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


Planet of the Dead

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: GAN review reopened (on a new review page) Geometry guy 21:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was failed for not meeting the stability criterion. I contacted the reviewer in disagreement, and he said that he did see my point and wouldn't be offended if I sought a reassessment, but that nevertheless, he felt it was not stable. I disagree with this assertion as I feel the overall content of the article has been relatively stable for the past month and a half. What should be noted that Doctor Who articles are more popular, and thus more prone to unhelpful original research and unsourced content than most fictional series, and the corresponding WikiProject's members are equally more swift in reverting these. It's been a small, but manageable thorn in the WP's side, and we try to educate newbies as best we can. I feel that an article's relative popularity to readers and new editors should not result in GA failure, and I thusly seek a reassessment. Thank you. Sceptre (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the history does not suggest instability, nor is the topic expected to be unstable (has a US air date even been set?) Removing OR and unsourced contributions from IP or newer editors is necessary in general and not an indication that there's content instability. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
July 26. Sceptre (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was the original reviewer and I thought I would explain my reasoning for failing the article for stability. This is was I wrote at the original review:

To clarify my reasoning for the failure, I believe that while repeated reversion due to vandalism should not disqualify an article from GA status, reversions caused by disagreements over whether good faith content conforms with our content policies is another matter. These matters should be discussed on the talk page to encourage consensus building over the article's content. In sum: When it is clear there is ongoing disagreement over good faith article content, I believe the article cannot be listed as a GA until the disagreement is resolved through means other than multiple reversions. Thank you.

Vicenarian (T · C) 03:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GAR generally doesn't provide reviews in the absense of a full review of a nomination. Vicenarian could be asked to consider reopening the review, and I would encourage that, but if he is unwilling to do so (as he is entitled), the simplest resolution is to renominate the article. In my view it would be reasonable to reinsert the article into the list of nominations, but that view may not be universally held. Geometry guy 18:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reassessment would probably be faster; it took five weeks for this to be reviewed. Sceptre (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. Community GAR can't provide reviews to list from nothing: such a review would require at least one contributor to the GAR to look at the article in depth, checking sources and evaluating the article against the criteria, raising improvements that need to made, checking they have been made, and then signing off that he/she believes the article meets the criteria. That is exactly the service provided by GAN and the GA process doesn't have the resources to duplicate it at GAR. Geometry guy 19:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The X-Files

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN
Result: Delist per consensus below. Geometry guy 00:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here goes. This was promoted to GA way back in 2006 and it's slipped majorly since then. The numbers refer to sections of WP:WIAGA:

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 01:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. Something like that is definitely necessary for a GA. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would note first (for information) that the original GAN version was no better in terms of citation, reception, trivia, etc. The current version of the article is not substantially changed since the last peer review: as this long diff shows, the main changes have been the removal of images and citations (without removing the cited material) and expansion of the latter part of the article (seasons 7-9, episode types, legacy).
In contrast, the peer review had a different focus: "Wow, this article is huge...It might be best to merge the production details into a separate Production section and move the plot details into a Plot section...Ten Thirteen Productions Consider losing this." and in response "When ready, we can move them [each season] to their own articles, and cut down each season in the main article to a brief summary."
Well the peer review had it right, in my view, but it never happened. The article is poorly organized and has major 3b failings: the material on each season goes into unnecessary detail, which could be moved to spinout articles per WP:Summary style. The Ten Thirteen Productions material is mostly tangential, while the 2008 film gets just four short sentences.
There is plenty of production information and critical reaction in the article, but it is spread all over the place, blended together and mixed in with plot information. Consequently it is virtually impossible to extract any particular information about the series without reading the entire article from start to finish, which takes not far off an hour (I am sympathetic with any reviewer who gave up part way through!). Substantial trimming and restructuring are required to deal with this, not just adding some cites and removing some fanboy material. Geometry guy 19:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Torchwood Institute

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent GAN review
Result: Delist. Per GA issues (see e.g. WP:LEAD and WP:WAF) noted below. Geometry guy 19:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notices have been left on the article's, the main contributors', and the WikiProjects' talk pages about this reassessment. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was reviewing this article for Sweeps and would like to get a community consensus on the article. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed. I have already made minor corrections to the article, but have included several points below that I believe need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA.

  1. The lead needs to be expanded to better summarize the article. It currently does not touch on all of the sections in the article, including the Cultural impact section.
  2. The majority of the article is spent detailing the fictional history of the Institute, but is limited on its creation and cultural impact. This may raise issues of the article being in-universe.
  3. The article briefly touches on the conception, can this be expanded on? For example, take a look at Jason Voorhees, for ideas on expansion. I recognize that there may be limited sources on this topic, but it would be beneficial to look for any other ways of expanding the article.
  4. File:Torchwood cardiff agents.jpg and File:Torchwoodint.jpg are both used in this article. For WP:FILM, non-free images need to cite why they need to be included in the article (to illustrate the text which can be best conveyed through an image, for example) instead of being used for decoration for example. The first image could probably still be used in the article if there was further explanation of the clothing developed by the crew, or the importance of women agents, etc. The second image could probably be argued for inclusion about the effects (the spaceship in the background), how the Institute was designed by the crew, etc.
  5. The cultural impact section has been tagged for expansion since June 2008. Is there any other recent news articles, DVD commentaries, documentaries, etc. that focus on this? Are there toys, other tourist spots, souvenirs, etc.?

For these reasons listed above (mainly point two) I would like to see what others think about the status of the article. I believe that the lead and images can be fixed quickly, but am wondering about the possible in-universe content. This article covers the topic well and if the above issues are addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on it over the next few days. I just woke up now, so I'm understandably a little bit tired and can't work on it now :p. Sceptre (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would gladly work on these issues straight away but I am in Mods revision mode at the moment.~ZytheTalk to me! 18:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional history 1879–2006 tends slightly toward proseline when it lists some of the events. This is nothing that can't be cleaned up fairly swiftly by a determined editor though. The article has a lot of strengths. I agree the "Cultural impact" section is a little sparse. I think that if the issues above can be improved upon the article then the article can remain a GA. –Whitehorse1 03:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohlone

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: List as GA per improvements made and consensus below. Geometry guy 19:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Reassessment Request

I have decided to enter the page for a Reassessment. Goldenrowley (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Reasons to reassess:[reply]

I respectfully request new consideration. Goldenrowley (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things done to help article

I just fixed the two citations the reviewer requested when he delisted it. Goldenrowley (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a purpose in moving notable people to a new page? Other items about what order to put things in are worth thinking about. Goldenrowley (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ohlone#Notable_Ohlone_people subsection looks awkward as is, especially the "Notable" in the subsection header. I really think it would be better placed in its own list page. Perhaps keep a link to it with a subsection and prose/paragraph format discussion of a few of the most famous/noteworthy, perhaps three or max five or so, instead of a list, in this article. Cirt (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I hope I did not sound critical of you in making my initial case here, but I now have the time to address the page again and thought it's "good". I can work on the dead links. Thanks ! Goldenrowley (talk) 04:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was devastated. No just kidding, there's no worries, and I'm glad someone is returning to improving the article back to its prior state. If you need help fixing any of the links, let me know and I'll try to help you out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed almost all the dead links but 2. The orange one (Mutsun revitalization - language [mutsunlanguage.com] is not "dead" so I don't know why it's "suspicious"? The other "California Federal Recognition: A Request for Your Support [native-net.org]" used to be there it's white paper or letter if I recall, our citation says Data retrieved November 21, 2006. I think should remain in as such. Goldenrowley (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was considered suspicious because it was redirecting to the other page. I changed the link to bypass this. Sometimes old articles will redirect to the main newspaper's page so it's beneficial to use the Wayback Machine to find an old revision. That wasn't the case here, so it looks to be fine. Looking over the article, I believe the article can be relisted since the issues I initially raised have been addressed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite normal for work on improving an article to continue after its GA listing. GA isn't the end of the road, it's just a step on the way. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like what Middle Fork adds, so I don't think we'd have any edit war brewing. Except for a few places, I believe Milliken (a modern author/historian) influenced the writing the most (not Stanger). I just think we've addressed everything on the (first) GA list. I just reviewed and deleted the last badlink. Everything else were recommendations not required by above people. . Goldenrowley (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wuuuhooo!!! I'm glad for all the work of the long-time editors, and glad I could add. May the gods shine on the Ohlone article.Middle Fork (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I check though what are the sources for the following assertions?:
  • "The ethnographic Ohlone did not have a writing system." (Asserts a negative, which is hard to prove!)
  • "The Costanoan language family is considered extinct, although today Mutsun, Chochenyo and Rumsen are being "revitalized" (relearned from saved records)." (Considered extinct by whom?)
  • The population graph File:OhlonePopulation5.png looks like original research: it would benefit from a caption and a source.
Many thanks. Geometry guy 19:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are good comments we can work on them. So should I be bold and mark it as a good article again? I am not sure how and when to close the discussion. Goldenrowley (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you shouldn't. It's important for the integrity of the process that reviews are closed by a dispassionate third-party without any stake in the outcome. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you. I worked on Geometry Guy's requests today.Goldenrowley (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the last of the three criticisms from Geometry Guy, prior to European colonization, no culture or language group north of Mexico had a writing system. They did not have space ships either. I do not know why you even have to mention it one way or the other.Middle Fork (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed the fact that they "did not have a writing system" as you pointed out, since they did not have spaceships either. I also deleted a word that inferred they might have spelling without writing. This takes care of what I perceive are the stopping points on the discussion. I'll go get Geometry Guy to reassess it now.Goldenrowley (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the comparison is fair. Most readers would not expect them to have spaceships, but many might imagine that they had a writing system, since many civilizations did at the time. "No culture or language group north of Mexico had a writing system [prior to colonization]" is a strong statement, in which I would either replace "had" by "is known to have had" or preface by "Scholars believe that". However, dropping the sentence is a perfectly acceptable solution at the GA level. Geometry guy 20:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GGuy, lacking a direct citation I thought best to just leave the comment about written language out. It was not an elemental point. Goldenrowley (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

England

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist. Criterion 1,2 and 3 failings have been identified below, and remain unaddressed. Geometry guy 20:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, some background. A month or so ago the article was added as a GA nomination; in my view it was a premature nomination. I IAR-removed it, believing that was the most appropriate action. Just 6 days later it was placed back in the nominations queue; a reviewer passed the article. The article falls substantially short of meeting GA standards in my view.

There are many other problems within the article. –Whitehorse1 01:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have been through & standardised many of the citation to use citation templates & moved the "notes" into a seperate section. I removed some broken links. I hope this is useful but I think it now shows even more clearly that several secions are uncited.— Rod talk 19:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yours is a change done with the best of intentions, and in unequivocal good faith, but problematic. The referencing issues lie not with consistent use of any particular template. The problem, is outputting in different formats; article builders can use by-hand or template tools in combination, to provide referencing data as richly as possible. What matters is how they are used and customized; all too often, changing en masse helps not. I recognize your desire and effort to help. Nonetheless, the solution is not those adjustments. Please, revert the changes you made. –Whitehorse1 19:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can revert to the version of the article before I tackled some of the template issues - however this would mean putting back broken links - which surely isn't good practice, and remixing references and notes. I recognise that many of the issues elated to do with citations in the article are not just about the format but the actual references used and the lack of citations in many sections. I was hoping that this would address some of the concerns expressed above "It uses multiple citation methods outputting in different formats. The references section is disorganized." which seemed to have general agreement. Do others feel the changes I made need to be reverted?— Rod talk 20:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using a consitant citation format is always good, imo. But it is not a GA critrion (even though many reviewers always mention it), so it should not effect the review at all.YobMod 13:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the notes and the references separate (ie: as they are now). The format of the references (ie: using ((citation)) or ((cite book))/((cite web)) needs to be consistent. Nev1 (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment At the moment i agree that article suffers all the problems identified by reviewers above. The listy prose is a minor problem compared to the lack of citations - having lived in England for 25 years, i am suprised to see assertions of facts i have never heard of no sources to back them up. Many of the lists seem pointless: The list of national anthems is mostly repeated in prose, so prosifying the last 2 entries (and adding citations) would remove it entirely; the list of traditional English food seem far too much detail for a broad article on the country as a whole; Why is there a list of names of England in an arbitary number of languages? Why not all languages? Why not a wictionary link, that could then give the name in all languages?YobMod 13:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Felix (1995)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delist per consensus below. Geometry guy 19:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted in 2006.

–Juliancolton | Talk 16:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

That said, the hypothetical land fall time seems to be extrapolated using simple arithmetic, and so is indisputable, and I don't think it's original research. Diderot's dreams (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, as author of the article, I'm a bit too lazy to fix it up, so I don't mind it losing its GA status. Most of the content was written over three years ago, meaning unless an article was written perfect back then, simple band-aids will not work to keep its GA status. I do appreciate the new comments, and eventually I'll try to get around to them, but there's a bit much to do in its current form. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hepatorenal syndrome

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Keep per article improvements and consensus below. Geometry guy 20:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Much improvement has been made since this article was nominated for reassessment a few more comments:

  1. still lacks images
  2. section on prevention is vague and needs to be expanded
  3. I presume that all the info in the epidemiology section is American. This should be stated and a world overview should be created if possible

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This comment was from when the page looked like this [1] Samir has done some great work on this page and has improved it greatly over the last couple of weeks. I now have no concerns with it continuing on as a GA. Cheers--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, looks much better. Cirt (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking it over guys. Appreciated -- Samir 10:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks in advance for responding to these (possibly naive) concerns. Geometry guy 21:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geometry guy, thanks very much for coming here! My intent is to get this to FA level and meeting WP:SCG is critical. To answer your questions:
1: yes -- they are defined by the IAC article. I will add ref to the end of the paragraph
2: we should get rid of the "While this can be difficult to confidently diagnose" as it doesn't add anything but speculation -- wil ldo
3: aldosterone mechanism is within realm of common knowledge but the activation with aldosterone is best referenced by Schrier's article positing the underfill theory for cirrhosis (ref 9). Blendis and Wong's work (ref 5) reviews the spectrum to HRS and should be referenced also. Will change
4: the paragraph should be sourced to Gines' review article (ref 8). I should change the wording to "have been found to preserve renal function" which is the endpoint of the relevant studies
I am going to seek out some of the general FA folks (YellowMonkey and SandyGeorgia) to help tone down the medical jargon and Felix-felix and Nephron for the renal side of things. Thanks again everyone -- Samir 15:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that clears up my concerns. I'm willing to close in 3 days if no one beats me to it and no objections are raised. Geometry guy 20:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review • Previous GAR
Result: Procedural close. Nominator blocked. Any other editor is welcome to nominate the article for reassessment if they believe it does not meet the criteria. Geometry guy 22:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for being a Featured Article, but a lot of people opposed it. I now oppose it being a Good Article as well, for the same reasons-mainly because every sentence/statement is criticised and no defense is being allowed.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Previous community GAR February 2008
Result: Weak keep/no action per comments below; no compelling case has been made that this article does not meet the criteria, but article editors are encouraged to continue to look for opportunities to trim detail to spinout articles. Geometry guy 16:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following projects and editors are being notified of this new discussion: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress, Wikipedia:WikiProject Illinois, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States presidential elections, Wikipedia:WikiProject Arkansas, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics, Wikipedia:WikiProject New York, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cape Cod and the Islands, Wikipedia:WikiProject Barack Obama, Wasted Time R (talk · contribs), Tvoz (talk · contribs), and Mr.grantevans2 (talk · contribs).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a part of GA Sweeps, I have asked that this article be pruned back to 60KB of readable prose. The involved editors have argued against the necessity of such pruning and stated their preparedness for debate at GAR. Arguments have been presented that nearly 1% of FAs are longer than this article. Instead of delisting this article for failure to address suggested points of interest, I have decided to send it to the community for resolution on the necessity of pruning the article to less than 60KB. Hopefully, we can achieve consensus. At Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/GA1, there was no consensus reached during individual reassessment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of this article retaining its GA status:

First, WP:GACR does not explicitly address article size. Item #3b does advocate use of WP:Summary style, which this article does use in many places. For example, Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Electoral history of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton awards and honors, and List of books about Hillary Rodham Clinton are all direct BLP subarticles, while Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008, United States Senate election in New York, 2000, and United States Senate election in New York, 2006 are all related campaign articles, and Hillary Rodham senior thesis, Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy, and White House travel office controversy are all specialty articles on particular matters. There are more; see Category:Hillary Rodham Clinton for the full constellation of Hillary articles.

Second, WP:SIZE does not place hard-and-fast requirement on article size. It says that readers "may tire" of reading articles more than 10,000 words and that in terms of readable prose size, "> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". This article is currently 63 Kb readable prose size and 10,150 words.

As evidence that WP:SIZE is not a hard requirement, User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics shows that 43 current FA articles are over the 60 Kb readable prose mark, including 8 that are the same size as this one and 24 that are larger than this one, in some cases considerably larger. I quote these stats because the goal of this article has always been to stay at FAC quality, not just GA quality (I call it "FA without the star", analogous to academia's ABD).

So why does this article need to be on the long side? It is describing a very controversial figure in American politics, who has had a number of very distinct stages to her life and career. In order to thoroughly cover all of her life and accomplishments and setbacks and controversies, the article has to be detailed, present all views, and be heavily cited. I believe this article has successfully done this. It has had relatively few edit wars given its controversial nature and never been locked down (compare to the Obama and Palin articles, for example). Size is not the most important criteria in a BLP; conformance to WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:NPOV are, and I believe this article does all that well. I do not believe a more aggressive approach with breaking up this article into even more subarticles is warranted; BLP subarticles have an extremely low readership rate – see some of the statistics I gave in Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/GA1 – and the delicate and successful balance that this article has maintained for some time would not be successfully maintained once important material was farmed off to articles that no one ever reads.

Third, note that I did not ignore this GAR when Tony filed it. I made some 25 to 30 edits to fix up things in the article, including tightening the lead somewhat and doing some MoS tweaks like non-breaking spaces. Most importantly, I fixed 20 citation problems that the Checklinks run discovered, and a couple more things that a dablinks run found. There is however this one issue regarding size that we could not agree upon, and so here we are.

In sum, I do not believe that stripping this article's GA based on this one guideline – a guideline that is couched in terms of "may" and "probably" and that is not explicitly mentioned in GACR – is warranted or wise. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur wholeheartedly with all of Wasted Time R's comments here - as I said in the GA sweeps discussion, this subject has had a multi-layered life, with several notable careers and stages, and the main biography needs to give a comprehensive view to aid our readers in understanding. Even by FA standards, I would argue that the extra 3K of readable prose is not wildly out of line. For GA, there is no stated size requirement, and shouldn't take precedence over the quality of the article, its comprehensiveness, readability, verifiability, neutral presentation, stability and overall value. Tvoz/talk 16:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two false assumptions offered up in this GAR. False option #1 is that the article absolutely must meet some predetermined length. Luckily, it appears that concept has been slapped down.
False option #2 is the notion that subarticles are bad because they have lower readership. So what? That's an indication that readers make choices about what they read. They are offered the option to click into the subarticles; the links are fairly obvious and well-merchandised. We should not be so presumptious as to think that all users of the encyclopedia are going to need or desire to read the article from beginning to end.
Wiser editors than I have observed that the subarticle structure is one of the features that makes Wikipedia a success. Readers aren't overwhelmed with too much detail, and it's easy to find and click onto sub-articles to get more details. Let's not engage in bean-counting either for article length nor for page traffic comparison. Summarizing articles via subarticles is hardly "tantamount to deletion"; rather, it represents one of the core miracles of how Wikipedia works better than paper encyclopediae. Please, let's not act like prima dona chefs who insist that diners must eat each and every course in the exact manner it is served up to them. Let's delight in offering up an a la carte buffet. Summarize material where appropriate to keep the article from feeling like War and Peace and provide readers with easy-to-navigate choices for getting extra details as needed. Majoreditor (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Readership of the biographical subarticles isn't "low". Low would be perhaps a 5:1 or 10:1 ratio compared to the main article, which I would accept as reasonable. Readership of the the bio subarticles is extremely low, meaning the 100:1, 200:1, or 500:1 ratios I pointed out above. A partial reason is that I don't think the links to the subarticles are as visible as you do; I think the italic xref gets lost under the bold section headers. But that's not the main reason. There was a WP usage study recently (don't have the link at the moment) that found that most users find WP articles from search engines, not from following the links within WP (the opposite of what us editors do). And Google just doesn't rate BLP subarticles highly. Take this search looking for Hillary as senator: the Hillary main article turns up first, but the Hillary Senate subarticle -- which ideally is what readers should be directed too -- doesn't show up within the first 20 google pages of results. Or take this search for Sarah Palin in Wasilla: the Sarah Palin main article turns up first, the Wasilla article second, but the Early political career of Palin in Wasilla article, the one that's got all the juicy controversial stuff that the reader should be interested in, doesn't show up in the first 10 pages of results (I gave up looking). Wasted Time R (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, the summary style structure works great in other contexts. World War II is the top Google hit when searching for that, but D-Day and Battle of Midway are also the top Google hit when searching for those events, and have great readership stats as a result. I think it has to do with whether the secondary articles have clearly defined independent titles from the base article. Or maybe it's because there are jillions of WP articles that link to D-Day, but very few that link to Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton. But whatever the reason, the proven fact remains that biographical subarticles are not part of the "core miracles of Wikipedia". Instead, they are a sinkhole of effort that is virtually never compensated by readership. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-articles low readership may be unfortunate, but it is not a fair comparison, as we have no numbers for how many readers are clicking on this main article but giving up after the first 50% because it is simply too long for a generally interested reader. If only one in 1000 readers manage to reach the last section, then sub-articles are still preferable. I didn't !vote delist this time - but i also found trudging though some of the senate vote details to be boring, and i certainly would have skimmed it if not for the review. While there is no hard limit on size, if this article gets to more 65kb readable prose, then i think i would say delist on 3b grounds.YobMod 10:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would be great to have some kind of usage study that shows how readers navigate within individual WP articles. Maybe half of them read the lead section and nothing else? Maybe a third of them jump around the article based on the table of contents and links and don't read sequentially? Maybe many of them try to read sequentially and never get to the end of long articles, like you say? Alas, we don't know. But what we do know for sure is that biographical subarticles get extremely low readership. So I'd rather base our article structure decisions on what we do know than what we don't. As for the Senate section being boring, I hear you; I've worked on several of these (e.g. McCain, Ted Kennedy, Biden) and legislative process is often just as dull to write about as it is to watch happening on C-SPAN (try reading Adam Clymer's biography of Kennedy if you really want legislative slog ...). I'll take another look at it and see if anything can be improved or cut. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now made several trims from the Senate section, including the Iraq War Resolution amendment complexities mentioned above and several other resolutions and non-binding process aspects. However I left the video games/sex scenes material in, as I figure this part of the article needs every jolt it can get. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of intention to close

Lagaan

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review on talk page
Result: No action. Improvements appear to have addressed most concerns, but have stalled, as has this reassessment. I don't see a clear case to delist, nor a strong endorsement of the article. If further concerns are raised a new reassessment can be opened. Geometry guy 17:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the article contains many important elements of a GA, there are a few problems with its current state. I've completed a minor clean up but I feel it needs more work in order to maintain its GA status. The plot is exceptionally long and the overall prose of the article needs to be sharpened. Some of the organization and structure of individual sections feel in need of rewrites and revision. Since Lagaan is an important film, I think that its position as a GA article is worth review.-Classicfilms (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned most of it. Hometech (talk) 06:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Great job Hometech! This is a vast improvement. However, the prose and mechanics of the article still needs an overhaul. The awards section is a step in the right direction as well but it still contains too many small paragraphs composed of one or two sentences- I think it needs to be further compressed. We still need to attend to these areas. -Classicfilms (talk) 06:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone ever created a subarticle for the plot, becuase I wrote it and it's been sawn off :( YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There shouldnt be any such subarticle per WP:PLOT. Any way it contained details of no use to an encyclo reader. Hometech (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rewrite made the prose worse, eg "He invites an untouchable Kachra who can bowl a leg spin. However, the villager refusing to play with an untouchable" YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We need to follow the guidelines for MOS:FILM in order to maintain the GA status for this article. The guidelines for writing plot summaries are here: WP:FILMPLOT. In terms of plot length there is a limit:
"Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words and should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason, such as a very complicated plot."
Before the long edit to the plot summary the word count was 1941 which is over the limit. The current count is 678 which is within the limit. Since we can technically go up to 900 words, you can restore some of the previous summary as long as it doesn't go over the limit. However, better articles try and maintain a 700 word limit (MS Word has a word count option in its "TOOLS" menu) . I do agree with the point, however, that in order to maintain GA status, the overall prose and mechanics of the article must be attended to. WP:MOS offers useful tips for this area. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another useful set of writing guidelines: Wikipedia:Writing better articles. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the plot a bit though it could still use some more fine tuning. Other sections in the article need attention and clean up as well. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"We need to follow the guidelines for MOS:FILM in order to maintain the GA status for this article." Actually, no you don't. The only criteria for good articles are the Good article criteria. You are welcome to use WikiProject guidelines to help you meet them, but they are not themselves part of the good article criteria. Anyway, it is always good to see article improvement taking place. Geometry guy 21:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The two usually go hand in hand for GA and FA articles. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, GA criteria specifies that a good article is "well-written" and that "the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct" which is the primary issue I have with the article. It also states that it must comply with style guides: "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WIAGA
-Classicfilms (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the MoS and PLOT guidelines intersect with both the criterion 1 (well-written and follows MoS, eg "length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections") and criterion 3b (stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail). A plot for a single film being longer than 900 words almost certainly is either badly written or is in too much detail, imo. The newly-trimmed plot section seems not unduly long.YobMod 08:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea. The article has improved since I first asked for the reassessment. However, I do feel that the writing could be improved throughout the article. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since I asked for the reassessment, I should respond here. I'd like to see Lagaan remain a GA and the article has improved since I posted my request. Some of the writing needs to be cleaned up, however. For example, this passage:
"After pre-planning for a year, including ten months for production issues and two months for his character, Aamir was tired. A first-time producer, he managed a crew of about 300 people for six months. With a good hotel lacking in Bhuj, they hired a newly constructed apartment and furnished it completely for the crew."
needs to be polished a bit for grammar and style. There are other sections as well that would benefit from a clean up. There is also the matter of the two tags at the beginning, one referring to general clean up, one referring to a merge. I think they both need to be resolved as well. If these issues are taken care of, I would vote to keep it as GA. -Classicfilms (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delist per consensus below. Geometry guy 19:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a reassessment:

  1. one of the big concerns is the lack of references in many sections
  2. it is also a little long, many of the sections should be split off with a summary in the main article

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The vaccine protects against four HPV types, which together cause 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital warts
  • Hepatitis viruses, including hepatitis B and hepatitis C, can induce a chronic viral infection that leads to liver cancer in 0.47% of hepatitis B patients per year (especially in Asia, less so in North America), and in 1.4% of hepatitis C carriers per year.

The best course of action may be to delist until the article is brought up to GA standards. Majoreditor (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I share your concerns about the "Comparison to non-biological organisms" section. I decided to act boldly and remove it. Majoreditor (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It can of course be readded if reliable secondary sources are provided which support this analysis. Geometry guy 01:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dalberg Global Development Advisors

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist per consensus below and deteriorating weather conditions. Geometry guy 19:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Sugars, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Underwood, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broncolor, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clement Bowman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Levine, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalberg Global Development Advisors, and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Dalberg Global Development Advisors/1

It has been discovered that this article was generated as paid PR. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Paid_editing#Statement_by_Ha!. The Wikipedia article creation job was advertised on Elance.[2]. It's a very laudatory article about a company. Most of the references were generated, directly or indirectly, by the company itself. A Google News search does not produce much information from reliable unaffiliated sources. --John Nagle (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zithan (talk · contribs), who created the article in its present form, has been desysopped and blocked by ArbCom for this. See [3]. --John Nagle (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing the article to GAR attention, despite the dispiriting circumstances. Fortunately, we don't need to dwell on them here, as the focus of GAR is the article content not the editing process. So, the question is: does the article currently meet the GA criteria or not? Geometry guy 21:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The references are rather weak. They're either Dalberg corporate output, or brief mentions of Dalberg in some other large document. The "Key people" section is something that doesn't usually appear in Wikipedia corporate articles. There's no criticism. It's all very corporate. Not good. --John Nagle (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keymaker

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Procedural close. The article has now received a GAN review and was not listed. Geometry guy 19:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new version, tuned per first concerns, was not reviewed in the second nomination, when the tag was removed by anon. The article has an earlier peer review. Brandt 12:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was removed from the GA nominations list in January 2009 by the same anon, who may have mistaken the January 2008 GAN review by Canadian Paul for a January 2009 GAN review of the renomination. I will reinsert the nomination at the top of the list. Geometry guy 21:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson's health and appearance

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Keep. GA issues have been addressed. The classification issue may require further debate, but for the moment it stays under health and medicine. Geometry guy 21:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. This is trivia / patient history and not natural science. Therefore it should not be listed as a natural science good article.
  2. Also issues with language "He must also have hydroxychloroquin injected directly into his scalp regularly." He choices to have this done if this is the case. It is like he has too.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the issues you mention have anything to do with whether or not this meets the GA criteria. You seem upset about project/category tagging, something that could be dealt with on the article talk page. You also seem to be screaming WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — R2 01:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main point is that this has nothing to do with natural science this is biographical information. I have some concerns with the prose as mentioned above. From the perspective of science this page is nothing more than trivia. I guess we can close this and move the discussion to the talk page.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Minor prose issues could be dealt with on the talk page. You are trying to crack a nut with a nail gun. Let's turn this down a few notches shall we? — R2 14:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Withdrawn. Noisalt (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: No action. Issues have been raised , the article has been improved, and concrete concerns appear to have been addressed. No one seems to be pressing the case that this article does not meet the criteria. If any editor wishes to make such a case, a new reassessment can be opened. Geometry guy 16:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment discussion and general comments

I am nominating this for review again. See last review. This article needs a LOT more work to make GA level.

Yay! Finally some feedback we can sink our teeth into. Please ignore any defensive attitude I might display. I will try to keep it in check. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the article is more on par with B class articles such as Bird_flight and of significantly lower quality than Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame), another B class article.

Hmmm. Have you read Talk:Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) lately? There are major arguments about whether the article should even exist. Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics has been relatively stable for years. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CF is a better article, which is still B class, has a hell of a lot of traffic, and a hell of a lot of quacks. Secondly, I cannot find any discussion of requeuts that the page be removed, or that its content be removed, though there are authors suggesting moves or mergers. The article was relatively stable until major work in the past few weeks. User A1 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is completely ridiculous to have three separate articles about the same subject, and it really constitutes a three-way wp:content fork. One article says there isn't really a force, one says it is a fictitious force, and the third says it is really a centripetal force. Make up your mind and pick one name for the article, please, not three articles. Hint: Don't call it centrifugal force - there is no such thing, and please lose the hatnote "For the general subject of centrifugal force, see Centrifugal force (disambiguation)", and especially don't try to make a disambiguation page into an article about the confusion about which of the three content forks to go to. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for what seems like a long rant, these are in no particular order, and are somewhat of a stream of conciousness. I also realise I simply say something is wrong, and not neccesarily how to fix it, however I think some of the problems are beyond a simple fix which can be succinctly given:

Overall comments: The article seems to have something of an identity crisis, particularly with regards to the scope of the article. Facts appear to be placed in a disorganised fashion indicative of a large number of small contributors, with limited organisation.

The article has undergone significant reorganization in the two weeks since this comment was posted. Paragraphs have been added that introduce, compare, and contrast lateral and longitudinal dynamics. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sections appear to discuss important topics in varying detail,

Topics continue to be discussed in the detail commensurate with the available literature. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but fail to give the reader any clear idea of the important features in bicycle dynamics or provide the reader with a clear model of the problems and theories of bicycle dynamics, and provide a dedicated reader with a good concept of the physical phenomena that allow a bicycle to maintain its upright position when being ridden, or indeed when being released for short sections.

While a clear ranking of feature importance may appear in the popular press, I have not seen it in the scientific or academic literature: most likely because it is not possible. The relative importance of any feature varies from bike design to bike design and even with relative rider weight and forward speed for a particular bike design. The article has for a long time explained how balance is possible and tries to give a balanced review of the competing factors that make self-stability possible. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A bike remains upright when it is steered so that the ground reaction forces exactly balance all the other internal and external forces it experiences, such as gravitational if leaning, inertial or centrifugal if in a turn, gyroscopic if being steered, and aerodynamic if in a crosswind.[9] Steering may be supplied by a rider or, under certain circumstances, by the bike itself. This self-stability is generated by a combination of several effects that depend on the geometry, mass distribution, and forward speed of the bike. Tires, suspension, steering damping, and frame flex can also influence it, especially in motorcycles.

I'm sure there is more, but I have said enough I believe to make the case for reassessment. User A1 (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While there are a few concrete improvements that can be made, as enumerated at the bottom of the discussion about this article, many of the points made below turn out to fall into one of these categories:
  • are perhaps overstated or refer to only a single instance:
Many sections include single sentence paragraphs (e.g. "External forces")
Not counting single sentences that precede lists, there are 5 single-sentence paragraphs out of about 100 paragraphs. There is not even one single-sentence paragraph in the "External forces" section, nor has there been since the last GA review. All 5 existing single-sentence paragraphs have since been combined with existing paragraphs.
Article does not consistently use en/UK versus en/US (behavior/behaviour) etc
Exactly one instance of non en/US spelling (behaviour) has been found. It has now been corrected.
Multiple wikilinks are made on a regular basis or are not linked in their first instance. (gyroscope, touring, precess(ion), handlebar, gravity)
  • Gyroscopic effects is mentioned twice in the same sentence in the lede. The second instance is linked. The first instance was linked in the version dated May 9.
  • Touring is linked in its first instance, in the section on center of mass location. This has not changed since May 9.
  • Precession is linked and italicized in its first instance, in the sentence introducing the term. This has not changed since May 9.
  • Handlebar is not linked until it is included in a list of key components made of carbon fiber to reduce vibration. This has not changed since May 9.
  • Gravity is linked in its first instance, in the lede, under the name of gravitational forces. This has not changed since May 9.
  • are contradictory:
This would be more useful if, for example, an equation was given that relates the braking force to the results of braking
Mathematical models could be condensed into "theory" section. Currently mathematics is scattered across different aspects of theory and in theory section.
  • seem to be refuted by the text of the current article:
Article fails to make clear the distinction between the action of a controller (rider) versus the inherent stability of the bicycle (system stability) in the stabilisation of the system.
The article already says however, even without self-stability a bike may be ridden by steering it to keep it over its wheels. That seems to separate them.
Article mixes up stability of the bicycle and stability of failure modes (see capsize section). This is a nomenclature issue.
The article already says because the capsize instability is so slow, on the order of seconds, it is easy for the rider to control, and is actually used by the rider to initiate the lean necessary for a turn. That seems to separate them.
  • are vague or only potentially problems
Several external links may violate WP:EL#Rich_media
What is the policy on internal cross referencing in articles? This article does it on a few occasions.
Unusual formatting is present in the section on Eigenvalues.
  • are looking for simple answers when they do not exist
Article makes initially is unclear as to the effect of gyroscopic action in stability, ascribing it as a possible effect then states that it is possible to ride the bicycle without gyroscopic effects.
Yes, gyroscopic effects influence handling and self-stability and gyroscopic effects are not necessary in order for a bike to be ridable.
Article at times makes no sense A rider can have the opposite impression of a bike when it is stationary. (before and after have non-contradictory statements about the stability of inverted pendulums)
Yes, a bike with a high center of mass will be easier to ride, and a bike with a high center of mass may require more effort to balance when stationary.
Is the trail what provides the decreased turning radius instability, or is it the tire's contact patch?
Both trail and the front tire contact patch can contribute to decreasing turn radius.
Obviously, the article is not perfect, there is always room for improvement, but I do not see any clear violations of the good article criteria. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the concerns raised about the stubby paragraphs. Another GA style issue which I spotted is that the lead doesn't adequately summarize the article. Geometry guy 13:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. That's something I can work on. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lede has expanded from 226 to 372 words: a 65% increase. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Details

Technical content
Stoppies, wheelies, and endos
The paragraph immediately before the stoppie picture says "the front wheel often can generate enough stopping force to flip the rider and bike over the front wheel. This is called a stoppie..." -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But fails to mention anything but the simple fact. This would be more useful if, for example, an equation was given that relates the braking force to the results of braking, such as this effect that at high dv/dt owing to the front of the vehicle causes a rotation about the axis of the front wheel, in some form of hinge-like m phenomena to the reader. User A1 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean like this, from the following paragraph?
Therefore, if
then the normal force of the rear wheel will be zero (at which point the equation no longer applies) and the bike will begin to flip forward over the front wheel. -AndrewDressel (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Math and theory
Does this mean take the equations out of the braking section? -AndrewDressel (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gyroscopic effects
A very good point if the article does not make it perfectly clear. What the reader should come away with are these points (in bullets, not prose, for clarity): -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gyroscopic forces do not provide any resistance to tipping.
  • It is possible to ride the bicycle without gyroscopic effects.
  • The theory that bikes stay upright because the wheels act like gyroscopes is discredited.
  • Gyroscopic effects vary with wheel inertia and rotation rate.
  • Gyroscopic effects of the front wheel can assist in the leaning of motorcycles at high speed.
  • Gyroscopic effects contribute to, along with trail and other effects, the possibility of self-stability of a bike and how it feels to a rider.
Contradictions
This is a sentence out of context. The complete thought is:
Just as a broomstick is easier to balance than a pencil, a tall bike (with a high center of mass) can be easier to balance when ridden than a short one because its lean rate will be slower. A rider can have the opposite impression of a bike when it is stationary. A top-heavy bike can require more effort to keep upright, when stopped in traffic for example, than a bike which is just as tall but with a lower center of mass.
Perhaps a bullet list will make it clearer:
  • A high center of mass is easier to balance while riding.
  • A high center of mass can require more effort to keep upright while stopped and so give the impression that it is harder to balance.
Switching
The article is about bikes in general and uses particular types of bikes as example to illustrate points. Which comments are out of place? -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is another, non-slang name for choppers, let's use that. Otherwise, the article will have to refer to them as bikes with very slack head angles or very high rake angles. Also, chopper is the name of the article. I can no longer find and instance of "tourers". -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is "pseudo-mathematics"? -AndrewDressel (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incompleteness
Drag is mentioned as an external force, but does not seem to be covered in theory or discussion.
Yes, drag should get more attention. -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Now its influence on trim is also mentioned. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trail and tires
Tires: generating a torque that tends to turn the front wheel in the direction of the turn, and therefore tends to decrease the turn radius.
Trail:trail causes the front wheel to steer into the direction of a lean, independent of forward speed
Both are true and the relative size of these effects will depend on the parameters of a particular bike. If the article does not already make that clear, then it should. It already says self-stability is generated by a combination of several effects that depend on the geometry, mass distribution, and forward speed of the bike. Tires, suspension, steering damping, and frame flex can also influence it, especially in motorcycles. -AndrewDressel (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's role in stability might be this, from the second paragraph: The more trail a bike has, the more stable it feels. Bikes with negative trail (where the contact patch is actually in front of where the steering axis intersects the ground), while still ridable, feel very unstable. Bikes with too much trail feel difficult to steer. -AndrewDressel (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Self-stability vs rider control
The article already says however, even without self-stability a bike may be ridden by steering it to keep it over its wheels. That seems to separate them. -AndrewDressel (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article already says because the capsize instability is so slow, on the order of seconds, it is easy for the rider to control, and is actually used by the rider to initiate the lean necessary for a turn. That seems to separate them. -AndrewDressel (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Style
Images
There is one small picture of bicycles in a turn and one small picture of motorcycles in a turn. Is that too many? They enrich the article by showing the activity described. They are as close to the turning section as they fit. I have not seen a good picture to illustrate rear wobble. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rear wobble could be illustrated via one of those animations (which are quite neat!) . Dynamical effects are best illustrated, well, dynamically User A1 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also the much more useful animations at the beginning that actualyl illustrate the dynamics of a turn, as opposed to the images shown, which don't really convey information to the reader.
The pictures of a wheelie and a stoppie are about as close to the text that describes the dynamic phenomena as possible. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We all know what a bicycle looks like, yet the bicycle article has a picture of a bicycle. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has also has good pictures of bicycles, with markings as to the dynamical aspects thereupon, eg the penny-farthing cycle (although this is an unusual configuration). This image conveys little information that is not conveyed in words. User A1 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sections have been reorganized and now the picture of bicycles leaning in a turn is no where near the section on rear wobble. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chunkiness
Seriously, exactly how many sections have one sentence? -AndrewDressel (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is not one single-sentence paragraph in the "External forces" section. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but there are in other sections. Counts: In "External forces" 3 lots of 2 sentences and 2 lots of 3. Hardly "well written prose". User A1 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There were exactly 5 instances of single-sentence paragraphs. Now there are none. -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So are the "See also", "Research centers", and "External reading" sections. Sometimes a list is best. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also, and external reading are recommended per WP:MOS#Section management. Other list sections are not. MOS suggests avoiding lists where prose suits. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Paragraphs. User A1 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe prose would not suit this section. It is simply a list of key experiments performed. There is nothing to gain and clarity to lose by converting it to prose. As Wikipedia:Embedded_list explains "In some cases, a list style may be preferable to a long sequence within a sentence." -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
History
It is how the paper describes what it presents. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but there are a lot of papers out there with a lot of information. Including irrelevant information is not what should be done User A1 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest reading the paper before passing judgment. A url is provided in the reference. -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, find more, or request citations for particular statements. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC) There are now nine different references to 5 separate sources. -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To illustrate the veracity of its contents. It is a prestigious journal. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not about the prestige of any given journal, citations should be given inline using cite tags per WP:CITE. Linking, and mentioning the publication is superfluous and detracts from article quality. Indeed this slides in the direction of WP:VANITY for the paper. User A1 (talk)
The article is about a relatively obscure field with a long but spotty history. To be published in a prestigious journal is the current culmination of that history and is as big a fact as any other in the history section. Physics Today is wikilinked for similar reasons. -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Useless facts
This is also sometimes called "completeness". -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I claim that including such information for "completeness" is a mistake in writing articles, and stems from one of two situations. Firstly not including information in a position where it connects to other information in appropriate context (disorganised information), and in the second situation a failure of the article to define its scope and cover this scope in an in depth manner (detracting information) as required for a GA. User A1 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, the first offending sentence was probably inserted in a misguided attempt to make sure there were no single-sentence paragraphs and is now long gone. The second sentence arose from talk page discussion with other editors who insisted that they could lean a bike simply by leaning their body. It attempts emphasize the impossibility of leaning the combined center of mass without external forces. One example of an external force is as good and arbitrary as another. -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Single instance corrected. Sentence about tire pressure moved to section on tires and combined with an existing paragraph.
Language
The article definitely should use one spelling. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly one instance of non en/US spelling (behaviour) has been found and corrected. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Policy violations
External links
The article currently states While it is an observable fact that bikes can be ridden even when the gyroscopic effects of their wheels are canceled out, the hypothesis that the gyroscopic effects of the wheels are what keep a bike upright is common in print and online. Examples in print: ... And online: ... How can we make it more clear that these are examples of the discredited hypothesis? -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the past, other reviewers have objected to nonNPOV of alternate wordings. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't agree that simply deleting the list is helpful. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. According to Wikipedia:Embedded list, "embedded lists should be used only when appropriate", which I believe is the case here, and "in some cases, a list style may be preferable to a long sequence within a sentence."
  2. According to WP:EL, links to be considered include "sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." All the sites listed do, or at least did at the time they were added, contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. If one does not or no longer does, that is a separate matter solved simply by correcting or removing the individual link.
The article now explains However, these ranges are not hard and fast. For example, LeMond Racing Cycles offers,[19] both with forks that have 45 mm of offset or rake and the same size wheels: -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilinks
  • Gyroscopic effects is mentioned twice in the same sentence in the lede. The second instance is linked. The first instance was linked in the version dated May 9.
  • Touring is linked in its first instance, in the section on center of mass location. The first instance was linked in the version dated May 9.
  • Precession is linked in its first instance, in the sentence introducing the term. The first instance was linked in the version dated May 9.
  • Handlebar is not linked until it is included in a list of key components made of carbon fiber to reduce vibration. This has not changed since May 9.
  • Gravity is linked in its first instance, in the lede, under the name of gravitational forces. This has not changed since May 9.
Control is now mentioned in lede with wikilink. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does "internal cross referencing" mean? -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Internal cross references are where you say as mentioned above#Where_it_was_mentioned and link to the current article at the same time. I am not familiar with the policy on this, but nor have I seen this in general use. User A1 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no mention of any policy either. The article is big and the content is interconnected by nature. I find internal cross referencing helpful. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Formating and display problems
I see no display problems with Windows Internet Explorer version 7.0.5730.11 at 1600*1200. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This does not refute my statement. Article should be accessible to as many users as possible. Firefox is a browser with a not inconsiderable user base, and 1280*1024 is a fairly standard resolution. I have no idea *why* this is happening, but I assure you it is. User A1 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mean to refute your statement. I have no doubt that it is true. I am merely adding another detail that might be helpful to whomever tries to fix the problem. Clearly, finding and fixing it might be harder for a Windows Internet Explorer user with 1600*1200 resolution. Probably someone with firefox 3.0.6 will have to look into it. -AndrewDressel (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved images from the left to the right in the areas that showed formating problems with Google Chrome and Firefox 1.5. Has that fixed the problem on (1280*1024, firefox 3.0.6)? -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific? What is unusual about it? -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concrete changes to make

Significant changes made. Dynamics now grouped into lateral and longitudinal, somewhat parallel to external and internal forces, and the difference between them is explained. -AndrewDressel (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Control theory is now introduced and linked in the lede. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although still brief, the influence of drag on trim is now introduced. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are at least now introduced. -AndrewDressel (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Several details added along with references. The lede has expanded from 226 to 372 words: a 65% increase. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially fixed. Moved images from left to right and everything looks correct in firefox 1.5.0.11, chrome 1.0.154.65, and ie 7.0.5730.11, though some image stacking occurs at high resolution. -AndrewDressel (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. One instance of 'behaviour' corrected to 'behavior'. One instance of 'influcence' corrected to 'influence'. One instance of 'a upright' corrected to 'an upright'. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Five instances found. All combined into existing paragraphs. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Both new section have links to appropriate main articles. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Original source double checked. Numbers and conclussion seem reasonable. Details provided on talk page. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of intention to close

Brat Pack (film)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: No action. The article's review and failure were not handled properly, however, the matter should have been taken up directly with the nominator before bringing it to GAR. Regardless, the article is thought to need some work and no action was taken by the nominator throughout the GAR period. Suggested course of action is to implement the suggestions raised below and open a peer review before the article renominated. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

This was nominated some time ago, and given a review that had less than helpful comments. Even after requesting additional feedback, and making the few adjustments that were specifically requested, the initial reviewer failed to respond and the article was summarily failed. Upon second nomination, the reviewer did not even bother to go through the steps of creating a review page, but instead failed the article based on its length (which is specifically listed in the notes as not a criteria for a good article), it not having an infobox (again, not listed as a criteria for a good article), and being of "poor quality". I am simply calling for a fair and helpful review of the article. What needs to be done to bring it up to good article status? Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The review being reassessed is clearly invalid-- not an adequate review, and the nominator doesn't think it's GA as is. According to our procedures, isn't this a case of a non-review and the article should be renominated at GAN (GAC)? It seems to me this isn't the appropriate venue. Diderot's dreams (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats hard to say but I would think sending it back to GAN would be the best option. I do think that the articles second GAN may not have been handled in a proper way, this article needs more work before reaching GA status but I would have reviewed this in a different manner then the 2nd reviewer did. As for the proper outlet to go to from here, I don't know how policy handles a situation like this but if this is not renominated at GAN, perhaps a peer review would not hurt in getting this article to GA status. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the reviewer got in over his head and expressed a desire to back out gracefully. And this community reassessment shouldn't have been opened without the nominator and reviewer discussing the matter first. Unless there's any objection, I think this can be closed. In the meantime, I'll undo the partially undone fail and link the partially done review here. Doctor Sunshine talk 04:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was going to close this but I'm going to revise my statement slightly. The review in question may not have been handled very well but we've had two people review it here and no work has been done. I've removed it from GAN as it shouldn't have been listed both here and there. Since the standard outcome of this GAR should be to "list" or "not list" it, and again we've had two people review it here, relisting it ourselves at GAN would be redundant. The article does not meet the GA criteria at this time but, because my previous post confused the matter, I'm going to give this another day or two and then close this, unless some work is done. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exploration of Jupiter

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Keep. After a long GAR with much input from reviewers, and improvements and expansion by multiple editors, there seems to be consensus that the original case to delist is now moot. Articles can be reassessed at any time. Geometry guy 19:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I peer reviewed this article and found numerous problems with the use of sources, specifically, a number of citations did not contain the information being cited. I started an individual re-assessment, but the editor involved believes that I am out of line and has requested a community re-assessment. I'm therefore doing so; I hope that's not against the rules about requesting re-assessments. Ricardiana (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for reassessment is perfectly fine. Note that community reassessment will address whether or not the article meets the criteria, not whether your review or review decision was appropriate. However, I've left a couple of comments on the associated talk page. Geometry guy 16:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good; thanks. Ricardiana (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the citing issues listed there should be solved now. Nergaal (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have not added any secondary sources beyond a website or two, or changed the lead. Ricardiana (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Philcha

I won't comment on quality of sources or how well they support the text, as that has already been done at Wikipedia:Peer review/Exploration of Jupiter/archive1.

Coverage
I am not sure why a mission profile would be necessary. Most of them were flybys, and asides from saying when were the probes near the planet and what did they do, I am not sure how would anything else contribute to the topic. Nergaal (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not very clear to me why would these have to be included here and not in the History of space exploration article instead. To me the topic of the article is the exploration part, not really how was it done. Nergaal (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Presentation
fixed a couple
went through a bunch
improved a few instances. n
Not all done. Hint: text search. --Philcha (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
tried that. all should be fixed now. Nergaal (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is the sentence now? Nergaal (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"due to the harsh charged-particle environment that is found around Jupiter (for a detailed explanation see Magnetosphere of Jupiter)"
  • Still copies the phrase "harsh charged-particle environment". --Philcha (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with keeping an accurate scientific terminology? Nergaal (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • should have a brief explanation of why it's so harsh, instead of "(for a detailed explanation see Magnetosphere of Jupiter)". If the source from which "harsh charged-particle environment" is copied does not explain it, please provide additional refs. --Philcha (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are 3 full paragraphs in the magnetosphere article that explain that fairly well. I am not quite sure how to dumb down those 3 paragraphs into a sentence and still have a clear explanation. Nergaal (talk) 06:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technical requirements
Maybe I am understanding you wrong but: if one is discussing the expeditions to Mount Everest they it should be noted somewhere that for example there is a low oxygen level. But why would be necessary to discuss what or how many sherpa's are used? n.
Isn't this covered under The energy needed to reach Jupiter from an Earth orbit requires a delta-V of about 9 km/s, compared to the 9.7 km/s delta-V needed to reach a low Earth orbit from the ground.
No. The fundamental problem with space flight (outside of science fiction) is quantity of reaction mass required. An ion drive produces vastly more delta-V than a chemical rocket becuase it gets far better "miles per gallon", but produces insufficient raw power for lift-off from Earth. --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure speed matching is an actual requirement? This is not like two moving ships getting close to each other, but instead shooting a bullet to get trapped by the immense gravity of the "substar". This requirement would be valid for something small like an asteroid, but not a huge planet with an atmosphere serving as a cushion if needed. Nergaal (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already said the energy required for speed-matching depends on whether the mission is a fast fly-by, slow fly-by or extended visit. The article raises this issue as it says Voyager 1 did a fast fly-by, Cassini–Huygens did a months-long fly-by and Galileo orbited for 8 years. --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing got "trapped" by Jupiter's gravity - if it did, we'd be looking at some sort of "landing". --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I rephrased it so sound it more clear. Nergaal (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is wrong. On short distances, slingshots usually do take longer times(=routes). But for very long distances, such as the outer Solar System, the spacecraft usually travels much faster with slingshots, and the change in path is relatively small compared to the entire distance, and therefore the overall trip takes less time. Nergaal (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depends what you're comparing it with. A WP article has to address non-specialists. Hence its baseline should be the "naive" approach, where the craft accelerates flat out and then decelerates flat out. This is theoretically the fastest, but its high reaction mass requirements run into a vicious circle (you need to lug to the mid-point the reaction mass you'll need after the midpoint, etc.). Once that's ruled out, a "boost and drift" flight to the outer solar system (w/o slingshots)may not be feasible because it's against the sun's gravity, or will be very slow for the same reason. --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read Critical point (thermodynamics); there is NO difference between a gas and a liquid at the point one would normally call "the surface" of Jupiter. So fluid is actually the correct term. Nergaal (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, but the article needs to provide some sort of explanation as this phenomenon is way outside normal human experience. At a minimum I'd be much more explicit about the lack of a clear boundary between gas and liquid, and wikilink to Critical point (thermodynamics). --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, although I see absolutely no likelihood of anybody doing this outside of Hollywood or of video games. Nergaal (talk) 02:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That comment is plain WP:OR, and questionable - the Russians eventually landed a probe on Venus (92 atmospheres' pressure; corrosive because of high SO2 content; surface temperatures of over 460 °C). Why did no-one attempt a "landing" on Jupiter or some sort of extended stay in its atmosphere? --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Galileo's probe died at 23 atmospheres and 153oC. Not many space probes will be designed to withstand that anytime soon. Nergaal (talk) 02:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an explanatory note. n
Re "due to the harsh charged-particle environment that is found around Jupiter (for a detailed explanation see Magnetosphere of Jupiter)":
  • It still contains "the harsh charged-particle environment", copied from the source. --Philcha (talk)
  • Need to explain why Jupiter has this problem. --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spelled out 8. Nergaal (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pioneer program (1973 and 1974)
This is the information that NASA gives in its reports on the two missions. There were actual pioneers in the sense that people didn't really know what to expect so they only equipped them with cameras and antennas for sending information back. Nergaal (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voyager program (1979)
changed
changed
added note
in astronomical terms yes; unlike say Haumea, it is not a ball of ice, and it is "thin" enough that one could envision drilling though it; or maybe getting cracks all the way through the bottom. Nergaal (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
later sections
Images
switched to a better one. Nergaal (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
is this still applicable? n
? n
done now? Nergaal (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fixed. n
replaced with more representative ones. Nergaal (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Links check

The link checker shows some problems:

done
That link died only a few weeks ago; fixed. Nergaal (talk) 02:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
checked. n
Lead

(leave until very last, when all other content stable)

Verdict
The sourcing issues there have been solved, but the reviewer declined to rereview those issues. Nergaal (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. Also, Philcha and Cirt, as well as Geometryguy, are looking at the current version of the page - and they still see problems. Ricardiana (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
←the sourcing points should be solved, see here: Talk:Exploration of Jupiter/GA2. Nergaal (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, but doesn't address Cirt's and Philcha's comments. Ricardiana (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article's history page shows that you have made only 2 edits since this community GAR was begun - unsubstantive edits. Ricardiana (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what exactly is your problem. I have not tried to insinuate that I have solved those comments; I said only that I have tried to address the sourcing issues which in my opinion are the most pressing ones. Nergaal (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, and one more thing: the article went from 25.4 to 32.3k [4]. Instead of bickering you have made during this weeks, you could have added yourself another 5k of information to the article. Nergaal (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been improved largely through my prodding, first at peer review, second at the individual GAR I began, and now at this community GAR that I began because you felt that "This is clearly out of your reach" [5] (evidently you now think otherwise; or is it out of my reach to review the article, but not to add to it?) I am sorry if I've allowed my annoyance at your numerous personal attacks to affect the level of my zeal here. Nonetheless, I am not impressed with someone who attributes information to sources that don't contain that information; attacks the person who points that out; replaces some sources with other sources that still don't contain the cited information (including one from the 19th century! that's still my favorite); attacks the reviewer further; requests a community GAR which has the effect, intentional or not, of buying more time to work on the article's numerous problems; and then, at that community GAR, only responds to the concerns that I raised, rather than to other reviewers' concerns. What I have tried to point out (and again, my annoyance at your attitude towards me may have affected my zeal here) is that, rather than following me around, you should engage with the other reviewers here. Ricardiana (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please concentrate here on whether the article currently meets the GA criteria. Discussion about the reassessment belongs at WT:Good article reassessment/Exploration of Jupiter/1. For interpersonal matters, please use User talk. Thanks. Geometry guy 19:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

Most if not all the citing issues in text should be solved now. I have solved part of the technicalities raised, and I have left the intro for later. Nergaal (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If i were first seeing the article as it is now, i would still say delist. The lead remains too short and does not summarise the article, and many of the points Philcha brought up still need more work on them. Hence delist now and renominate later.YobMod 18:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


NOTE it appears that the last major concern was the intro, so I went ahead and bulked that up from 1 para to 3 paragraphs. Nergaal (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was sterted a month ago; can this process be sped up? Nergaal (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing problems

  • "Nevertheless, in principle it would be still possible to send probes to float at levels of lower pressure, thus allowing for limited, but extended observation of the local environment" is cited to an article in Planetary and Space Sciences." I've read the article through my university database; it mentions probes only once and does not say this about them.
  • "Voyager spacecraft had to be redesigned to cope with the massive radiation levels" is cited to a chunk of Mark Wolverton's book. As Philcha points out, citing to a page range of 50+ pages is not acceptable. Further, a search of those 50 pages on Google Books does not seem to contain at any point the cited information.
  • "determined that Jupiter is mainly fluid" Commonplace info, but not contained in cited source.
  • "576,000 km away from the planet's cloud tops" Figure given in source is 57.6 million km.
  • Note 11 only gives a DOI. It should give author, title, date, and journal information.
  • Notes 12 and 13 purport to cite information about satellites Adrastea and Metis; the website in note 12 does not mention either satellite. The JStor article mentions and pictures the small dark spots that were noticed, but does not name them. (Note 14 actually does discuss these two satellites, with the given names, and should be cited here as well as later on.)
  • What makes this webpage a reliable source?
  • Quotation "might have been painted on with a felt marker" needs citation directly after it.
  • Statement "Europa is internally active" is cited to a source that says only that this may be so. That is not acceptable.
  • The section on Ulysses contains only two references, both given at the end. It would be better to cite the section throughout, distinguishing what information comes from what source.
  • Notes 20 and 22 are the same, and are both cited to a page range of 1 through 8. Specific page numbers should be cited.
  • "The spacecraft ... made its closest approach on February 28, 2007" is cited to a web page from 2006, which says that February 28 of the following year was planned on. This does not confirm that it actually happened on that day.
  • Note 25 cites information about Himalia and Elara; neither Himalia nor Elara are even mentioned in the source.
  • Use of [6], evidently a student website.
  • The statement "at the cost of a significantly longer flight duration to reach a target such as Jupiter" is not supported by the cited source.
  • "All of these were by NASA" - needs a further verb.
  • "Asides from taking" --> "Aside from"
  • Repetitive word choice and sentence structure in para. 2 of lead. "X approached ... and [verb].... Y approached ... and [verb]."
  • "arriving at Jupiter in 1995 and analyzing the planet until 2003. and the only one to have entered its atmosphere" Sentence fragment; even re-punctuated, the sentence will be poorly structured with too many "and"s in succession.
  • "During this period it gathered a large amount of information about the Jovian system, making close approaches to all of the four giant Galilean moons and finding evidence for a thin atmosphere and also the possible presence of seawater on three of them, a magnetic field around Ganymede" Last clause does not fit with the grammar of the rest of the sentence; overly-long sentence in general.
  • "It also witnessed the impact of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 as it approached Jupiter" Does the second "it" refer to the comet, or to the Galileo spacecraft?
  • "In order for a spacecraft to reach the orbit of Jupiter from the Earth's orbit, it requires almost the same amount of energy as it does to lift it from the surface of Earth and put it into a low Earth orbit" - Wordy. Could be "For a spacecraft to ... requires ...".
  • "as the radiation had caused its imaging photo polarimeter to receive a number of spurious commands" As you're writing for a general reader, it should be clearer what's going on here. What are "spurious commands", and what are they doing - erasing pictures, taking pictures over pictures, what?
  • "over the eight years it has orbited the planet" Should be in past tense.
  • "and obtained dramatic images of the Great Red Spot, made the first observation of Jupiter's immense polar regions, and determined the mass of Jupiter's moon Callisto" Again, too many "and"s. Also, incorrect punctuation in the sentence following.
  • "even though the photographing the planet continued until April" Should be "the photographing of the planet".
  • "The revealed previously unknown characteristics and phenomena associated with the planet's atmosphere and the surfaces of its satellites" Words missing.
  • "Some have also advocated" - weasel wording. Needs at least a citation.
  • "NASA has projected a possible attempt in the 2040s timeframe" - wordy, awkward.

Ricardiana (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've given this article a general copyedit, but I can't help with the line about the imaging photo polarimeter, as the source itself does not go into any detail. Serendipodous 08:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK

I think the continuing problems have been resolved. Let me know what else needs to be done. Serendipodous 19:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of your hard work, Serendipodous. The article looks vastly improved, and looks to me like it is now a Good Article - your Good Article, however, not the original editor's. Ricardiana (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean we can close the GAR? This article has been included as part of a Feature Topic Candidate and the FT is awaiting the resolution of this GAR. ;-)---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to close it tonight, but given the complex and extensive nature of this reassessment, I wanted to read through the article carefully myself first. In the process I found, by chance, one instance of plagiarism (I was not systematically checking sources). As the source (NASA) is not copyrighted and the instance was not long, this may not be a GA issue. However, I'm not able to close this reassessment until the article has been carefully checked. I don't have time to do this tonight, and I would encourage article editors to help here in the hope that myself or another uninvolved editor will be able to close this overdue reassessment soon. Geometry guy 19:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed a few more examples of plagiarism. A cursory examination of the sources reveals no more, though I lack access to full scientific papers so I can't verify whether they were plagiarised or not. Serendipodous 09:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn't spot any further problems, only a couple of places where a citation or two would be helpful. This GAR looks closeable to me now. Geometry guy 21:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

50 Cent

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delist. GA issues, including uncited statistics and opinion, unencyclopedic prose and neutrality issues remain unaddressed after several weeks. Articles can be renominated at GAN at any time. Geometry guy 20:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a reassessment, Because some paragraphs are without references and parts of the Controversy section do not present a neutral point of view. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 01:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jovan Vladimir

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review
Result: No consensus/interest. Article remains GA by default. Geometry guy 21:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following a brief GAN review, and a unsuccessful FAC, comments would be appreciated as to whether this article currently meets the GA criteria, and if not, what improvements are needed. Geometry guy 20:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look it over next week. I scanned it briefly and think that it is close to meeting GA criteria. The article contains a few assertions which may need in-line citations; for example: "The cult of Saint Jovan Vladimir has been cherished in Macedonia for centuries". There are also some minor MoS concerns. Majoreditor (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Elbasan Gospel Manuscript (Anonimi i Elbasanit), 1761, and the struggle for an original Albanian alphabet. in: Südost-Forschungen, Munich, 54, 1995, p. 105-159.
http://www.suedost-institut.de/fileadmin/dokumente/SOF1995.pdf

Renewable energy industry

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delist. There are no signs that improvement is imminent. Once such improvement occurs, the article can be renominated. Geometry guy 21:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article about the "renewable energy industry" does not follow from the definition of "renewable energy" or "renewable resources" in wikipedia and so lacks balance/neutrality/objectivity. E.g. it excludes hydro, geothermal, focusses heavily on wind, etc.

cocosmooth (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are also MoS problems. Some sections are stubby while others are poorly written (for example: The wind power and solar photovoltaics (PV) industries provide good examples of this)
This article needs substantial work. It will best best to delist for now. Majoreditor (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rand Kannenberg

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: No action. No sense in continuing discussion here at this time. Geometry guy 20:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did not follow Wikipedia:Good article nominations process. -- Ϫ 23:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to not be a GA, and is still listed at GAN? So no reassess needed, a (proper) GAN would be better.YobMod 09:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was a self-assigned GA, see WT:GAN#Re: Rand Kannenberg and possible impropriety, process not followed for explanation. This could probably be closed now. -- Ϫ 20:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Promoted" as Good Article by those working on it. The wikiproject banners were just changed to GA status, no review page was made.
  2. An uninvolved user added a request for reassessment
  3. A GA reviewer did an individual reassessment (GA1)- 23:46, 7 July '09; quickfailed: multiple problems
  4. GA nominee tag added again by article editor 18:09, 8 July 2009 (removing ((ArticleHistory)) in next edit). So, as it stands the article has a concurrent community GAR and GA nomination.
Clicking on the nominator's contribs shows the article is now also at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rand Kannenberg (not to mention the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard thread brought by the nominator, and an AN/I thread about sockpuppeting). Given the above I agree this GAR should be closed. It is not practical to do an assessment while the article's deletion is being debated, so removing the article's 2nd (3rd?) GAN nomination is also appropriate. –Whitehorse1 19:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delist per uncontested consensus below that the article does not meet the GA criteria at this time. Geometry guy 18:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess and leaves a lot to be desired. I don't think there's any way it would pass a GA review today. Many of the sections have been split into sub-articles. What's left isn't in summary style but in choppy prose that doesn't seem to have any overall cohesion or purpose. Huge sections consist of dozens of two-sentence paragraphs. There's a whole lot of unsourced statements and original research. The article uses the abhorrent "BC/BCE" and "AD/CE" notation. There's a lot of unlinked religious jargon ("Scholars commonly surmise that Jesus' eschatology was apocalyptic, like John's."). The images are all listed as public domain but no sources are provided for any of them, and many have nothing to do with the sections they appear in ("Other early views" describes the Ebionites and Gnostics but is illustrated by El Greco, a sixteenth century Catholic).

I'm listing this for community reassessment as it may be conscientious. —Noisalt (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. The article is listed as "A" class. Under current guidelines can it be double-rated as both A and GA, or should it be automatically GA de-listed if it is an A? Majoreditor (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It can be both. A-class is a rating given by individual WikiProjects, while GA is an encyclopedia-wide designation. As the two processes are separate, neither has an effect on the other. —Noisalt (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is completely correct. Geometry guy 22:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article was never actually reviewed, someone just slapped a tag on there after it failed FAC. —Noisalt (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the information pointed out by Noisalt (talk · contribs), I'd say this should be a delist. Cirt (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is slightly inaccurate, as a look at article history will show: the article was originally designated as a GA here in December 2005. At that time it was not common for reviewers to leave a written review. However, the reviewer was tagging multiple articles as GAs at the time, so it is doubtful that he reviewed the article in detail. In any case, standards have changed, and the main issue is whether the article currently meets the criteria or not, not what happened nearly 4 years ago. Geometry guy 22:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inari (mythology)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept per sweeps reassessment. Geometry guy 21:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As part of Sweeps, I had started Talk:Inari (mythology)/GA1 (individual reassessment) and could find some minor issues with the article like the length of lead and a [citation needed] tag and asked the major contributor to deal with them. There was no response. I am unable to make up my mind to fail or pass the article. So let it be a community decision. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the lede and commented out the unsupported statement leaving notes in the reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: I will pass it. Please close this review. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Goater

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Keep. Article has been improved following comments below. There may still be room for improvement, but articles can be reassessed at any time. Geometry guy 20:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was made a GA some time ago when the GA requirements were much more lenient. There are quite a few unsourced statements and even some unsourced paragraphs. Spiderone (talk) 10:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is nowhere near as good as typical GAs such as Fernando Torres or Leo Fortune-West in this department. Spiderone (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Requested references now added. As for if its good enough, that's your opinion and not why you listed it. However it has passed GA assesment, and reassesment and appears to meet all of the criteria. I am sure like all articles it could be improved, maybe you would like to have a go instead of trying to get it reassessed. Paul  Bradbury 16:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about any offence caused but I honestly thought it wasn't as good as the likes of Xabi Alonso, Andy Hessenthaler and the ones I've mentioned before. It looks better now. Spiderone (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it just bothers me when people try to delete or demote etc. instead of trying to fix or create. It took me an hour to find the relevant references and had you brought that up at the talk page rather than just refer to a review I could have done the same (or so could you). These reviews take peoples time, time in this case that would be better spent reviewing other articles or ehancing or creating others. I don't agree that the articles that you mention are all better than this, in fact I think some are worse. But thats my opinion. If this had only been reviewed a few years ago I would have less of an issue. But it was reviewed recently and has not changed substancially since then, so you are effectiveley contesting that review. Guidlines etc. havn't changed substancially from Nov 2008 either. Paul  Bradbury 19:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this is my first time and I only thought I had to notify the last reviewer. Spiderone (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should have put it in the "Articles needing review and possible reassessment" section instead Spiderone (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure these issues can easily be addressed and the article kept. Geometry guy 21:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accounting period

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delist per unanimous consensus below. Geometry guy 20:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accounting Period in a general sense does not mean the meaning expressed in the article. The term has been defined with reference to United Kingdom Income Tax but the term has a global meaning apart from it. Accounting Period actually denotes a period for which Accounts are balanced and a balance sheet is prepared at the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SivaneshR (talk • contribs)

Delist. The article hasn't improved. There is still a significant lack of secondary sources. Majoreditor (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category