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 43) Good article reassessment (archive) (Page 41) →

Ruth Martin (Lassie)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review
Result: No action. The article improved during the review and no contributing reviewer now calls for delisting. Geometry guy 21:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article just recently passed GA. However, I feel that it needs cleaning up before it meets the standards of a GA article. The cleaning up can probably be done easily if volunteer editors pitch in at GAR. In my mind, the article has problems meeting the following standards:

  • The couple buy > The couple buys

---Done: "the couple buys" ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • As the fourth season approached, stars Clayton and Rettig wanted to leave the show. Clayton wanted to return to her roots in Broadway following the death of her teenage daughter in an automobile accident and Rettig wanted to live life without being recognized as a TV star wherever he went. - repetitious wording - wanted to leave the show > wanted to return to her roots, wanted to live life...

---Done. "As the fourth season approached, Clayton considered returning to her roots in Broadway following the death of her teenage daughter in an automobile accident, and Rettig wanted to live life without being recognized as a TV star wherever he went." ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Provost was scripted into episode after episode and proved an audience favorite, often sharing adventures with Lassie that had formerly been Rettig's lot. Rettig hoped the plot would be restructured (allowing his departure) but it was not to be. - this is unclear as it implies that "sharing adventures with Lassie" was a negative experience "had formerly been Rettig's lot" and that a child star was forced to remain in the show: "Rettig hoped the plot would be restructured (allowing his departure) but it was not to be."

---Done: "Provost was scripted into episode after episode and proved an audience favorite, often being the sole principal human partner in the sorts of adventures with Lassie that Rettig had formerly enjoyed. Rettig hoped the plot would be restructured (allowing his departure), but producers were content with the status quo, the show was more popular than ever, and it was hoped the two stars would change their minds and stay." ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The plan hit a snag when... - informal prose that is not encyclopedic

---Done: "The plan was aborted..." ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • With wedding bells for Ellen nixed... - informal prose that is not encyclopedic

---Done: "With marriage for the Ellen character out of the question,..." ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Lassie was ideated as a children's series with first, Ellen Miller, and then, Ruth Martin being the show's principal human female character during their respective seasons. - "ideated" is not a correct word

---Done: "...conceived..." ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Under the section "Characterization", every sentence is a new paragraph

---Done: One sentence deleted. Others repositioned to create lengthier paragraphs. This section needs some material about Ruth's relationship with her adopted son. ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The role of Ruth Martin saw two performers during the course of the show's run. - a role does not "see" performers

---Done: "Two performers portrayed the Ruth Martin character..." ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It does not rely on reliable secondary sources. It relies primarily on a biography of Lassie: Collins, Ace. Lassie: A Dog's Life and a book on Lassie collectibles, The Legacy of Lassie

---The article relies principally on one reliable secondary source, Lassie: A Dog's Life by Ace Collins and published by Penguin. The book meets WP's reliable secondary source requirements: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." The Lassie collectible book has been deleted as a source. ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • There are no sources that are critical reviews or commentary on the series, i.e. legitimate secondary sources. (Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information.)

The article has a legitimate secondary sources as noted immediately above. Henry Jenkins has written an essay on Lassie in WOW which may make a good critical review. I'll try to locate it. ItsLassieTime (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The article does not distinguish clearly between real-world perspective versus "in-universe" perspective. There is no "Plot" section to clearly set for the plot in an "in-universe" perspective to orient the reader as to what the role of Ruth Martin is within the series. Rather, the plot is interwoven throughout the article.

True. Good idea. A plot section should added to the article. I'm wondering if it needs to be sourced? Plot summaries don't usually require sourcing. ItsLassieTime (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It does not distinguish "Primary information", that is information from the episodes themselves, and information from other sources.

--- I'm confused. Please elaborate. ItsLassieTime (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It does not contrast the portrayal of the article subject, the fictional character of Ruth Martin as played by different actresses, nor address how this affected the character.

---Agreed. Is this a requirement for a GA award? ItsLassieTime (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Books do not uniformly have ISBNs as required.

---Done. ISBN added. ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Further, the section headings "Characterization", "Casting", "Cancellation", "Reprise", "Reception" wander between "in-universe" and real world information.
  • There is no "Critical acclaim" section to provide critical reaction. There is no "Cultural impact" or "Legacy" section to address the impact of the television show.

---The article is about the character Ruth Martin not the show. Here, a link to the Lassie article and its appropriate "Legacy" section should be sufficient. ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The references do not clarify the source of information as primary and secondary sources; these appear mixed, just as in-universe and real world is somewhat mixed.

---Sorry, I'm confused here. Could you eleaborate? ItsLassieTime (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see Primary, secondary and teritiary sources. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sources are listed under "References" that are not used in the footnotes. These should go under a heading such as "Further reading" instead, to separate them from the sources for the article.

---No, all the material listed in "References" appears in the "Footnotes". ItsLassieTime (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It is not clear from the sourcing that there is no Original research.

I'm confused. Please elaborate. ItsLassieTime (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see Primary, secondary and teritiary sources. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The article appears to wander into relatively detailed discussions of other characters unduly without relating the material specifically to the Ellen Miller character.

---Agreed. Have edited. ItsLassieTime (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The "Cancellation" section is almost entirely about the series in general and not the subject of the article.

---Agreed. Have done some editing to tighten the section up and refocus on the character and performer. Neither can be divorced from the greater scheme of things and so, the events leading to cancelation are outlined. ItsLassieTime (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am confused by the article as I am not proficient at writing articles on fiction and welcome input and suggestions from other editors. Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The roles of the first two sections need to be clearly delineated: from the lack of citations, I assume the first section is the analogue of a plot summary, in which case, it should only contain factual information which would be transparent to someone watching the series. However, apart from footnote 1 and the reference to Provost's biography, the second section is also sourced entirely to the episodes, so the same applies: it should not engage in analysis without secondary sources to support that analysis.
Footnote 1 is an odd choice of reference (a relationship counseling book about female aggression): its entire content on Ruth Martin is: "Donna Stone, June Cleaver, and Ruth Martin were TV moms who wore spotless, neatly pressed dresses, never raised their voices (unless Timmy and Lassie were lost), and always had a pleasant smile, perfect makeup, and a neatly coiffed hairdo." It would be much better to use Collins book to source any analysis in this section, in my view. Geometry guy 19:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Philcha

Overall: the citation issue needs to be fixed; apart from that, if the flat feeling can be fixed it's a clear GA, otherwise it's borderline. --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

( Fixed heading level on this section --Philcha (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC) )Reply[reply]

The citation issue has been fixed. I'd now give it the benefit of the doubt and pass it as GA, as it has no serious defects and the difficulty of finding more sources for a 50-year old TV show suggests it would be unreasonable to ask for much more. --Philcha (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from LassieTime

Discussion

Bahinabai

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: No action. Nomination withdrawn after helpful feedback was received. Please add further suggestions on the article talk page. Geometry guy 00:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have listed the article here because I could not understand why was Bahinabai failed. The reviewer said "This article is well-written, well-organized and adequately sourced. However, I'm failing it because I don't think it's comprehensive enough." So I suppose, the article satisfies criteria 1 and 2, is agreed by the reviewer. Criterion 3 says "it addresses the main aspects of the topic."

I have covered the whole life summary and literary works. Then the reviewer writes "The biography section is thorough, but ... I want to know more about her legacy and impact on Hinduism and more specifically the role of women in it. It's been almost four centuries since she her life ... have other religious figures drawn inspiration from her, commented on her or whatever. Have feminists? I mean, when I read stories like this I have to wonder about these questions. The article can and should deal with them if it is to be considered a GA." I just could not understand: what Valentine day protests by some Hindu groups have to do with Bahinabai? I have covered her philosophy, that is her legacy. Anyway if one reads the article, one will find "She (Bahinabai) regrets her female birth". Not a role model for feminists, is she? But I just wrote is considered WP:OR in wikipedia articles. Since the references i checked do not discuss feminist views i did not discuss that. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As our conversations on each other's talk pages should make clear, I just would like to see some larger context in addition to a thorough retelling of her life. If others here feel the article is sufficiently broad as is, then I have no objections to those reviewers deciding for themselves it meets the criteria. But I don't feel that it does. Daniel Case (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bahinabai is honoured as a Varkari saint and her verses still sung by the Varkaris, like verses of other Varkari saints. Since her works are her philosophy, her legacy. I did not form a different section. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not so sure that there is enough material from high-quality sources to justify adding a legacy section. Unless someone shows otherwise I'm inclined to say that the article is broad enough in its coverage. However, the prose is spotty. The article needs copyediting: see, for example, how the prose drifts between the present and past verb tenses. Majoreditor (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Google books finds many books about hinduism and feminism that discuss her legacy. A broad article must include this.
"Bahinabai reports a spiritual encounter with the calf." "Bahinabai also comments on the duties of a married woman." "Bahinabai sometimes curses his fate of being born as a woman" Here present tense is used to reflect what she says in her poems. Although present --> past, will be a simple thing to accomplish. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the positive response. I have explained my position on the Legacy issue. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"How does one become a Hindu saint?" I have replied to this before. There is no set rules like the Vatican has. Bahinabai never proclaimed herself to a saint. "Some people considered her behaviour as a sign of madness, while others considered it a mark of sainthood.[8]" This way he was considered a saint in her lifetime. As I wrote before : "one will find "She (Bahinabai) regrets her female birth". Not a role model for feminists, is she?", although a feminist perspective "Bahinabai sometimes curses his fate of being born as a woman, which author Tharu interprets as "her scepticism, her rebelliousness and her insistent refusal to abandon her aspiration for the truth"" is in place. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So where is this information about her not being a feminist role model in the article? Dozens, if not hundreds (thousands?) of people have written about her, so an article should cover this discussion, even if only aiming for broad. Choosing an imprtant subject for GA means they are more difficult to achieve, but that is simply how it is. Any 2-bit pop singer would have a section on reception and controversies - this subject has whole books about her, so needs even more. Try reading the Thomas Aquinas or Mother Teresa GAs for comparison - a good article on a saint should be heading in that direction, but here we don't even get a paragraph on legacy. Why should a reader be short-changed on non-christian subjects?
Also, sentences like: "However, he could do so as he suffered a burning limbs sensation lasting a month, on the day of departure. Finally, he repented and was conceived of Bahinabai's faith in her devotion to God." make me think this needs thorough copy edit by a native speaker of English.YobMod 20:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Withdraw: Thanks every one for the constructive comments. I think this discusion gave me a fair idea of what needs to be done. Certainly, A better idea than the first GA review. Summary of things to do (If anyone finds more, please add to the list):

Homosexual transsexual

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Withdrawn and renominated. Geometry guy 00:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article now meets the good article criteria. This article has undergone massive and agonizing work and improvement. Passionately disagreeing editors have clashed and finally come to a solution for this former good article which is now much better than it was when it was a good article before. The article is comprehensive, yet concise, every claim has a RS reference, the language is as simple as it can be for such a complex topic. A person who has no idea about the subject who reads this article will come away with a good summary understanding of the topic. I feel that aside from minor tweeks no major work is needed on this article in terms of adding any information that is missing, and not covered in some linked article or the other. I am sure this article is not perfect, I am sure it is at least a "Good Article" once more.--Hfarmer (talk) 07:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's good news. But you can simply renominate the article at GAN. Geometry guy 08:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
oh I thought it has to be reassessed.... I guess this is the wrong place so I will close this reassessment.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agatha Christie

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist. Article is ripe for improvement and renomination, but not currently GA standard. Geometry guy 00:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, this article was recently passed by a new reviewer, and has significant problems. I have suggested on the the talk page that this reassessment might be a good way to provide advice on improving the article and at the same time allow the reviewer to better understand the problems that were missed in the initial review. Therefore I would suggest that people don't immediately !vote delist or keep, but provide comments and advice on the article, only progressing to !voting if there is no subsequent action.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • There is no requirement for article length at GA, but there is one for an article to be "Broad in its coverage". I am no expert on Agatha Christie, but I am certain that for such an important figure in her literary genre there must be more to say. I notice that only one biography appears among the references, sourced only once. There are also a number of articles in the further reading which make no appearence in the article. The level of research here is far too weak to support an article of this importance.
  • The use of references: The number and type of references are inappropriate for an article of this importance. Even at GA, it is expected that an article makes use of available print resources to reference a detailed description of the subject's life. Here only one print resource is used once and as a result we are left with a very patchy description of Christie's life. The references are also improperly formatted.
  • The prose is poor: an article should be constructed from organised, developed paragraphs. Here were have a lot of short anecdotes, largely unreferenced and mostly unconnected to one another. There is no sense of Christie's development either personally or in literary terms and a poor description of her literary style and reception.
  • There is an "In popular culture" list, which is a huge negative: such sections should be written in prose and incorporated into the text as appropriate.
  • From "Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple" to the end, there seems to be a lot of OR and speculation: this must all be properly sourced in the constructed paragraphs described above.
  • The lists are inconsistantly formatted and untidy. They also should be moved to another article along the lines of List of works by Agatha Christie as they dominate this one.
There are other issues, but these are the major ones that should have prevented this article reaching GA at this time.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for all your feedback. As the original nominator, I have (and still am) going around fixing things, adding tidbits of information, and formatting/placing references. I'm currently attaining a few biographies about her, so that should beefen her short section about her life. As suggested, I'm moving the works to another page. Again, thanks. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 14:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was actually about to nominate this article for reassessment myself, when I saw that it had already been done. My objections were the same as have been mentioned above: poor and stubby prose, few references, excessive lists. At the moment there is no way this is a GA, but it has potential, and I appreciate the above editor's willingness to work further on it.

Also: has anyone undertaken to contact the reviewer, to give some friendly advise on the GA review process? Lampman (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In case anyone has worries about the stubby bibliography, don't worry about it. pure gold. That, and I'll continue when I receive the bibliographies I've ordered...Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 15:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article should be delisted and then renominated at GAC when it's ready; I'm glad that the nominator has decided to work on concerns, but these concerns should have been addressed before the article was erroneously promoted to GA-status. María (habla conmigo) 15:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments - I was about to pick this nomination up when I saw it had disappeared from the page. I agree that it needs some significant work to be of GA status. There is much needed in the way of referencing, and the book biographies of Christie should be utilized to a much greater extent than they are now. Also, web references need to be properly formatted with publishers and access dates at the very least. I also agree that the lists of her works should be moved to a subarticle, named, as Jackyd101 suggested, List of works by Agatha Christie. This list can then be linked in the article and a short section or two can be devoted to describing her works in prose form. The current list setup overwhelms the article and makes the already short biography section look even shorter. Dana boomer (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. BTW, I've already moved some of the works to the subpage; I've found a few newspaper clippings related to this case, as well as the link posted by me above at the nytimes.com. Those should leave me quite busy for a few days. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 15:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Funny how you mention that the two print biographies which were "excellent start" and the "In popular Culture" section weren't too bad; I spent a few hours changing them from lists' :/. XD Thanks for the advice/compliment, though. Right now, I just received yet another print biography which I'm going to use to expand the biography section. See [this. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 17:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I've noticed: that is what "prosified" means. Also I was referring to Morgan and Wagoner as the two biographies. If you intend to use Thompson as a source as well, even better. Keep up the good work! Geometry guy 18:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I mean a LOT too lenient now I look back on it.Oli OR Pyfan! 19:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jimmy Wales

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: Delist per consensus below that the article falls well short of meeting the criteria at the moment. Geometry guy 09:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Breaches many of the guidelines for BLPs, including the inclusion of trivial, intrusive and non-encyclopedic information in a way that tends to create a false light on the subject. Given the subject of this article, I felt a community rather than an individual reassessment was more appropriate. In particular I feel there are major problems with the 'personal life' section of the bio (see the article's talk page).Riversider (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good call - I think now we can get back to the reality of keeping it clean and NPoV in BLPs and ensure that editors try their best to stick to encyclopedic rather than news styles of writing. Looking much better today already !--Chaosdruid (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This GAR is going to be fun :) Majoreditor (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
<See talk page for reply concerning choice of venue and commentary tangential to whether the article meets the criteria> Geometry guy 12:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This review request is malformed to say the least; which of the Good article criteria is the article accused of not meeting? There is already a discussion on the article talkpage concerning the personal life section. That discussion ought to continue, at its original forum. Skomorokh 16:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Skomorokh, you're right that I should list more explicitly the ways that this article breaches WP:GA.
Specifically, it breaches:
If this were not a BLP, I might have been happy to let the discussion continue on the article's talkpage. Given that it was a BLP, and therefore a more urgent priority to get right, I felt a more proactive approach was neccesary. The GAR process is now started, and as I understand it, is therefore now the appropriate place for this discussion.

Riversider (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, that's more like it. So as I see it, we are investigating the article's compliance with criteria 1 (b), 3 (b), 4 and 5 (meeting BLP is a not a GA criterion, beyond that contentious BLP claims are cited to reliable sources, which would not seem to be in contention for the Marsden claims). Shall we open up subsections here for each of the issues and get down to business? Skomorokh 17:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That sounds like a way forward. I disagree with you that breaching basic WP Guidelines on BLPs is not a GA Criteria, for reasons of basic logic and common sense, but am seeking further clarification on this matter at the Village Pump.Riversider (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guidelines for Lead Sections

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic"

The 'co-founder' controversy is not notable enough to be included in the lead section of the article, and is not an important enough episode in the subjects life to feature in the lead. Riversider (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition this sentence is partially sourced to a Wikipedia edit. It needs to be reworked. Geometry guy 13:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Unneccessary detail"

The article goes into unneccessary detail about several aspects of the subject's personal life, and gives the name of a person only briefly associated with the subject. These details tend to be trivial, gossipy and unencyclopedic. They also tend to focus on negative aspects of the subjects personality and life, tending to portray him in a false light.Riversider (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article is uneven in its level of detail. For example, it mentions random, almost trivial elements concerning Wales' brief relationship with Mardsen but largely ignores his relationship with his first wife, Pam. The section on his Wikipedia biography delves into great detail, yet I see relatively little on his administration of the Wikimedia Foundation. IMO the article could do without trivial details on his breakup with Mardsen (per my earlier comment) and will benefit from additional material on how Wales founded, grew and administered various wiki entities. Majoreditor (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree entirely with Majoreditor. Geometry guy 12:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur; this article suffers of WP:RECENTISM: it focuses on issues that may have recently been of importance to Mr. Wales personally, but most readers would not care about. Xasodfuih (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Me three. A much higher-quality treatment could be done. There's a favorable but still interesting profile at Life After Trading : The Jimmy Wales Experience, with much biographical information (also has a great line about "his effort to take the success -- and, indeed, the underlying philosophy -- of Wikipedia, and commercialize the hell out of it") -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOV

Because of the prurient level of unneccessary detail, explained above, the article loses it's NPOV. The overall tone of the article is unbalanced and therefore does not accurately reflect the life and achievements of the subject Riversider (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unstable Content

"Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute."

Edit records show that the content of the article is unstable, with substantial changes occurring to the text, images and layout on an at least weekly basis.Riversider (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further discussion

Geometry guy 13:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article does a decent job with point (2) in the section "Nupedia and Wikipedia": here Wales' and Sanger's input into the early development of WP are described, and the reader can decide for themselves whether Sanger's input makes him a "co-founder". However, the article then goes on to screw it up in the "Roles of Wikipedia creators" section, which engages in the controversy from the very first sentence, where "Larry Sanger's role as co-founder of Wikipedia" palpably tells the reader what is the "correct view" contrary to point (1). It is like an article on Bill Clinton telling the reader whether oral sex counts as sexual relations.
The section is also too long and repetitive. What does it really need to say?
  1. Larry Sanger has been described as a co-founder of Wikipedia in a variety of reliable sources.
  2. In other reliable sources Jimmy Wales has been described as the founder of Wikipedia.
  3. Larry Sanger has stated that he considers that he co-founded Wikipedia, and given his reasons.
  4. Jimmy Wales has stated that he considers otherwise and given his.
  5. The disagreement has attracted media attention.
That's it. Arguments and suggestions over who is "right" are not only contrary to NPOV, they represent unencyclopedic navel-gazing. Geometry guy 17:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is naval-gazing like trainspotting at sea?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hehe :) Actually this is a spelling error I have made on many occasions. It seems to be a blind spot for me, not sure why. I corrected it (naval->navel). So far, though, no one has disagreed with the substance of my analysis, which makes me optimistic that the article can be fixed. Geometry guy 22:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Silence != consent. My conclusion, having researched this matter extensively, is that Jimmy Wales's "Sole Founder" contention should properly be regarded as a WP:FRINGE view, in light of the weight of the Co-Founder evidence. Where his position does seem to have an effect in terms of special treatment, is that I believe he would not be given even the politeness and deference granted now, if this were anyone else - especially given the self-editing on the topic. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm glad you spoke up. I agree with you that the "sole founder" view should not be given undue weight, and no such viewpoint should be endorsed. However, that doesn't mean the view of JW as the founder of WP is WP:FRINGE. We should simply report what reliable sources say, what the protagonists say, and what the media say about the disparity. We should not engage in the dispute. Do you agree with that or not? Geometry guy 00:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the key difference is the meaning of "engage in the dispute" - I would say that WP:UNDUE would be violated with wording that gave equal credibility to what Jimmy Wales states as his personal viewpoint, versus roughly the entire amassed historical references from 2001-2004. His position should be placed in the perspective of the reliable sources, which are solidly against it contemporaneously. The article notes the media coverage of the dispute, which is reasonable. It should not be constrained to echo the extensive PR campaign that Wales engaged in once Wikipedia became his claim to fame. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Second that. An image of the two together is useful, otherwise just link to the Larry Sanger article. Ottre 21:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Not sure I agree. WP articles often contain photographs of antagonists or associates. I wouldn't think twice about using such a picture in another setting.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've removed the twitter link as unencyclopedic. I don't see why the photo of Larry Sanger is a problem: it seems entirely appropriate and well within the GA criteria. Geometry guy 22:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not a problem as such, just that given the tone of the article it seems somewhat contrived. The subsection marks a clear shift towards the subject's position on issues with the project, yet the portrait of Sanger really does not say much of his professional capacity (he doesn't present like your typical philosopher). Ottre 22:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The Sanger photo doesn't strike me as contrived or unusual. Majoreditor (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem, as I noted above, is really the associated prose. Geometry guy 20:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

←I've seen some improvements in the article, but it still suffers from unnecessary details on his personal life and the date of birth tempest in a teapot. These result in a lack of focus and potential POV problems. The wiki self-references are also a problem, per Geometry guy's comments. I had hoped that editors would discuss these issues on the article's talk page and resolve them. I am leaning toward a weak-delist recommendation unless these concerns are addressed. Majoreditor (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TV Links

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Procedural close. No need for reassessment when renomination is preferable. Geometry guy 09:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, we have done some changes since the last review, improving sources and wording, and other adjustments. Do you think we're ready for GA status now? ViperSnake151 04:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Britney Spears

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

Result: Keep. It's not perfect but it's a GA per consensus below. Geometry guy 09:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article have a lot of "citation needed".
Looks like a write-fan-article and is not clear in all.
The principal autors put reference which says things totally different in the article to create a bulo.
Has a lot of lies. She is not a soprano, and i change that, so an autor undid my revision.
A good article has a good references. Have a good write (o prosa, cómo se diría en mi idioma). This article doesn't all of that.

Thanks. --Daviddavid0100 (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How is she not a soprano? Her range (I just checked it with a tuner) is almost exclusively within soprano range. Are you saying this because you believe she isn't really using her own voice in the first place? Levalley (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC) LeValleyReply[reply]
Comments
  • First, please recheck the article thoroughly if it did fail to meet the Good Article criteria. --Efe (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There's only one "citation needed" in article, specifically in this line "Spears's parents would often argue, and they eventually divorced in 2002", in which case the first clause might be an original research and the second clause could be sourced. --Efe (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The article was revised and perhaps you could also be clear in what instances it looks fancrufty. Please cite lines lines where ambiguity lies. --Efe (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The principal autors put reference which says things totally different in the article to create a bulo." A singular case which can be removed anytime. Please do not generalize it. --Efe (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Has a lot of lies" The same issue which can be addressed by opening a discussion at the talk page and not by edit summaries. --Efe (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "A good article has a good references. Have a good write (o prosa, cómo se diría en mi idioma). This article doesn't all of that." General comment. The article boasts 185 inline citations and an additional further reading. --Efe (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll make some suggestions we should ideally work through. Note, I do not believe the article needs delisting at this stage.
  • The lead is a little on the slim side for an article of this size.
  • The products and endorsements section should be integrated into chronological positions in article.
  • The filmography section needs cleaning up. Surely she can have an article created for this, with just a link to the article.
  • No need for Grammy Award grid at bottom.
  • 2008-present section is too long, needs trimming, smell recentism.
  • Quite a lot of unformatted references.
    Comment Its not a requirement but would be good if uniformly formatted. --Efe (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those are some observations. I'll try to do some myself. — R2 00:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

York Park

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist. Still contains significant content plagiarized from an unreliable source. Geometry guy 09:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reviewed this article for FAC and found significant issues that I feel also disqualify this article from retaining its GA status. However, I am not a regular GA reviewer, and I feel that my FAC review is likely a conflict of interest, so I think additional opinions are necessary.

Among the issues I found:

Karanacs (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I couldn't open the tasttadiums link (it says server upgrading). Why is it unreliable?YobMod 12:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Keep. Improvements made, no consensus to delist. Geometry guy 09:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article should have never been given a "good" rating. It gives undue attention to a trivial topic and is assembled in such a way that it appears to not only actively promote the subject, but also acts as a primary and central source of information on the subject under the guise of neutrality. In actuality, this article could be summarized in 2-3 paragraphs or contained entirely within http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#Arguments_against_the_Electoral_College

This is not AfD, and the article has plenty of secondary sources. Which GA criteria do you believe it fails and why? Geometry guy 11:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article clearly fails neutrality, it is full of weasel words which mostly promote the topic and, to a significantly lesser extent, argue against it. Several "sources" used to back these weasel words are repetitive newspaper editorials or links to organizations that are actively campaigning to pass the legislation. Additionally, a significant majority of the non-biased sources are contained within the chart that takes up over half the article. Aside from the chart, scientific and actual news sources are few and far between. There is no mention of the sample size in the opinion poll illustrated because it is so small (about 2000) it would detract from its implied significance. The entire article is composed in such a way that wikipedia is being used to give it legitimacy, rather than simply recognize what legitimacy it has. This article contains little information that is not featured on nationalpopularvote.com and is designed to simply gives those ideas the appearance of neutrality. Averyisland (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think i covered all the delisting concerns, NPOV ("not taking sides"), RS (well enough referenced) etc. Agreed that it can be improved, but nothing failing the criteria here imo.YobMod 16:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great Barrier Reef

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review
Result: Keep per improvements made and consensus below. Geometry guy 09:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I nominated this article as a GA in 2006. I do not know if it still adequately meets the GA criteria, especially the "broadness" criterion, which was questioned in its failed FAC. Please note when assessing that this article is regularly vandalised. --Malkinann (talk) 04:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now Keep after the good work done on it.YobMod 16:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A lot of referencing has been done since it got listed here, hence it looking better now.YobMod 15:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Jersey Route 180

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist per consensus below. Geometry guy 10:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The main source, "Alps' Roads", is a personal site and not a reliable source. --NE2 19:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm also concerned about notability, both this and New Jersey State Route 72 are related by history, per the leads of both articles. As both are short articles, IMO they should be combined.Dave (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tsunami

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delist per consensus below. There are numerous statements which need citation per the criteria. Geometry guy 10:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article does not appear to meet the GA criteria. I'm not familiar with this process, so I'm bringing it here rather than boldly delisting (which I considered). The article is not well written and is woefully undercited. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Santosh Subramaniam

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist. Substantial rewriting is needed to improve the grammar and distinguish this article from Bommarillu. Geometry guy 10:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I feel that this article conspicuously fails the "well-written" criterion, which the reviewer appears to have narrowly interpreted as requiring only that all of the words are correctly spelled. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rather than re-assess, why don't you just help improve it? Jeez. Universal Hero (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because I have neither the time nor the interest. Why don't you improve it? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Typical. I'll dot when I have time. What do you want me to do? Check for spelling/grammatical errors? I would love an inch more clarity. Maybe a discusiion topic rather than a GAR? Think about it. Universal Hero (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Typical of what? If you have something you'd like to say, best spit it out and get it off your chest. In the meantime I would point to a representative sample of sentences to support my proposition that this article needs a substantial amount of work to meet the GA well-written criteria:
  • "The film primarily revolves around a father and son relationship with the father's dote on his son ironically leaving a bitter taste with the latter."
  • "When inquired about his disgust ..."
  • "He cites instances where his choices of dressing, hairdo and many others are stashed away by his father’s".
  • "When asked for his reason to like Hasini ..."
  • "After saving their grace, Santhosh admonishes Hasini for her antics at the marriage."
  • "The choice of Genelia was due to her performance in the original, for which she was critically praised and gained stardom with."
I'm afraid that if you can't see what's wrong with this article then there's very little chance that you'll be able to fix it by editing it into idiomatic and correct English. It is not enough that each individual word is correctly spelled. They have to make sense when they're put together as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It'll be complete by the weekend, don't worry. Typical, as in hypocrisy and civil laziness. Universal Hero (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I cared about your observations on my work ethic or integrity I might have considered opening a WP:WQA to remind you of how you are expected to conduct yourself. As it is though, I really couldn't give a toss what you think. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Malleus here: the article is not well-written, and looks (not be offensive, but) to be written by someone who's native language is not English.

And to Universal: You don't really need to be quite to harsh. There are reasons people can't try to improve a particular article. One the reasons can be that if you try to correct an article you know nothing about, then you can introduce a lot of inaccuracies, because you haven't the movie. That's one reason among others. So please don't be so unfriendly. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 12:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies Malleus. Stressful Lives. =D Universal Hero (talk)
As an independent observer here, perhaps Malleus could have presented his/her opening criticism with a little less contempt. The JPStalk to me 13:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Contempt? I think you ought to think carefully before you make yourself look even more foolish than you already do. If you check the GA review you'll see that my comment accurately reflects the comments of the reviewer. A great many people seem to have a problem with honest criticism around here, very unhealthy. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DeviantArt

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delist per consensus below that article is not reliably sourced. Geometry guy 10:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not think this article meets the requirements for a good article. It is almost entirely sourced from primary sources. The vast majority of sources are from deviantart.com. A few are from Jarkolicious which is the blog of Scott Jarkoff. Of the very few sources that are not primary, not all of them support the content. The Time magazine article gives different numbers than given in the Wikipedia article (i.e., 50k submissions, not 100k submissions). Additionally, I do not think this satisfies WP:NPOV. Much of it sounds like an ad for the subject, probably because it is sourced so much by the DeviantArt website itself. Aleta Sing 17:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, a number of sections do not site any sources at all. The implied source is the website itself, but it is not cited in many places. Aleta Sing 18:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Napoleon I of France

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Keep per consensus below. No specific failure to meet the criteria has been articulated. Geometry guy 19:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After reading the entire Talk page, it seems to me that the invented information about Napoleon's death really needs to be removed from the article. His last words are listed wrongly, following a source that is known to have made them up. His real last words are recounted in a scholarly fashion on the Talk page, with citations that could be followed up. There is also a great deal more specific information about his death on the talk page, which contradicts the version in the article.

Is there a reason why his death comes before his marriages? That seems rather odd, in a biographical article. The marriage section seems to have been written earlier and in a different style than the entire rest of the article, with few citations and what appears to be conjecture or opinion. The rest of the article is good, but to have the last section(s) decay into what they are now doesn't seem to be GA level, to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley (talk • contribs) 21:06, 27 March 2009

What do you think the invented information is? What does your source say his last words were and how is that source more reliable than the current source? What source do you think has made things up and what is your reliable source to show that the other source has made things up? When you say decay which version do you think was better? Tom B (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Calgary

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted by nominator. Geometry guy 09:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following refs are dead.

The following quotes need references.

I have delisted the article until these problems can be fixed. Once fixed feel free to request a Wikipedia:Good article nominations.Cheers Kyle1278 01:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slut Night

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. No third party coverage. Geometry guy 09:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the talk page of this article, I've gone into detail on the sourcing problem. The gist is that all references fall into four categories:

This is very poor sourcing, personally I'd vote to delete at AFD because there's no non-trivial third party coverage... literally the only place in the world shown to have prose information on "slut night" is a random website that advocates people hold these events wherever possible. Even if you accept that it's an important and reliable site, it's still trying to popularize these events and is a primary source on them.

I just don't see how a good article can cite no secondary sources with non-directory information about the topic. Would we accept a good article on a politician that only cited his campaign website, aside from some trivial sources listing nothing but the dates and times he'd made public appearances?

Yes, it's a sex-related topic. But I don't buy that we can't expect secondary sources on such topics. I just read a fantastic 400-page academic book on butch/femme culture in the 1950s ("Boots of Leather, Slippers of Gold"). Good sources do exist on sex topics, this article just doesn't contain any of them... and thus, can hardly be considered a good article. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

County Route 149 (Sullivan County, New York)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: No action. Renomination at GAN recommended. If further disagreements arise please bring them to community GAR. Geometry guy 09:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I nominated this article about a few hours after I originally wrote this. Its about County Route 149 in Sullivan County, New York - a former state highway too old to receive a state title. I nominated it, along with 2 other articles. User:Rschen7754 failed it claiming three things:

  1. Questionable notability - not a valid reason to fail - I've already proved its notability
  2. Way too much detail - that's an opinion, not a true fact, because all my GAs usually look like that.He also cited that how he writes it, in a form that would seem very opinionated.
  3. No links in the Route description - I fixed this one, but its still not a really good reason to fail. Holding it, I understand.

Now - Other than these, the review was improperly done, as he never filled out an actual page for it, see above my post for that, and also, kept me quiet on it failing. As a bonus, recently at the U.S. Roads' Project Wikitalk, he took about 55-60 GAs that we as a project had accomplished and threatened to GAR them over stupid little things. I don't believe that failing over links, lead issues, notability, and too much detail. None of which are quickfail criteria, None of which are even a reason to fail an article in the first place.

I want to get County Route 149 a valid review, because it was just another victim in his rambling on about it. It feels very bad when he's already criticized about 25 of your already passed GAs and then goes and fails a nominee for the same reasons. I want the community to look this review over, along with the actions going on on Project space that may end up involving this page.

Thanks. Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 15:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you have a beef about my GA audit, this isn't the forum. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, this is precisely the forum. However, as the article has not received an in-depth review, reinsertion of the nomination at GAN is likely outcome, and it may be easier to cut to the chase if parties agree. Geometry guy 20:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"along with the actions going on on Project space that may end up involving this page." - I think Mitch is trying to do something greater than the reassessment of one GA. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Geometry guy: I figured it would be, but there is a major problem. This page is going to have a flood of Good Articles wanting review just because of an opinion. I don't think delisting 35-50 articles is really necessary over stupid little things, that is my beef with the GA audit. It is really really unncessary to give people a week and threaten them that its coming here when you, Rschen, blatantly have no support. Especially from me. Scream as much as you want at me, my opinion won't change, and I'll make sure those articles aren't coming to this page.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 21:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me say one thing, and let me say it now, in bold and in strong language: the GA process does not, a priori, give a fuck about arguments WikiProjects are having about what makes a GA within their project; the only thing that should matter to GA reviewers is whether the article meets the GA criteria.

These criteria are universal, and apply across Wikipedia. They are not subject to the whims of individual WikiProjects, and are not negotiable. The meaning of the criteria can be informed and elaborated by advice from WikiProjects, but no additional criteria can be imposed. If this is unacceptable to any WikiProject, then that WikiProject is free to disengage from the GA process and not use GA-Class (or invent its own use if it feels bold).

Conversely, if a WikiProject would like to audit its articles and send some for reassessment, it is welcome to do so. Such reassessment will be against the GA criteria, not the reasoning of the WikiProject. Geometry guy 21:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that my viewpoint will not be given a fair hearing in this forum; therefore I will reluctantly agree to this nomination being relisted, with the caveat that this article will most likely not remain a GA for long due to it not meeting the standards or it being deleted or merged within the week. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll fight that too, and prove you are <removed> me. What don't you understand. I have already proved its notability. If I wrote it as New York State Route 284 (1930s) - then the article would be even shorter than this. So think about it.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 13:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suggest that the article be renominated at GAN. Majoreditor (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deus Ex

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: No action. No consensus to delist and improvements have been made. Geometry guy 10:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article became a Good Article in 2007. Now it has numberous problems to it. Problems include:

The Synopsis is too long and doesn't cite any references or sources.
The Development history section is short and has an expansion tag on it.
Two of the references,ref 7 and 8, need to be fixed up.
There's a possibility I may have missed some other problems, but these problems might show that Deus Ex fails the Good Article criteria. Thanks lots. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Refs 7 and 8 fixed right quick.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've attempted trimming the synopsis to bare essentials (and doing that makes me want to go play that game again :-) --MASEM (t) 17:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, it's not usually necessary to cite synopses. My concern with this synopsis is that it wallows in unnecessary details which may cause the article to lose focus. Majoreditor (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Synopsis seems to be of decent length (not too long), though I've never played the game. I'll have a go at trimming it. — Deckiller 15:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some areas of the synopsis seemed a bit confusing; perhaps someone familiar with the storyline could go through and smooth it out a bit? — Deckiller 16:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alberto Santos-Dumont

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delist. Fails WP:LEAD, WP:LAYOUT, WP:EMBED. Additionally the prose is poor in many places. The article does appear to have some good sources, but they are not cited in places where citations are required. Geometry guy 10:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think this article meets the requirements for GA. Edit wars and layout are the main issues.

APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 13:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category