) 05:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the lead, tags, referencing and stubby sections aren't addressed then the article needs to be de-listed. Majoreditor (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trucking industry in the United States

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: FGAN endorsed; withdrawn by nominator PeterSymonds | talk 19:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer simply delisted the artile without giving time to fix simple problems such as citing sources for obvious claims. Reviewer had issues with lengthy list of terms, which could easily be moved to a new article. Reviewer noted there was "too much" statistical information, which could easily be fixed with a few days of editing. Simply stated.... I want a second opinion.

The best way to have the article reviewed again will be to re-nominate it at GAN. Majoreditor (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Okay, I'll do that. On that note, I withdraw my reassessment. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Nader

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: delisted per consensus PeterSymonds | talk 21:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist.

1. Prose- Fail. Fails Wikipedia:Embedded list. Links to copyrighted material. Includes Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Layout is poor, with several stub sections. Mechanics errors.

2. Verifiable- Fail, contains whole paragraphs and sections without sources. Contains info box with info that isn't true.

3. Coverage- Fail. Has several stub sections that can use more detail. Section concerning early life and 2000 election are too short.

4. Neutral- Fail. Several instances of biased wording. See "Clash with the automobile industry"

5. Stable- Fail. Current controversial candidate. Several lengthy exchanges on talk page.

6. Images- Fail. Contains copyrighted image, Sesame Street image that should be deleted.User:calbear22 (talk) 06:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article fails criteria 1 due to stubby sections, minor issues with the lead, MoS concerns and use of lists rather than prose for key sections. There may be other issues I haven't yet noticed.
  • Criteria 3 runs into problems as coverage isn't particularly broad in key areas dealing with consumer safety and corporate response, and in political involvement. and unless I missed it, the article doesn't discuss his views on the Near East.
  • The article is far from neutral. Nader is a controversial individual. He's respected among consumer advocates and populists but assailed by free marketers, chambers of commerce, political conservatives and legal reformers. I see scant material discussing his reception among business and conservative interests.
  • Use of the Sesame Street image is problematic. Discussion of the episode should be in the body of the article rather than relegated to the photo caption.
The article requires substantial improvement before it meets GA standards. Majoreditor (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. K. Fazlul Huq

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: Delist endorsed per consensus. PeterSymonds | talk 10:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer has delisted the aricle on the grounds that it does not have inline citation and the prose is poor. The article uses Harvard referencing which is an acceptable style of inline citation. The prose may not be FA worthy but it is reasonably clear and I believe free from grammatical / spelling problem. If not, the reviewer should at least point out a few grammatical / spelling problems that (s)he notices. Arman (Talk) 10:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no inline citations at all that I can see and parts are almost hagiographical. The prose can also do with plenty of improvemnt. imo, lack of inline citations itself is a killer. Not GA-worthy. Sarvagnya 04:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Washington, D.C.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: Delisted per consensus PeterSymonds | talk 20:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Chicago strives to regain its WP:GA status, WP:CHICAGO is looking at other comparable municipalities to strive toward. Unfortunately, this is not what I believe it should be striving toward. The WP:LEAD is more than the max four paragraphs and large blocks of text are uncited. I do not consider this article any better than Chicago, which was duly delisted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tony. I have corrected the issue with the lead paragraph. I agree that the article's referencing is spotty. Most sections are OK. However, sections on music, media, colleges and transportantion need additional citations. Majoreditor (talk) 18:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts. You have corrected the WP:LEAD for flow. However, now the lead is not really cited adequately. I believe a lead is either suppose to be uncited with all facts cited in the main body or completely cited. In order for something that is properly structured to be completely cited it must have at least one citation per paragraph. Otherwise the paragraphs are not presenting distinct points. From there the inadequacy of citation continues, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that everyone agrees with that interpretation. But in any case, each paragraph in the lead now has one or more citations. The lead is fine; however, some other sections remain under-referenced. Majoreditor (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your efforts. We just need someone to replicate that effort for the main body of the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment: there is a great deal flexibility about how the lead is cited. There are only two requirements, I believe: (1) anything uncited in the lead which needs citation should be discussed and cited in the rest of the article; (2) quotations and controversial matters (especially those relating to living persons) need to be cited wherever they appear, including the lead. There's a lot of ground inbetween for citing some key points, and leaving the rest to the body of the article. This should be left to editorial judgement. Geometry guy 22:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few citation requests to the article. Hopefully the editors can provide the needed references or, alternatively, remove the material. If not then the article should be de-listed. Majoreditor (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, many of the sections have just been edited to heavily and the text has just gotten a bit too burdensome in the two years since the last WP:GAN. So I'm seriously in doubt that this meets the GA criteria at the present time. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tidus

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: Kept per consensus. PeterSymonds | talk 20:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joker (comics)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: Quick-fail endorsed. PeterSymonds | talk 21:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many things to be cited. David Pro (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sega Mega Drive

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: Closed for renomination at WP:GAN. PeterSymonds | talk 21:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has many cleanup and fact tags. And needs many references to be cited. David Pro (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any cleanup or fact tags at all. All [citation needed] tags have been cited during the last week or so. I think it deserves to be a Good Article. Zebbe (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Bros. Brawl

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: Listed as a GA through WP:GAN. PeterSymonds | talk 13:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a video game currently unreleased in NTSC territories and thus information is liable to change when the game does get released in such territories; thus the article fails criterion 5 (Stability). Not currently on Wikipedia:Good articles. -Jéské (v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife) 02:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passed by User:Cheesefee, but I doubt it was a legitimate assessment. « ₣M₣ » 17:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've given it a hasty read. My initial reaction was favorable, although the lead could include more material on the game's reception. I'll try to look at it in detail later; if I had to shoot from the hip right now I'd say it meets GA standards. Majoreditor (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weather lore

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: Delisted per consensus. Fails WP:WIAGA. PeterSymonds | talk 13:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing this article for GA Sweeps, I'm not entirely sure if this article should remain a GA, and would like feedback from other editors. The article contains multiple poems, verses, and quotes about weather forecasting before scientific measurements were widely used, and following each one is a brief explanation for why the thought was actually accurate or not. The article has research/sources for many of the explanations provided, but for some, no source is present to verify the thoughts that are explained. I believe it is possible that there may be some original research, but would like other editors to take a look to see what you think. As a side note, do you believe that these poems/verses/quotes should be sourced or are these commonplace? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Wow. Wretchedly-composed prose supplemented by an anthology of trite verse. My thoughts:

I once read an article so bad
It made me feel quite, quite sad
That it was list as "Good"
When I thought that it should
Be downgraded and listed as "B"

Delist. Majoreditor (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I think those quotes ought to be sourced, I've never heard any of them (a sign that the article might not have a worldwide view btw). And the article does not tell us who has these beliefs, and does a number a very bold claims in the unreferenced paragraphs. Narayanese (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category