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

White Stag Leadership Development Program

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Renominated at GAN. Geometry guy 18:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completed edits per comments offered in prior GA review. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 07:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the GA review was from last year, and edits were done since the review closed, this would be better resubmitted at WP:GAN, imo. Looks like it would pass, from a cursory check.YobMod 09:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Yobmod. The review took place in December 2008, almost a full year ago, and so this article should simply be renominated for GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Yobmod. As further evidence, I count 62 edits since the GA review concluded. Diderot's dreams (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. The best course is to re-submit at GAN. Majoreditor (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
np, will do. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 06:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Shepherd

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted - there is a clear consensus that the article does not meet GA status, particularly the article uses too many primary sources, may contain original research and is not suitably broad in its coverage Smartse (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created by Alex jamieson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who began editing Wikipedia on 10 September 2009. It was promoted to GA by Simon Kidd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who began editing on 27 September 2009; he started the GA assessment with his 14th edit to Wikipedia.

People with the same names as these WP accounts have commented at amazon on Kevin R. D. Shepherd, raising the possibility of COI and/or sockpuppeting, especially given the technical proficiency of the edits made. (There seems to be some prior Wikipedia history, see [1].)

As for the article itself, it does not demonstrate that the author meets notability requirements. Almost all the citations are to the subject's own books, which are self-published, and to his website. Only one citation (note 8) indicates coverage by third-party sources. This is not enough to satisfy WP:N, and not enough for WP:GA (fails 2c, 4). JN466 21:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to those comments, I would welcome clarification from Jayen466 (and Smartse, and any others) on what such a COI could constitute. Writing or editing an article on a subject that one has a personal interest in does not, in itself, constitute a COI. Presumably Jayen466 has a personal interest in Idries Shah (a person for whom I also have a great deal of respect, btw), and this is what motivates him to contribute so persistently to that article. Such interest can be a strong motivator to improve an article and, as long as contributions are strictly NPOV, then the outcome will usually be for the good. For a COI to occur, there must be some gain to be made. In business and government, this is often a financial gain, or one of influence and power. It seems to me that this article conforms to NPOV. Yes, there are many references to the subject's own books, but they are provided as evidence of the subject's own views. It seems to me perfectly legitimate to write 'Shepherd says ...' or 'Shepherd claims ...' and to provide references to where the views or claims are made. Such references are merely attributions, and allow others to go to the relevant textual locations for themselves. What do others think?
Regarding the second contention, some third-party references have been provided, and I agree that more would be welcome. Jayen466 claims that the article fails GA criteria 2c and 4. I would like to take a closer look at those and hear the opinion of others. Criterion 2c states that an article should contain no original research. Everything seems to hinge on the notion of reliable sources. This is surely a moot point. I would have thought that the most reliable sources for the views of any writer are the writer's own published words, even if they are self-published. If the article states 'Shepherd claims such and such', then a precise reference to where Shepherd makes his claim is the most reliable source, is it not? If I am presenting the views of a third party on that writer, then the most reliable sources are the third party's own published words. For example, if the article states 'Smith claims that Shepherd is mistaken in such and such', then the most reliable reference is to Smith's own published words. I assume that criterion 2c is intended to rule out unsubstantiated claims, what might be termed 'original research'. If this is so, then is Jayen466 misapplying 2c here? Shepherd's works contain original research, but the article about him doesn't appear to do so. The fact that it is heavily referenced supports this - the references substantiate the claims that the article writer makes about Shepherd's views. Am I misinterpreting Wikipedia policy here? I would like to hear the views of an experienced and independent third party on this matter.
GA criterion 4 states that the article must be neutral, i.e. represent viewpoints fairly and without bias. A closer inspection of neutrality again seems to hinge on 'reliable sources'. Jayen466's point seems to be that because many of Shepherd's books are self-published, they are not a 'reliable source' for this article. But isn't this once again a misapplication of the criterion. If the article writer stated 'Shepherd believes such and such' and cited someone's personal blog as a source for the claim, then that is not a reliable source. I assume that this is what the Wikipedia policy is aimed at. But since the article is about Shepherd's work, then the latter's own published words ARE a reliable source. Furthermore, the article author does not present Shepherd's views in a biased way. In fact, it seems to me that the article is highly NPOV - the author's personal opinions about Shepherd and his writing are not in evidence. If anyone else detects bias, then please point it out so that it can be removed. This would be in the Wikipedia spirit of improvement.
I do not mean to imply here that reliable third-party references to Shepherd would reduce the objectivity of the article. Quite the opposite, further third-party references would be welcome, and would obviously enhance the objectivity of the article. My point is that the existing references in themselves are not unreliable, because the article is precisely about Shepherd's work. If another writer disagrees with Shepherd in print, then his or her views should certainly be represented here, suitably referenced and expressed in NPOV of course. My main concern is that Jayen466 is misapplying GA criteria 2c and 4 in this case, and I'd like to hear the opinion of others.
Simon Kidd (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What we need is third-party sources that have commented upon Shepherd and his writing. Then we should summarise the points these third-party sources have made. Where appropriate, we can expand on these points by careful and moderate mining of the primary sources that these third-party sources have cited, or commented upon. But the main topics of the article ought to be established by third-party sources, and most of the article should be based on third-party sources. Hope this makes sense: we should look for third-party sources commenting directly on Shepherd to fix the article. --JN466 18:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Atama, thank you for your comment. From what you say, I think we may be more in agreement than disagreement on the subject of reliable sources. But it is quite a subtle distinction that is being made. Consider the following possibilities:
1. Smith writes (in a self-published book) "I was the first to point out the consistency problem with Jones's theory."
2. Smith writes (in a self-published book) "I think that Jones's theory is inconsistent."
3. Brown writes (in a third-party publication) "Smith was the first to point out the consistency problem with Jones's theory."
4. Brown writes (in a third-party publication) "Smith has said that he believes Jones's theory to be inconsistent."
It seems to me that, in the first part of your comment, you are sliding between possibilities 1 and 2. Number 1 is a case of someone saying something about himself that may be untrue. In this case, 3 is a better source for the claim than 1, because it is a third-party claim about Smith. There is an obvious COI for Smith to claim it about himself, even if it is true.
If, however, we are talking about Smith's belief that Jones's theory is inconsistent, then I would argue that the most reliable source for the claim that this is Smith's true opinion is Smith's own words, even if self-published. In this case, I would say that 2 is actually a more reliable source than 4. Indeed, Brown would presumably be referring to 2 anyway, to substantiate his third-party claim. This is because we are here discussing the view of Smith, and he is unlikely to lie or be mistaken about his own views.
This doesn't mean that Smith is necessarily right in his view of Brown, and others are perfectly entitled to contradict him. Indeed, he should welcome such healthy, vigorous debate, if he is an open-minded person. But his own words still remain the most reliable source for his views. I would say that self-publication is not relevant in this case, because we are talking about the author's views, and he is unlikely to lie or be mistaken about his own views. It is even possible that a third party (e.g. Brown) might misinterpret Smith. In this case, the arbiter of truth will be Smith's own published words. Once he has put them in the public domain, he can't deny that those are his views, although he is perfectly entitled to change his mind and say so in print.
Just to be absolutely clear about my point here: I am saying that the most reliable source for an author's views about a topic are the author's own words about that topic. In this case, self-publication is irrelevant. On the other hand, the most reliable source for the validity of an author's views about a topic, is the body of accumulated third-party assessments of those views, particularly where this body has multiple authors.
This is the point I was making about the article under consideration. I can't see why Shepherd's own published words about his views are not the most reliable source for his views. The article's creator has used Shepherd's own words to substantiate his claim that these are Shepherd's views. He doesn't anywhere claim that Shepherd's views are necessarily true. It is open to others to agree or disagree with Shepherd. Indeed, now that the article exists, perhaps others will be moved to read Shepherd's books and either cite him approvingly (as some already have) or disapprovingly in their own books or articles.
If Wikipedia is incapable of making such a distinction, and can deny GA status to a well-written, NPOV article (or, to extend the point, even delete it), then Wikipedia readers may be denied the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the notable views of an author. There may, as yet, not be many third-party references to Shepherd, but that doesn't mean that he is not notable, or that a well-referenced, NPOV article describing his views should not exist.
Judging by your user page, Atama, you are a fair and courteous person with a good deal of experience of issues relating to deletion and reliable sources. I acknowledge your experience in such matters. By the same token, I hope you will give serious consideration to what I have written here. I did study the GA criteria before I made my assessment. It may be that the current WP guidelines do not pay sufficient attention to the subtle distinction I have made above. If that is so, then perhaps they need to be amended to take such a distinction into account. After all, this is a community effort and we are all involved in making such contributions.
I have noted the point made elsewhere about my contributions. I will respond to the point in the same place.
Simon Kidd (talk) 05:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The overwhelming weight of the article is based on Shepherd's own works. That is a major failure of WP:V, and a serious flaw in the article. In addition, the article lacks an actual references section, substituting it for a "notes" section. While that might be acceptable under some circumstances (it's a matter of semantics what the section is called), I see what looks like original research and/or synthesis, as these "notes" contain original analyses of written works. This article is so far from being a GA candidate, and the fact that you can't understand why makes me strongly suggest you avoid participating in GA assessments until you acquire much more experience with Wikipedia, and knowledge of its policies and guidelines. -- Atama頭 17:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As well as the problems previously noted I think there is a big problem with meeting point 3 of the criteria - broad coverage. There is no information whatsoever about his life, the article is purely about his academic work. Furthermore in my opinion the information on his writing may be "going into unnecessary detail". Looking at Bertrand Russell (which was delisted from a GA) might give you some idea of what a GA needs to be like. There may, as yet, not be many third-party references to Shepherd, but that doesn't mean that he is not notable err, see WP:N - if people haven't been covered in many third party sources then they are, almost by definition non-notable. I'm not saying that the article needs to be deleted or anything, as Atama pointed out WP:AUTHOR allows him to be included, but the article should probably be a lot shorter than it currently is. Smartse (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Atama and Smartse. Yes, I now see that the article does contain some items that could be classified as OR. I have to admit that I was blind to them when I originally assessed it - I think the difference between OR and a purely descriptive summing-up can be tricky to spot. And the other points made by Smartse are also noted. I accept that I overestimated my reviewing ability. On the upside, I've actually learnt a lot from this process, and it has brought the article some remedial attention more quickly than might otherwise have happened. I agree that it should be delisted from GA status, and interested parties should fix the problems noted. I suppose Alex, as the article's creator and major contributor, should have the first option to do this. Simon Kidd (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it seems as though there is a clear consensus for delisting it then, can anybody explain how it is actually done? Smartse (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have done it, but I'd be happy for someone to check that I completed the procedure. Simon Kidd (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evanescence

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist per consensus below. Article fails criteria 1b (WP:LEAD and WP:WTA), 2a/b, and 3a/b. Nevertheless, there is also consensus below that not much work is needed to bring this article back to GA standard. I suggest fixing sourcing issues, adding information genuinely about style and influences, and only then revisiting the thorny genre question. Articles can be renominated at GAN at any time. Geometry guy 22:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the biggest reason for delisting this article.

There are many usable sources for this article and I am sure that it has potential to become a good or even featured article. But I don't think that it meets the criteria for now, especially when I compare it to other good articles. I think that it is time to fully rewrite it. — Gahonzu (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Huntster

The best thing I would suggest is laying out, for example, what sources you feel are invalid so they can be fixed, provide sources for the band's "sound", and begin finding images that you'd feel are more acceptable.

Images are a problem, however. There are, surprisingly, very few freely licensed images of Evanescence. A quick search of Flickr and Picasa revealed zero images of Terry Balsamo, so that may simply be impossible to fix. A picture showing the entire group at once also doesn't seem to exist...the one we have is old, but it may be all we can get.

I would also disagree with your opinions regarding the Style section. I would also *strongly* oppose culling the section to a single sentence, since that is what currently provides much of its stability. People love edit warring over genre for some reason. And it does a good job showing how varied different persons and sources feel about their musical style. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from NikFreak

Well, I agree with most of that. But, as much as I think that this article could be much better, I think that you are judging it too hard for a good article. If it was going to be FA, then all of what you said is in place. Still, there are definitely things that should be better in the article, so I do think that it's GA status is very questionable. I don't think that the whole style section is useless as you said. There should be more coverage on band's musical influences and descriptions of their sound and less about many different genres the band has been associated with. The problem with pictures is probably unsolvable, so we can exclude that from the problem list. There are no huge problems with this article, but there are many little glitches that, in my opinion, make it "unworthy" of GA status. Overally, I would have never nominate this article for GA status in the state that it is in right now. I think that removing the GA status is a good idea, since it might be encouragement for people in charge for this article to improve it further. A good rewrite would be nice, however I don't think it is necessary. Regards… — NikFreak (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the current version where it's a link to the style section where it is "Discussed; see below". If you are going to find out the genre, you shall not have to hunt the info.--Buggwiki (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that that is a good solution for the infobox. I think the problem people are seeing is that the section that it links to is just too rambling. It also implies there is some kind of debate about this in the sources, which there isn't. Different sources just mention a variety of overlapping genres, which, while containing useful information, really does not need so much text to cover it.YobMod 06:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the mess is one problem. Another one is that genre debating does not belong to the style section and all the important stuff is left out. We could make a separate section about the genre (which is not usual), or we could rename current section into "Genre, style and influences", but then also add something about the other two - style and influences. Currently, I think that the title is misleading and a very important part of article (which is present in any other good article about an artist) is missing. Therefore, I don't think that the article meets GA criteria. I don't know how long does the reassessment usually last, but this will have to be resolved sooner or later. If no one opposes to delisting it, I think that we should bring this discussion to an end. — NikFreak (leave message) 11:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The length of the GAR depends on whether editors are working to fix the concerns brought up, but are usually at least a few weeks, so enough independant reviewers get a chance to chime in. I don't see much (any?) work so far, and would agree that in it's current state it should be delisted. But a dedicated editor can do a lot in a few days, so the article could still be improved.YobMod 10:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fair. Let's hope for the best. NikFreak, you can help me to find some sources to improve the style section, than we can present them to the others. I would like to rewrite, but you were the first to ask for it, so I will leave the decision to you. We can also do it together if you want. Let me know... — Gahonzu (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from CyberDelia

Well, everything has been said. I would like to contribute, but I just don't have much time on my disposal at the time. I don't have time for any major edits like rewriting the style section, but, for what it's worth, I agree that this article needs much work. Until then, I say that we should delist it. --CyberDelia (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Aaroncrick

Delist - Obvious prose problems and not every sentence in sourced. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 06:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dana boomer

I would like to point out to Aaroncrick above that GA status does not require that every sentence be sourced. With that being said, there was one spot that I felt could use a reference, and so I added a fact tag there. Of greater concern is the number of dead links in references, see here. Acronyms in references, such as "RIAA" in ref #13, need to be spelled out. Several web references need publishers and/or access dates. The lead could also be longer - two skimpy paragraphs is not long enough for an article of this length. At this point I am leaning towards delisting this article. Dana boomer (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Diderot's dreams

The GA criteria seem met to me, except:

I think the writing is OK at this time, that fleshing out the refs more would be nice but not required, and that every sentence does not need to be referenced for GA. Diderot's dreams (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Battles

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review and Unsuccessful FAC
Result: Delist. Nowhere near GA, failing criteria 1 (prose, jargon, lead), 2 (almost entirely primary or unreliable sources), 3 (no reviews or reception), and probably 6 (use of many copyrighted images). Geometry guy 23:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced. Of the article's 18 cites (which would be enough considering length), 10 of them are from the mod's main website, and more aren't in the reliable sources list for WP:VG. Asking for a second opinion before I bump this down to C class. I have no idea how it got a GA in the first place. The prose seems fine, but 2/3 of the sources are not not reliable. --Teancum (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. There are also jargon issues. Who knows what a mod is, for instance, or a source engine, or "swing spam", or force pool, or block stamina, or... you get the idea. Wikilinks are not enough to deal with this sort of issue.hamiltonstone (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter influences and analogues

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Procedural endorse per lists are not eligible for GA. Geometry guy 23:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter influences and analogues was placed under GA review by User:H1nkles. I completed a re-edit in accordance with his recommendations, and left a note for him on his talk page. H1nkles promised to re-evaluate the article, but never did. User:David Fuchs, perhaps unaware of the discussion on H1nkles's talk page, assumed that no action had been taken and closed the GA as demote. I left a note on his talk page explaining the mix up but he never responded. Serendipodous 19:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subbed the ref and changed the wording on the sentences you mentioned. As regards the format, I've always seen this as a list, not an article, because for it to be an article there would have to be some kind of overriding theme to these different texts, but there isn't one. It's just those random texts either that Rowling has admitted have influenced her, or that others have suggested may have done so and for which I can find adequate sources. There are at least 25 more on a subpage for which I have not found adequate sources. Serendipodous 17:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Since it's structured as a list and reads like a list, it might as well be deemed a list. Majoreditor (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Rio

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review
Result: Delisted per consensus below. Geometry guy 00:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um yes, this is my first GA. Anyway, I really don't think that it's quite up to snuff anymore. Personally, I think that it fails 3a because it makes very little mention of their award wins and critical reception, and 2b since the sources are very thin. As I proved with The Kentucky Headhunters, I can do much better than this — and I would like this to be delisted, because I don't think that it's GA class. (Note: Giggy, formerly Dihydrogen Monoxide, was the promoter, but he has barely edited this year so I didn't bother notifying.) Also, the GAN was placed on the talk page and not in a subpage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter too much where the original GAN was placed. I have linked to it above. Geometry guy 22:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to take a look at it this weekend. I've quickly scanned it and agree that the article could be better. You may consider delisting it yourself and then posting it at Peer Review. Majoreditor (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can do that? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can conduct an individual GA Review and delist the article if it doesn't meet criteria. Or another editor can conduct an individual GAR. Or we can continue this community GAR. Majoreditor (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alas not. If you have delisted the same article before, or are a major contributor to the article, please ask another editor to reassess the article, or request a community reassessment. Individual GARs are for uninvolved editors, whereas here TenPoundHammer is a major contributor. So this can only be a community GAR and comments from other editors are very much needed here to reach consensus. Geometry guy 23:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we'll stay with the community GAR. My two cents:

With better sourcing and further development this article will surely meet all GA criteria. While it's on the cusp of qualifying, we can delist it for now. Majoreditor (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Existence (The X-Files)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Endorse fail Lack of reliable secondary sources per consensus below. Geometry guy 03:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer failed the article because it did not have more than three references, even if they referenced the whole articles and were reliable sourced. The reviewer has clearly stated that he believes that the article is not references, because it does not not consist of a high number of references. Which i see as just another Quantity over Quality arguement. To see the discussion between the reviewer and i, see Talk:Existence (The X-Files)/GA1. --TIAYN (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am the GA reviewer who quick-failed this GA nomination. The article is clearly poorly sourced. When I reviewed it (see reviewed version here), it had 3 references. The first reference is a DVD audio commentary. This reference is used to support 95% of the article (everything except the last 3 sentences). The second reference is an X-files fan site. The last reference was a link to what appears to be a TV ratings aggregation site, but the link does not provide any information about the episode in question (unless you go through the site and dig for it yourself). I stand by my quick-fail for this article. SnottyWong talk 17:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article was referenced then, and is still well referenced now. The only difference is that i added two reviews which didn't have anything to do with the above discussion, the second being that i referenced the plot overview as a compromise with the reviewer, even if i don't think its really neccessary. --TIAYN (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And again, to see our discussion and opinions, see Talk:Existence (The X-Files)/GA1.

Comments I'm coming here after seeing the edit summary associated with removing this page from WP:GAN. I have to say, I agree with Snottywong's decision. The three references that were there at the time of the review are simply not good enough. I'm actually surprised the article exists because none of your sources showed that the episode was particulary notable, and that's a criteria for all articles:

So from that viewpoint, the article has problems, and as Snottywong has said, there's simply not enough outside coverage. I see you've since added additional citations, but I don't think they add anything:

Looking past that, the article also has other issues, such as only loosely following the MOS, including WP:OVERLINK and MOS:TV. For instance, you have too many words and phrases that are wikilinked next to each other, making them appear to be one single link. You also incorrectly use hyphens instead of WP:DASHES. With regards to the prose and stuff, in the plot you have "each time growing into what looks like the beginnings of a spine." Who says it looks like this? It sounds like WP:OR? Later, "so the producers got a retired LAPD officer", which is lazy, informal writing, and poor WP:TONE. In Reception, you say "The episode earned a Nielsen household rating of 8.4, with a 13 share." The average reader doesn't know what this means, so you have to explain it to them. Other points with the prose include sentences such as "The episode first aired in the United States on May 20, 2001 on Fox, and subsequently aired in the United Kingdom." Does this mean it aired immediately following the Fox broadcast, or were there days, weeks or months before it aired in the UK? What about other major countries for which en.wp has readership, such as Canada, Aus, NZ? The sentence "The episode continues from the previous episode, "Essence", where they learn about a new type of alien called a Super Soldier programmed to destroy any traces of alien involvement on Earth." -- who are "they" we know nothing about anything in this episode, and the only two people you've mentioned so far are Carter and Manners. Surely you don't mean those two?

Other things in the lead include the rather hashed plot summary. Here you should be highlighting the two or three main storylines of the episode and summarising the episode in the plot section, ie Skinner kills Krycek, Mulder learns that Billy is a super soldier while Reyes assists Scully in giving birth while being hunted by a group of the super soldiers, and Mulder and Scully confess their love for each other. You also say "It introduced the story arc which would continue throughout the ninth season .", but you leave the reader hanging by not actually saying what that arc is.

The plot summary doesn't actually summarise the plot, rather it gives a play-by-play of each scene: "Alex Krycek has been seated in a chair in Assistant Director Walter Skinner's office", "Krycek gets up from his chair in Skinner's office and starts running out the doorway." Also, in the plot, you have to give further details as to who these characters are. Someone who clicks the Random button and ends up on this page may well have no clue who Billy, Scully, Mulder, and everyone are, so you need to add more WP:CONTEXT, but be succinct (WP:CONCISE) at the same time. Additionally, you don't mention some of the more important parts of the episode, such as Scully actually giving birth (which since you have a fair use image of that scene, you must discuss it per WP:NFCC), Mulder and Scully declaring their love for each other and kissing, Billy being a Super Soldier, etc etc. It's like you don't want to include spoilers, but spoilers are allowed and encouraged on Wikipedia.

Every single thing you mention in the lede that isn't referenced (so all of it) must be repeated in the main body of the article and offer more insight. So where you say it begins the story arc for season 9. What is that arc? How does it do that? Series creator Chris Carter wrote the episode, so one might assume this episode is supposed to have more importance to the series over other episodes that he lets the staff writers write. Has he said anything anywhere about how he wrote this? What he was thinking? What he had in mind? Was he providing closure to any major storylines or setting new ones up, and how did he achieve this? I know you said no books have been published about season and 0, but what about elsewhere? Trade magazines such as Variety, the Hollywood Reporter, EW, TV Guide, etc may have had an interview with him around the time of the episode airing. The episode was also released on a 4-disc "Mythology" Collectors DVD pack containing 14 episodes from season 8 and 9. There's a documentary included in it with an interview with Carter that may answer some of these questions. (By the way, you say in the article that it's this episode that begins the new mythology arc, but Carter says the Super Soldiers mythology arc begins with "Per Manum", an earlier season 8 episode, so some of the facts in the article are not entirely correct.

You don't have a cast section, so when you first mention Annabeth Gish in the production section, your reader has no idea she plays Monica Reyes. Same with Mitch Pileggi and Nicholas Lea. It's nice to know that it was a difficult scene, but the reader doesn't care if you don't tell them who these people are. "The last scene with Doggett and Reyes in Kersh's office is the birth of the "New X-Files"" It would be nice if all this stuff could be covered with a reference. A reader has to assume that the ref at the end of the paragraph covers all this info. The episode is, as you've mentioned, fairly reliant on the existing themes, mythologies and continuing story arcs of the series, so as per MOS:TV#Themes, you could try mentioning that, and finally, you're missing a distribution section, which could cover airdates, networks, countries, availability on new media such as iTunes, Hulu, Amazon Unbox, VHS and DVDs, off-network syndication, etc etc.

So as I said, I agree with Snottywong's decision to quick fail this article. It clearly -- to me -- doesn't fit the criteria for GA, in fact, I'm having a hard time thinking the article meet's WP's criteria for existing, but that's for a different venue. Regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew, thanks for taking the time to give this article (and editor) what it really needed: a peer review. TIAYN, GA is a pretty stringent standard. Less than 0.5% of WP articles are GA or better. So, when you nominate an article for GA, you have to be prepared for harsh criticism. If the article isn't up to the standard, people are going to let you know. If the article is clearly not even close to GA, people are rarely going to waste their time giving it a serious review. Try not to take it personally. I know you probably waited several months for a review, but that is only evidence of the huge backlog of GA nominated articles, which can't be allowed to get clogged up with nominations that are clearly not GA. Take matthew's advice above and improve the article, get better acquainted with WP policies and the MOS, and then resubmit the article when it is truly ready. Good luck. SnottyWong talk 13:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Micropsia

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted by Jmh649 aka Doc James. Geometry guy 23:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The MRI image of a patient who suffers from micropsia's MRIs could not be found. The MRI image used in the article serves as a visual representation of what a lesion affecting the areas of the brain (namely the temporal and parietal lobes) that can lead to micropsia would look like.[1] It is certainly not unreasonable, given the area of the lesion, that the tumor shown in Papillary_glioneuronal_tumor.jpg would lead to micropsia and, for this reason, it was used in the article even though an MRI of a patient who suffers from micropsia would be ideal. CharlesWCIItalk 05:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reservations regarding this. Being on the page implies that the person had this condition and gives this potential cause unfounded prominance. Most people from what I have read have micropsia either due to seizures, migraines, or psychological / psychiatric reasons not a mass lesion. A lesion of this size is not likely to cause a subtle neurological finding but is much more likely to cause significant problems with vision.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead has been reorganized and unnecessary information has been moved to the appropriate sections. CharlesWCIItalk 05:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • the lead should summarize the article in 3 or 4 paragraphs. One the article has been expanded this should be easier to do.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MedlinePlus classification link has been removed. CharlesWCIItalk 05:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some capitalization errors have been corrected. The identification of any remaining errors would be appreciated. CharlesWCIItalk 05:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The identification of these unreferenced points would be appreciated. CharlesWCIItalk 05:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the addition of the "epidemiology" section. CharlesWCIItalk 05:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the addition of the "classification" section. CharlesWCIItalk 05:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for helping to improve this article. I am proud of what it has become so far and of the improvements that it is still making. I want this article to be of Good article status and I hope that recent improvements and future improvements can make it an example of an article that is clearly deserving of this status. CharlesWCIItalk 05:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments:

  • Currently, the Causes section is divided into subsections for Migraines, Seizures, Drug use, Psychological factors, Epstein-Barr virus infection, Retinal edema, Macular degeneration, Central Serous Chorioretinopathy, and Brain lesions, with Migranes, Seizures, and Drug use being the most elaborated-on sections. Do you think it would be more appropriate to leave Psychological factors, Epstein-Barr virus infection, Retinal edema, Macular degeneration, and Central Serous Chorioretinopathy as their own subsections for consistency or to group them into one subsection for consolidation? CharlesWCIItalk 03:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The classification section has been expanded and we are in the process of expanding the epidemiology section.Farnhach (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • EEG use to diagnose temporal lobe epilepsy has been added to the diagnosis section. Giantsjs2000 (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph, now the center paragraph, has been changed to fit a more encyclopedic style. Giantsjs2000 (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same argument regarding micropsia as a result of macular degeneration listed below (VEGF paragraph). That treating macular degeneration also treats micropsia. Giantsjs2000 (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been fixed to say that hemimicropsia is a specific type of micropsia. Farnhach (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been changed. Alice in Wonderland Syndrome is no longer referred to as being a more complex condition but rather a condition that can include micropsia and macropsia. Farnhach (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since macular generation is known to produce micropsia, the future VEGF treatment for macular degeneration, along with future surgical techniques, can be seen as treatments for micropsia caused by macular degeneration. Is that enough grounds to list this as a possible future treatment? Giantsjs2000 (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No you cannot draw that conclusion. You need to show that the treatment improves this condition for it to be a seen as effective. Otherwise it is original research. Does treating macular degeneration cure micropsia?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little progress has been made in the last ten days. Due to concerns of formatting ( multiple one sentence paragraphs ) issues with images ( it is dishonest to show an image of a lesion which may but didn't cause the condition ), among others. I will fail this review at this time. Please apply for reassessment when issues addressed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without (The X-Files)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist. Unreliably sourced. Geometry guy 23:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how this article passed GA the first time around. Since I've recently had a somewhat contentious GA review with another X-files episode article (which was also written by the creator of this article), I think it would be best to leave this as a community review. Below are my problems with this article:

Christian Conventions

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: No action. See below for further remarks. Articles can be renominated at any time. Geometry guy 22:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor that created the original Good Article Nomination and so I was disturbed that the lead reviewer would be a person who made major edits to the article, who had led long discussions of the article, and who felt that the consensus version did not reflect his beliefs or knowledge of the group - of which he is an active member.

JesseLackman (talk) opened the GAR and failed the article 48 hours later, after a SINGLE ASSESSMENT by an uninvolved editor.

What in the world are you talking about, "major edits"? I looked at Mr Lackman's stats below and he has only made 9 edits compared to over 200 for the top editors. And I believe 8 of those edits were reversed if I read the chart correctly. 206.130.91.154 (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This lead GAR reviewer editor had worked on this article and this article alone in the last 18 months.

He seems to have created his own interpretations of GA criteria specifically to fail the article. For example here is his "FAIL" of the Stability requirement. (When reading this "Fail" please note that the article had been virtually unchanged in the 3.5 months following its peer review before this comment)

Stable Fail. GA review guidelines clearly state if the article is “the subject of ongoing edit wars, it is unstable, and thus should not be passed.” Stable does not mean wearing down other editors with instant page edit reversals and a deluge of progressively lower-quality citations until they give up. This article’s edit history seems to tell this story as do comments here and in the talk pages.

The bias and hostility shown in this comment are consistent with the whole GA "review".

I invite other editors to read his review, and I request a reassessment of the article by a disinterested editor. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Hello.
Quote;
  • He stated his membership in and his allegiance to the group.
  • He made it very clear that he had a complete lack of faith in any source material from outside the group.
  • He agreed that the article SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN since the group itself releases no public literature.
  • He held that edits that altered material from the way he wanted it were indications of being "Anti".
~
If any are interested in verifying these charges (you should be) please read my contributions [3] or ask nemonoman. The one I will admit to here is "He stated his membership in ... the group". The rest require the proof of specific quotes to back them up. I'm interested in seeing those quotes myself.
Also check these revision history statistics -> [4] to see if I am a major editor of the article.
This -> [5] is the low quality "source" I mentioned in the stable section of the GAR. Read through the whole thing and objectively think about if it actually meets the wiki guidelines I referred to in the GAR, if any think it does, please explain how.
Please take the time to read the GAR itself [6], the article [7], AND the talk pages including the archives[8].
Last but not least note in the GAR that nemonoman himself suggest that I fail the article, and that he would resubmit it. I'm happy to see the re-nomination asks for a a community reassessment, something I support. I actually thought about asking for that myself.
Any further questions please ask.
thank you,
JesseLackman (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per usual nonemoman makes up things to make his case. It'll be interesting to see what he comes up with to substantiate his points. How many edits was that you made Mr. Lackman? Also, I noticed the Good Article nomination has been pending since July. Let's face it. Wiki is too big and editors are leaving in droves so no one has time for the headaches this article induces. The RSN issue was never resolved. And no one will provide a GA review, and if they do it will be to count commas or something like that. Also, interesting that not one point in the Review is addressed by nemonoman who immediately resorts to 'ad hominem' attacks since actually responding to tangible issues would take something like work. 206.130.91.154 (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the continuing stream of comments made by members of the group on the Talk page indicate:
1) This is an article prepared by one ex-member of the group from SPS materials written by a) other ex-members and b) anti-cult movement groups who publish prolifically on religious movements. Look at the contributor history since Spring 2009 will verify this.
2) There is little serious academic research on the group; it is a simple home church movement that flies under the radar.
3) There are serious discrepancies between the wiki article and Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions. Melton writes that there is no suitable material to make a judgement on the doctrine of the group.
4) Members of the group can only register their disagreement on the Talk page; they are not permitted to make deletions to SPS material in the article.206.130.91.154 (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cirt for taking a look. The websites were included as backup sources for particular statements already cited using one or more other sources. This was in response to challenges on the talk pages to even the most mundane and documented of observations.
  • tellingthetruth.info has been included as RS by consensus of both sides in the discussions.
  • thelyingtruth.info is used as a backup reference for an article in the LA Times.
  • religio.de is run by a German theologian and academic; backup for a single statement.
  • religioustolerance.org I recall as having been raised and found as RS for other articles.
  • veteransoftruth is a backup of other sources for a statement which members contested in talk.
  • bibles-direct.com prints the hymnal used exclusively by this group, and the website confirms the title and publisher.
The links to workersect.org and anotherstep.net link to copies of documents (a letter to the Selective Service by one of the workers, and incorporation paperwork for Canada and Sweden).
The websites might be superfulous, were it not for repeated challenges by members of the CC church to even the most pedestrian of statements and/or sources within the article. We've been through a seemingly unending series of discussions where it has been intransigently argued that no statement can stand in the article simply because facts regarding the group must be spiritually assessed in order to be valid, and similar faith-based and personal experience-based positions. I understand the frustration in making a case resting on pillars unverifiable by those outside their sphere, but those are an insupportable foundation for challenging statements or for the article itself.
Since the background has been dredged up here, please allow me to note for the sake of balance that one editor in particular, who for whatever reason contributes under multiple accounts and IP's, has in the past argued that the article itself be AfD'd because there were no acceptable sources. Despite his repeated aspersions as to my involvement, my main work here has been to find references for statements already made in the article. This editor made positive statements regarding my initial rearrangement, but quickly began to undercut that assessment by raising a variety of assertions (his knowledge of an exception here, or of a difference there). Refusing to provide any source (apart from an online discussion group) to backup his blanking and proposed rewording, he argued the position that statements be allowed without citing resources. Meanwhile, citations continued to be provided for every statement. Next, he adopted a tactic of attacking the sources being cited as non-RS and/or SPS, again without offering any backup for his attacks apart from his say-so. He shopped this to WP:Verifiablility and WP:RS, and again raised the same objections during the period peer review was underway, contending also that, as the group does not publish historical or other documentation for itself, no sources are valid and/or are biased. And now the same arguments are repeated here, which looks like poisoning the well, intentionally or not. These are not new issues, but have been dealt with extensively in the past, and continues to be discussed episodically on the article's talk. • Astynax talk 19:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is preferable to use independent reliable secondary sources instead of POV websites which may be seen as having agendas to push. Were there any WP:RSN discussions where previously uninvolved editors came to a consensus to accept these questionable sources? Cirt (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was raised here in a huge multi-part thread which veered between website and printed sources. Mostly dominated by involved editors, though. • Astynax talk 20:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was also a point in the AfD discussion raised by the same editor (different account) for the related "Cooneyites" article, for which many of the same sources would be used. • Astynax talk 20:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editor John Carter also posted a thread regarding RS here, although responses there consist entirely of those made by myself and the two involved editors who have already posted statements above. Not very useful, but for the record. • Astynax talk 20:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that past stuff does not help much as it is dominated by involved editors. Therefore I would remain in the position of not including these poor sources in the article. Cirt (talk) 09:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should very briefly comment on astynax's description of my activities, which is pretty much all true but defensible and all done in good faith. I won't bother to defend, other than the point of multiple IDs. I originally posted under my real name. I then changed to a pseudonym for personal reasons. I was then outed by nonemoman and astynax back to my real name so I now post only anonymously. Can't help the multiple IPs. At no time have I posted using sock puppets or multiple IDs simultaneously.209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the article is fine, but the text is guarded assiduously by astynax and nonemoman. The original article was replaced wholesale in March of this year by astynax, and is pretty much a single author article. See [9] 209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A brief article could be built out of a few defined secondary sources, esp Melton. My greatest objection is to sources from RIS esp Fortt and the retro-engineering of the movement's doctrine. The John Carter initiated RSN thread is very useful to anyone that wants a survey/bibliography of almost all sources available on the subject. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reserve the right to believe that wiki is mainly a bad thing.209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks to the new, uninvolved editors for their comments. I opened the reassessment, but I do not mean to be the GAR lead or to be the one making the final determination of pass or fail. If the article does fail, I hope there is a list of to-dos that can be done to bring it to acceptable GA status.
The subject matter of this article is about the strangest one can imagine in an encyclopedia. It's like Fight Club: the first rule of Fight Club is you don't talk about Fight Club.
Thanks for the effort, wiki colleagues. --Nemonoman (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments Jayen466. I agree that the RIS publications are often PoV. As to them being cited elsewhere, they are in a few places which I noted in one of the discussions somewhere, though it is a miracle that any of the few books on the group, including Parker and Parker, are cited at all. Unless I and my reference librarian have missed some over the last months, there aren't all that many works which deal with the group in any detail at all. Parker and Parker have been referenced in more places, but that may be due to the age of their work, and their inclusion in Melton's widely distributed and available article (which itself doesn't seem to have been updated since at least the early 1990's).
I've (and I believe the few others who have bothered to actually provide references) have tried to be avoid using material from RIS and similar adversarial sources to reference controversial material, and have provided backup references where there have been even weak challenges. As Parker and Parker deal almost entirely with the history, and because the encylopedia references which I've seen to date are very brief and in some cases barely outlines, the RIS books provide references which I've not come across in better sources elsewhere. I'm all for better sources, however.
Unless I'm mistaken, that RIS materials are adversarial does not preclude them from being used as sources, rather they must be used carefully. The RIS materials are referenced for items such as the CC weekly rounds of meetings, hymnal details, quotations from primary sources which are otherwise only available on internet sites, etc. (and I suspect they were used for similar backup when referenced in the U. of Virginia's web article on the group or in the religioustolerance.org article). A few times they've been cited simply because the better sources already cited have been challenged as being not enough. Most of the statements being sourced haven't been singled out as controversial (yet), even though a couple editors have made a point of contending that any statement made about the group is inherently invalid. The acrimony directed at RIS seems to me more a case of partisan insistence that anything coming from RIS publications be banned. • Astynax talk 07:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll follow on Astynax's comments. I and a couple of other editors have really pushed into this concern because the subject is not often researched by Big Time Publications. The members of the group pride themselves on their secrecy, from all accounts, or that at least is the conclusion I draw; and they often say that a fact documented all over the place cannot be verified because -- well for dozens of reasons. While few Major Publications have published on the group, there is All Kinds of Material Out There. So I and a couple of others have pushed into Wiki guidelines that would apply in this situation. What to do when there is an mountain of reference material available, but so little from the sorts of sources that WP (and I) would prefer.
There are relevant guidelines, actually. The guidelines for BLPs offer a lot of help: what sorts of sources are acceptable when the Big Players have not yet developed publications about facts widely reported by Little Players. Since that's basically the case with this subject, I have tried to assure that less desirable sources, when used, are used with extreme care and qualification. As Astynax says, these sources are NOT used to describe questionable activities within the group, though many of the sources seem to have a whistleblowing slant; but rather as sources of generally available information about the history and basic practices of the group, and wherever possible this information is given multiple independent citations. We have worked like dogs to NPOV the article content, in my opinion we have overdone this. We don't use lesser sources to conflate accusations of wrongdoing or mismanagement by the group: just neutral facts insofar as possible.
Another useful guideline is that sources' reliability are not GENERAL in character, but based on the specific areas being quoted. The New York Times may be a Reliable Source for an article about, say, New York FIre Department actions on 9/11. It is not necessarilyh a reliable source for information on say C++ programming constructs. IN addition to the source and the fact, one must consider the source/fact relationship. The neutrality of a source is specifically NOT AN ISSUE in RS guidelines, if the fact presented is not POV in character.
My summary of acceptablity guidelines, based on extensive review of the relevant wiki guides:
  • Wikipedia articles must be neutral in their point of view.
  • The sources cited in Wikipedia articles are not required to be neutral.
  • Sources cited in Wikipedia articles must be reliable.
  • However, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
I believe the article follows these guidelines. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me if I'm paraphrasing incorrectly, but the argument seems to be that since we don't have good, reliable sources we are forced to use poor ones. To me, the doctrine section of the article certainly reads like that is the case. (Very few issues with the history section). What this does is "trojan horse" in all kinds of statements which have not stood the normal tests of editorship, fact-checking and/or peer review. Untrue statements are deemed "verifiable" and thus will stand. Certainly it was the intent of the policy writers of wiki that verifiablity would create a subset of all that is true, and not be used to admit conjecture, amateur research and private theories? 206.51.24.208 (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nemonoman's opinion is that the web sites, Fortt and the RIS authors are reliable sources. Can we put this issue to rest, and then we can move onto some real issues.206.51.24.208 (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
206, you and I have gotten into to some nasty arguments and I found it best to just disengage from discussions with you, but with some trepidation, I'll address what you say: the argument seems to be that since we don't have good, reliable sources we are forced to use poor ones. I should say rather that we must use the best sources available to present as complete a picture as possible. Also that there are existing WP guidelines for doing this, and also how I believe those guidelines apply.
it was the intent of the policy writers of wiki that verifiablity would create a subset of all that is true, and not be used to admit conjecture, amateur research and private theories. Sort of: the intent as I have come to understand it is to prevent a situation where articles are written entirely out of personal knowledge (ie., Original Research). Verifiable not true is the key paradox. The editor must encapsulate what some other source has said. The editor cannot add information s/he "knows" to be true, but which cannot be found in sources outside the article. And I think the converse applies, information cannot be removed from an article simpy because an editor "knows" that it isn't true.
Lastly I'll say this: the questions you raise have been settled for the most part as regards the content of the article. It is highly cited, and the citations have survived a lot of scrutiny. The question is reasonably re-raised by you however, as regards the nomination for Good Article. I'm interested in seeing how non-involved editors sort through this thicket. --Nemonoman (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The self-published countermovement websites are not acceptable sources for a GA. As far as I can tell, the RIS authors Fortt and Daniel are little cited by other authors (unlike Parker & Parker), and at 33 citations between them currently seem overused, especially compared to an authoritative source like Melton, who has a bare handful of citations {WP:DUE). --JN466 17:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify. If the article doesn't present PoV, then how do the sources cited become a matter of WP:DUE? Again, there is very little information contained in the overviews given by sources such as Melton (which I'm having trouble finding cited in existing GA articles in the Christianity project). So, you are saying that we could qualify as GA by shortening the article—ripping out NPoV material for which there is not support from the likes of Melton or Chryssides? The RIS books currently account for less than 17% of the citations; what percentage would you consider would keep it from falling into WP:UNDUE territory? I'm not asking to be confrontational, but this would be valuable to know in the case of articles dealing with other NRMs and non-creedal groups for which there isn't a whole lot of external source material—there should be some guidelines for this. • Astynax talk 21:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the result of a google books search for Fortt: [13] Google Scholar: [14] The book is only mentioned in two Italian-language books by Introvigne (who is a highly reputable, Catholic religious scholar, and runs the CESNUR website), but it is just listed, rather than having any content cited to it. It is the same for Daniel: [15] [16]; again Introvigne is the only non-RIS source to mention it. Neither author seems to have any track record beyond these books. Here, for comparison, is Parker & Parker: [17][18]
If the content based on the 30-odd citations to Fortt and Daniel is standard, NPOV stuff, then the same points should come up in natural progression in all the other, more standard, sources as well, and the article would benefit from having these points cited to these more standard sources. On the other hand, if most of these 30 points are only sourceable to RIS books, then the article is giving Fortt and Daniel undue weight, and we should make a briefer summary of what they are saying, and otherwise focus on the points made in the other sources.
As for numbers, I would say, off the top of my head, given that it's hard to find any third-party books citing Fortt and Daniel, they shouldn't have more than a handful, at most 10 citations between them, with in-text attribution.
If there are specific items of content that you are concerned about losing, do mention them, and we can look at that together. --JN466 21:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments Nemonoman. I've long since concluded that the problem isn't you or me, it is wiki. I believe wiki is to knowledge what Communism was to achievement. Egalitarianist schemes quickly become unworkable once the initial euphoria wears off. In this case, the euphoria just hasn't worn off yet, at least for a diminishing number of editors. All that, just to say, nothing personal.209.162.236.195 (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only point I will make is that RS judgements should be no different for a non-GA article than a GA article. Why should they be? The standards are supposed to govern what gets included in wiki, not what makes a GA. So these issues have been there all along. Yes, I will keep re-asserting the same old arguments and I intend to keep re-asserting them until the article is V and NPOV. I'm not interesting in wiki, but I am interested in Christian Conventions. Given those are our differences in interest, our interest in achieving V and NPOV is the same. I sincerely hope you do achieve your GA for all your hard work, but I won't rest until I feel V and NPOV are met.209.162.236.195 (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's gone. Because another reviewer in the intial review appeared to not like "Further reading" sections, I've blanked that entire section. Just as with "Related links" sections, people continually add and delete items, and it is difficult-to-impossible to read and verify every possible work which mentions the CC church in some way. But if there is a good reason to have it, it can be reverted sans Williston. • Astynax talk 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --JN466 21:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've gone through the article and replaced references where I could. But I'm not going to get the number of citations down to a level you would consider as not becoming a matter of WP:Undue without starting to blank information.
It isn't that the information isn't out there—it is, in spades—but those sources don't make the RS grade (primary sources reproduced and statements in SPS books and/or on websites with some degree of advocacy).
The contention that NPoV information in this article being referenced to Fortt, Daniel and even the TTT site, would have been picked up and published by academic sources might hold for other groups or WP subjects. It just doesn't apply in this case (and I suspect other cases). There aren't that many sources out there: we have the single Parker book, newspaper articles, and mentions of very limited scope in encylopedias and sociological studies.
The problem comes with the academic sources out there. None of these treats the group in-depth. They are either short glosses in dictionary or encyclopedia type articles, providing little in the way of detail (the preponderance of which merely repeat factoids found in the other articles of similar nature), or they are short sections of longer works which focus on the sociology of NRM's, theology in a couple of cases, and religious history in one other. That type of info does not go far, and it is a shame.
The Parker book, while apparently a SPS by a non-academic who apparently hasn't written anything else, does at least focus entirely on this group, and did have the advantage of being listed in Melton's article back in the 1980s. Since then, it has been mentioned in other articles, many of which go little further than to duplicate information already in Melton. The Parker book does an excellent job in 125 pages, but only includes a few passages toward the end where it ventures beyond its primary focus on the origin and early history of the group. That type of info, also doesn't go far as far as a resource for describing other aspects of this article's subject.
So, unless someone wants to do the legwork to find alternative supporting references, I'm at a wall. The information in the article is well-referenced, though the sources may not be to the standard to which a GA is held. I'm still having a problem getting my head around the concept that 30 (now down to 16) references for NPoV statements citing Fortt and Daniel, out of some 200 references, creates a problem of WP:Undue, but 10 references does not. But I'm willing to learn, and even accept that GA isn't possible until better sources become available. • Astynax talk 16:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, there is no need for us to go further than the reliably published literature. The moment we use information only available in questionable sources, there is a real risk that the information we put in the article is incorrect. These other sources and advocacy sites are only a google click away and can and will do their thing; it is not as though our not mentioning their claims would prevent them from doing so.
About the numerical thing, I am really sorry. Of course a number like "10" is absurd, but you asked me for a percentage, above; I simply counted the citations Parker & Parker got, for example, and compared them to the number of citations for Fortt and Daniel. NPOV (see WP:YESPOV, cf. also Wikipedia:RS#Scholarship) means representing opinion and information in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. So if Fortt and Daniel only get two brief mentions by Introvigne out there, compared to, say, several dozen for Parker & Parker, then our achieving NPOV (given that this has been questioned) should mean achieving roughly similar proportions. --JN466 16:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We may be able to find more sources in google books. Here for example is one giving the "Christian Conventions" name under which the group registered to avoid military service (this info is currently only cited to the workersect website). --JN466 16:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two cents: The article needs to be neutral, not its sources. Many articles contain references to non-neutral sources, which often contain useful information. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is less about the neutrality or otherwise of the sources and more about Fortt's and Daniel's lack of track record and scholarly credentials, and their not having had any appreciable impact on the writings of more reputable authors. We shouldn't give a source, especially a biased source, more weight than the best writers out there are willing to give it. --JN466 23:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "best writers out there" aren't writing about this secretive group. And can you blame them. --Nemonoman (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The group is not secretive at all. It's not highly notable so has escaped the notice and serious study of the academics. By notable, I don't mean notable as wiki sees it, but as a reputable encyclopedia such as EB would define it.209.162.236.197 (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, most observers do not have sufficient bearings and knowledge of the group to have a sense of what NPOV for the article should be. We have had this argument before, but NPOV is not an absolute concept in topics which are inherently culturally conditioned to the core.209.162.236.197 (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the reference to the workersect site in the "Name" subsection using JN466's suggested source. I've also uploaded to Wikimedia a page from the public record document shown on the workersect site so that readers don't have to go there to see it. I've also eliminated a link to the same site by uploading another public record shown on workersect. My copies aren't as good as those on the workersect site, but should be good enough to illustrate the statements in the article text.
As no one has taken on the task of publishing anything of much depth on the CC church recently, it isn't surprising that fortt/daniel are mentioned a very few times in other works. When those more recent resources don't exist, mostly recapitulate Melton's 20-year old article, or only give a quick exploration of specific aspects of the group's sociology, newer sources don't get mentioned—simply because no fresh work has been published which would be expected to include them. There are other NRM's out there (though few of this size) that don't come up on the radar of big-time publishing scholars (despite there being source material out there which doesn't get referenced or updated in academic publications).
Yes, Nemonoman, some do seem to be determinedly secretive. I've already referenced Melton's quote (echoed elsewhere): "The Cooneyites, also called the Two-by-Two’s, have developed the shunning of publicity into a fine art." So it probably isn't the easiest project to take on. • Astynax talk 12:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flag 'Christian Conventions' article for poor sources

Speaking as a member of this fellowship and also one with some academic training (B.A. English - Dean's Honours List) can we flag this article until such time as the sources are upgraded? For the last six months the article has been used by readers who have seen a reverse-engineered and distorted explanation based on advocacy sites misrepresenting the church.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have looked at only two of the sources in detail, Fortt and Daniel, and found them wanting, and one reliable source (Melton) which has not been accurately captured. But there may very well be even more issues; these are just the ones that have been examined in detail. The problem at this point is that it will take time to acquire some of these obscure sources to prove what we members pick up as false through our direct knowledge of the group. Direct knowledge is of no consequence here; we all know that.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On top of all this, we believe that the author is a counter-advocate of the group himself. He is a good writer and researcher and we believe he is honest, but has a bias all the same.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of fairness to the group, and on the basis of the record so far, about which you have no doubt seen me lament and wail (just look for Carter's deletes of my comments), I believe the article should be flagged until such time as it is reliably sourced.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And now I wait for the counter-arguments, which I will answer, and then be accused of weighing too heavily on everyone's time and energy, and possibly be asked to apologize. I know and anticipate the dreaded gauntlet. Let the 'ad hominem' attacks begin.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts about (re)assessing this article

First let's consider the goals of Wikipedia. This project is designed to be a place where editors can collaborate. Working together they share and merge information. WP is supposed to be a place where information is collected and described -- without original research; with the text maintaining a neutral tone.

Second let's consider the subject of this article. Here's a church with several tens of thousands of members, apparently. This church has no name, no place of business, no publications (I'll note that I've painted with a broad brush, and there are isolated exceptions to these characterizations). It strives to stay beneath the radar; it prides itself in having stayed beneath the radar.

And yet it ISN'T entirely under the radar, as the work of several editors have shown. Through collective efforts, a number of editors have found 165+ citations for facts in the article. While some of questioned the reliability of those sources, there have been few if any complaints about their verifiability. And although there are challenges about wording, etc, there it's clear that the editors involved have successfully made a Good Faith effort to be neutral in the presentation. (Note: I'm describing the successful effort, not necessarily a successful outcome.)

Pause and reflect Through the Wiki-process, this article has become the single best compendium about this church. It exemplifies and epitomizes the goal of Wikipedia in that a relatively obscure topic has been researched and described about as fully as could be hoped. Sharing between editors has resulted in a collective article that merits GA consideration at the very least.

Consider the source... When one becomes familiar with the nature of the article's subject -- a church that shuns publicity or even outside knowledge of its existence -- a lot of questions are answered, and more are raised.

First, it's not surprising that academia hasn't published a lot of information about this organization. There's not much to be found at most libraries, from the look of it...and when it comes to writing academic works about topics where there's lots of information -- and topics where the information is hard to come by -- I think we all know how the judgement will go. And has gone.

So, second point, it's also not surprising that the information about this church comes from non-academic sources. The Academy wants practically nothing to do with the Church, and that suits the Church just fine. So instead of academic sources, most of the sources about this church have been produced by persons with less credentials than might be found on other topics.

Precedents We might prefer that all articles in WP are sourced with books written by highly recognized experts edited by impeccable publishers. On many topics, however, this ain't going to happen any time soon. Two examples come to mind instantly:

  1. WP's many articles on notable but obscure persons, especially living persons, and
  2. WP's many articles on new video games, movies in preproduction, etc.

And I suppose I could come up with a few more topics, and so could you.

The nature of New Religious Movements is that they are notable long before they are documented by academics. (This one has been around longer, but it's simliar in nature.)

"Reliable Sources" aren't: When I first got involved with WP:RSN, I did some backgrounding. Here's my take: there is no guarantee of reliability in sources. I have personal knowledge of the fact-checking and digging done by the New York Times. Yet a quick search of the RSN archives shows just how often the reliablity of the New York Times has been questioned, sometimes successfully -- in fact this shows the question as still open

Further, there is discussion here about noting that while the New York Times WEBSITE contains lots of non-reliable data.

And do I need to note that the New York Times is constantly being criticized as unreliable in these discussions because it is BIASED.

The Take-away: Is there ever going to be an unquestionably reliable source? Or one not criticized for bias? Even the New York Times faces the same RS questions and criticism as the more obscure references cited in the article.

But note some useful comments from these discussions:

(For the record: I think the RSN discussion on several of the sources used in the article established that they "at least meet the minimal threshold set by WP:RS.")

Summary:

  1. This work is a great example of the collaborative editorial process that Wikipedia espouses.
  2. Let's not get carried away by the fact that some of the sources are obscure. If they are the most authoritative available sources, they should be used, as they have been.

--Nemonoman (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objection to your line of reasoning if wikipedia self-promoted as Jimbo's Giant Compendium of Trivia. But it purports to be more than that. And until it finally implodes, hopefully anyway, we should work within its own stated objectives which differ from yours.209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that "this article has become the single best compendium about this church" seconded by other wiki overseers of this article, when the article was essentially written and researched by one writer, makes me think that it must violate WP:OR, especially with the large number of primary sources used, many of them not referenced in other reliable secondary sources.209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I don't follow your line of thinking that an article could be verifiable based on unreliable sources.209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I unfortunately have to agree. Our objective is to provide verifiabile information. We cannot do that by using sources which are not themselves reliable. In a case like this, we are I beleive much better off saying nothing, because we cannot find a reliable source to use, than saying to much based on nonreliable sources. In this particular case, most religious groups have something like a "Criticism" section in their main article. This one does not. Such a section, in this particularly case, could I think reasonably include the snippet from I think a newspaper that the group has managed to avoid a lot of external notice by not using a brand name, but thast also has reduced the amount of information available in total, and add what Melton said about the lack of independent sources. That section could also include some sort of reference to the numerous sources which exist which do not clearly meet RS, and might even go into some degree of discussing their claims, to the extent that they have been noted elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why "unfortunate"? That's the instinct of a writer and researcher speaking, not an editor. Fair comment?209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And Mr Carter, it could be worse. There is no advocacy writing for our group. If there was you could adjudicate advocacy writing versus counter-advocacy like is done for Scientology. Sound like fun?209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, there 'is' quite a little parcel of material in RS that can be worked for the article. And clear labelling and citing of counter-advocacy where there is a vacuum of other information is also a good approach.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm not trying to stonewall here, but the church (I have no capacity with the church I hasten to add) is dealing with an informal group of amateur researchers who all work with each other and feed each other information with varying degrees of integrity. The wiki article was beginning to read like a counter-advocacy web site, especially in the area of doctrinal argumentation.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an example of not stonewalling, I wanted a link to a church-related CSA web site that would have been of assistance to readers of the article but was told this was out of line. Not sure why. CSA in the church is a particular concern that should be featured in the article I believe.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable, in Wikipedia, means that a user can find the source. Not -- read the policy -- repeat not that the information is true.

There is also plenty of precedent in Wikipedia for using sources that are not academically perfect where the topics are not yet the subject of academic discourse. The disputing consistently has been not with the facts being cited, but concerns that the citations are poisoned because they come from biased sources. Facts do not need to come from unbiased sources, but the way the facts are reported must be neutral, and this article is neutral regardless of the bias of its sources.

Lastly I see absolutely no validity to any accusation of Original Research, in that practically every sentence is cited and many have mulitple citations. On the contrary, those objecting to article contents continually reference their own experiences. I have no reason to doubt them, but using ones own experience for reference is specifically what is meant by Original Research -- not the careful compilation of sourced material as has been done here.

The suggestion that the article is the work of a single editor is also patently ridiculous and provably so. --Nemonoman (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly where are these "large number of primary sources used"??? • Astynax talk 09:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) The way that Melton was cited indicates synthesis going on. For example, Melton indicates Irvine was an originator of the group, but Melton is used to back up Irvine as founder. Melton never said Irvine was founder. 2) Melton has never said that the group was Unitarian; he only reports that critics have said this. 3) Melton never stated that it was "necessary" that outside members be baptized. If we can't quote Melton properly, what about all these other sources.209.162.236.195 (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2) Regarding synthesis using primary sources (WP:OR), there are a number of letters to the editor, official looking documents and so on that have never been authenticated by academics.209.162.236.195 (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know I could find more, but I will need to acquire the reliable sources first. It took 6 months to achieve consensus on reliable sources, and thank goodness I will not need to purchase Daniel and Fortt now and provide financial support to a malevolent counter-advocacy group. Do not mind purchasing from legit sources.209.162.236.195 (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding single editor. Here are the stats since 03-19 around the time everything was blanked and restarted. [19]
  • Melton indicates Irvine was an originator of the group, but Melton is used to back up Irvine as founder. This distinction without a difference has been discussed ad nauseum and consensus was reached that the use of the word founder was appropriate for Wikipedia. It is typical of this editor's criticism that he will continue to argue and disparage any consensus conclusion that differs from his desired version.
Yes I will, and occasionally I am successful. :) Sorry, but the article has not had the attention from editors who actually understand your standards. You clearly don't as I have shown before. I am told that this is a widespread problem at wiki, but in any case, it is why I have to keep harping on the same point. Had you not nominated for GA and this was brought to my attention, I would have let the sleeping dog lie.209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noted also that we have repeated our familiar pattern, as I predicted, of argument, rebuttal, ad hominem attack, ad hominem counter-attack.209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Melton has never said that the group was Unitarian; he only reports that critics have said this. Regardless, Melton is a reasonable source for the fact, especially since the church itself refuses to publish its beliefs. Does Melton then deny that the church is unitarian? Are you suggesting that Melton is unreliable in this case?
Melton does not deny or admit of it. He only states what he has heard critics say. He has reserved opinion on the matter, unlike this article which not only states it unequivocally but also lies about what Melton said.209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It took 6 months to achieve consensus on reliable sources -- I'm quite confused by this comment since this editor continues to assert that there is no consensus on reliable sources. The RSN discussion on sources for this topic DID reach consensus, I believe, but my impression appears to differ from this editor: a reluctant acceptance of the sources being cited, noting the absence of academically vetted sources which all of us would prefer.
I am wrong, sorry. Even excluding myself who will never conceded that Fortt and Daniel are RS, I don't think based on that comment that there is consensus even now. Unless you think that your comment reluctant acceptance is equivalent to another editor's comment on reading the same, far from a clean bill of health. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding single editor. Here are the stats -- and what better proof of collaborative authorship could you ask for?
--Nemonoman (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Melton says (2nd paragraph) "The Two-by-Two's originated with William Irvine"—that's not synthesis, nor is Melton the only reference to back up the statement that Irvine was the founder.
Again, Melton does not say that "critics have said this" regarding the theology. He only indicates that he has sermon notes provided by "critics, primarily former members"—a huge difference. Regardless, it is Melton who draws from these sermon notes the statement that these indicate "a unitarian theology which denies the Trinity and emphasizes the role of Jesus and human example". No worker sermon would itself include the words "unitarian theology", and it is not synthesis to cite Melton's conclusion. Tying together the statement regarding the "unitarian" outlook with an unconnected statement 5 paragraphs later to make an assertion that Melton "has reserved opinion on the matter" would indeed be synthesis. The article doesn't do that.
As to the article being blanked, that is an offensive mischaracterization, as are contentions that the article has an anti-CC bias. This editor repeatedly raises this charge, then runs off when asked to cite instances. Nor have better, or even alternative, sources been provided to support tenditious claims that "reality" is somehow different than what the sourced statements say. • Astynax talk 19:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All good points. 1) Originator is not founder. We can argue about the difference but they are not the same. Certainly in the language of the church they are quite different. At this point I argue only with using Melton as source for statement that Irvine is 'founder'. The other sources might be sound. 2) You are right that the sermon extracts, and I have seen some of these, clearly indicate, at least a non-Trinitarian stance, and possibly Unitarian, depending on how you define Unitarian. And Melton also indicates those sermon extracts are Unitarian; I stand corrected. BUT to extrapolate from that, that the group doctrine is Unitarian or that Unitarianism is commonly preached, is a leap that Melton does not make. 3) Blanking can mean different things. This is not meant as an accusation. It's just to establish that the edit statistics before March-2009 are not relevant because any work performed on the article before that time was removed. Purely stated to support the single writer thesis, which I'm sticking to.209.162.236.197 (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing remarks

This community GAR seems to have digressed considerably from initial concerns about the suitability of the reviewer to philosophical questions about the meaning of truth, reliability, verifiability, collaboration, and the nature of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Unsurprisingly, it then ground to a halt. Community GAR cannot handle any of these issues: all it can do is determine whether the article under review meets the GA criteria or not. I'm sorry that I have been too busy recently to help editors focus on this main point.

Anyway, this article does not meet the criteria at present. Leaving aside discussion between the most actively involved editors, it is clear from comments by Jayen, John Carter and Cirt that there are concerns about the sources. I spent about 3 hours myself reading the article and checking sources, before reading talk page commentary and specific concerns. I came to similar conclusions about the sources, and noticed other GA issues. I summarize these below.

  1. The prose is hard to follow, with many parenthetical statements (1a). The lead does not adequately summarise the article, and there are some problems with words to avoid such as "pass away" (1b).
  2. Fortt, Daniel, Parker&Parker and Roberts are essentially self-published sources: no editorial oversight, and no reputation for fact checking. As such they should not be used to support disputed or controversial information in the unqualified narrative voice. Such sources can be used with attribution "According to...", but the neutral point of view cannot endorse them (2a/b). Citations are used in a very uneven way: some sentences get 6-8 citations, while e.g. Christian_Conventions#International is completely uncited (2b).
  3. The article is much too long (3b). Major editors have expressed the view that the article should be as "complete" as possible, and that may involve using less than ideal sources. No. Wikipedia articles are not the place to be "the best" as that leads to original research. Everything written here is based upon the work of others, and verifiability means that the reader can check that. However, there is no point in an encyclopedia reporting the observations of dubious sources unless they are notable and attributed. I suggest cutting the article considerably to content which is widely agreed in reliable sources.

The review of this article was flawed. While the reviewer had not made major edits prior to the review, one such edit and contributions to the talk page suggest a prior involvement that was always unlikely to lead to a widely accepted result. Nevertheless, the review contains helpful comments, perhaps more helpful than the second opinion, which appears to be wrong on several points (leads can contain references, "further reading" is not strongly discouraged, reference order is not a GA criterion).

None of the above opinion and advice is germane to the outcome of this GAR. A new and uninvolved GAN reviewer is needed. No action can be taken here. Geometry guy 22:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Geometry Guy for this helpful re-assessment. We Shall Return! --Nemonoman (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breakout (Miley Cyrus song)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: No action. Article has received a fresh review by HJ Mitchell. Geometry guy 22:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I just thought the Good Article review it received was a mistake. It failed on minor points, did not give explanations for what to fix, and was closed immediately. I was not even online when this happened. I think the article meets all the criteria for being a Good Article and with just a little work it will be more than qualified. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 01:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Low-pressure area

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Renominated at GAN. Geometry guy 21:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This reassessment is being instigated by the main editor of the article. In November, this article was failed based upon a previous reassessment, without the reviewer being clear as to how the article was jargony/too technical, so I'm starting a new reassessment to get clearer guidance. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The article fails Criterion 4: free from bias. It does not provide a sufficiently balanced geographical perspective.

Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Disputed review
Result: GAN nomination restored, disputed review archived. Geometry guy 23:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Piano non troppo reviewed this article with ridiculous claims that it goes into unnecessary detail (without sounding too waxy, many good articles and even featured articles are structured similarly), that it is a "PR piece to promote Lady Gaga" and that the artist should be consulted for advice on how to improve the article (WP:COI, much?). Mainly, the criticisms were that it focused on information such as the music video and performances and that it did not focus solely on composition. I think this user fails to see that there are other aspects other than musical structure that make a song notable. But my main concern with Piano reviewing the article is that s/he appears to have a bias due to being involved in an edit conflict recently.

There was a content dispute over whether the artist's official site should be used in the external links section that this user was involved in, that was eventually resolved with a consensus to exclude it. I think that this user's extreme and, in my opinion, outrageous criticism of this excellent article was merely a tool for this user to have the GAN failed at any cost. Per WP:GAN, "Articles can be [...] reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article." As s/he was involved in a recent dispute involving this page, it was therefore inappropriate for him/her to review it. Several editors included myself noted this at the GAN but s/he refused to step down and let another user review it.

Eventually, User:Una Smith failed this article claiming that there was a content dispute. There was no edit warring over the "issues" Piano raised at the article, and the GAN merely seemed like the nominator and other editors trying to discuss their opinions with the reviewer. I saw the GAN as a discussion and not a content dispute, so that does not make the article fail its GAN, in my opinion.

As per the good article criteria, the article definitely meets all of it. User:Legolas2186 is an excellent editor who has contributed to numerous good articles, several featured lists, and one featured article. He has obviously worked hard to bring the "Paparazzi" article to the quality that it is, and for a biased user to review it with suggestions that would ultimately lead to it being a non-neutral stub is not fair after that hard work. I have opened this community reassessment in hopes that this page will be listed as a good article. Chase wc91 01:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this article didn't pass the first time around. It also has improved a lot, I remember how it was before Legolas added a bit and cleaned the article up. I think the article is rather broad in coverage and on topic without being a PR piece for Gaga. Candyo32 (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Chasewc91. The previous nomination was met with such biasness from the said reviewer that it is uncalled and appaling. The article in question is completely satisfies with the GA criterias which I know best considering the numerous articles I worked on. Frankly, I was disappointed with Una Smith's closing but chose not to make more noise out of it and re-nominate the article later. However, since Chase has opened the reassessment, I will be waiting for the GA community to voice their opinion in this matter. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree with your point that the performance section goes into unnecessary detail (focusing on the major things such as the MTV performance would suffice), but I disagree with your point that the track listings should be removed as non-notable. They do not have to be notable to be included; WP:SONG#Single track listings states: "If this song is a single include track listings for the single's different formats." A new review would probably be a better idea, though. This article could use a few improvements but for it to be quick-failed for an inappropriate reason (discussion over content is not the same as an edit war) is unfair considering the hard work Legolas has put in. It at least deserves to be put on hold. Chase wc91 20:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that the section on "Track listings" should be removed. Indeed the large number of remixes looks like interesting content to me, but it isn't currently discussed in the article. Geometry guy 21:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should add for clarity that WP:SONG is a WikiProject, and not part of the GA criteria. Geometry guy 23:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to chunk the Live performance section down, along with the tracklistings which are not necessary. However, they cannot be completely removed as some of them are indeed present in teh article and as Chase says, in WP:SONG which is indeed the guideline we have to construct articles on songs. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winnipeg

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept per tremendous improvements made during this review. Geometry guy 21:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a barrage dead links and unreferenced claims in the article i do not see how this passed the good article criteria. I was going to change the status back to B on the quality scale but i decided to do a community review to get more depth into the article. Kyle1278 04:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed most of the dead links, there's only two that I can't find. As for the unreferenced claims, a) not everything requires a reference, and b) can you provide more detail as to your concerns? It's not perfect, but I'm not seeing a problem dire enough to preclude GA status. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added references to the places where you put citation tags. Are there any more statements requiring additional referencing? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I now agree that the article has been cleaned up and it can stay at GA status. Kyle1278 20:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is otherwise a very nice work, and certainly close to GA standard. Geometry guy 22:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, Nikkimaria! I have made indicative edits to the lead for coherence and coverage, but you can undoubtedly do a better job than I can, so please fix as you see fit. I'm otherwise ready to do as I originally intended and close this reassessment as "keep". Geometry guy 19:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your reorganisation of the lead is a definite improvement, but you may have accidentally dropped reference to sport and education?Fixed Geometry guy 21:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death Has a Shadow

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist. Sourcing and image concerns remain unaddressed. Geometry guy 22:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The prose in the article needs work, and a lot of the production applies to the series as a whole rather than this specific episode. The original GA nomination was reviewed by a user who is part of the Family Guy project (showing a possible conflict of interests), and who had made large additions to the article a week before the review (which is against the rules). As well, the review was not in-depth at all (merely two minor comments). I think it would be appropriate for community members to reassess the article for GA. Ωphois 21:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pedro thy master(note:i participated in various activites on the proyect and on the artical, i am also who reviewed it's GA and then nominated it for FLC) I put this in case that any useres have questions about who was it, also that i may be in the conversation--Saint Pedrolas J. Hohohohohoh merry christmas 21:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Pigeon

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Previous GAN and Previous GAR
Result: Delist. Still contains several unsourced statements. Geometry guy 22:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has several paragraphs without any in-line references, so this article fails GA criteria 2b. Snowman (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. However, I have some books that can be used to beef up and cite this, I'll have a look soon (they are at home and I am at work). Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fall Out Boy

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: No action. Articles can be renominated at GAN at any time. Geometry guy 22:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article was reviewed as part of the Sweeps process. I made all the requested changes and the article was delisted anyway because the reviewer disagrees with me and another editor about what constitutes reliable sources. I replaced those that were unreliable or removed the information altogether. Each noted reference was addressed. However, in his/her delisting message, no specific references were mentioned, only that new unreliable sources were added. I contest this. Primary sources, regardless of whether they are on YouTube or are in blog format, are reliable for the type of information sourced to them in this article. Lara ☁ 06:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reproduce below the referencing table of the references and my comments as they stood at 1 December when I de listed the artcile after 9 days on hold.
Reference Reviewer's Comment Status
2. ^ a b Sharp-Young, Garry (March 27, 2007). \"Fall Out Boy biography\". MusicMight.com. http://www.musicmight.com/linkto/artist/{66AF9310-12DC-40B5-BD83-597090E. Retrieved 2009-11-22. Anyone can contrubute to this site, no evidence of editorial control, policy, etc Resolved.
5. ^ \"Joe Trohman: Biography\". TV.com. http://www.tv.com/joe-trohman/person/412087/biography.html. Retrieved 2009-11-22. No information about editorial policy, etc Resolved.
6. ^ a b \"Joe Trohman / Fall Out Boy\". fendercom. http://www.fender.com/artists/artist.php?id=297. Retrieved 2009-11-29. Musical intrument manufactuere site, not Rs for the information cited Being debated. Fender's expertise is in music. Reliable.
7. ^ Fall Out Boy (2004). (2004). My Heart Will Always Be the B-Side to My Tongue. [DVD]. Fueled By Ramen. SPS Primary source. Recording label website is reliable.
9. ^ Kaufman, Gil (July 25, 2005). \"Fall Out Boy: Warped, Wicked & Wonderful\". VH1.com. http://www.vh1.com/artists/interview/1506189/20050722/fall_out_boy.jhtml. Retrieved 2009-11-22. Actually from MTV news so that should be cited Being debated. VH1.com is RS, and this is not from MTV. It's a VH1 interview.
13. ^ \"Fall Out Boy: Artist Info\". CDFuse.com. http://www.cdfuse.com/falloutboy. Retrieved 2009-11-22. Blog and music sales site, no evidence of editorial policy Resolved.
16. ^ Harris, Chris (February 14, 2007). \"Fall Out Boy Take It To The Top, Score First Billboard #1\". VH1.com. http://www.vh1.com/artists/news/1552400/20070214/mcphee__katharine.jhtml. Retrieved 2009-11-22. Report from MTV news to whom it shoud be attributed Being debated. VH1.com is reliable.
23. ^ Clandestine (Pete Wentz) (2008-02-29). \"Fall out boy plus our good friend john mayer- playing michael jackson\'s \"Beat It\"\". Friends or Enemies. Archived from the original on 2008-06-30. Blog site, no evidence that Clandestine is Pete Wentz Being debated. This is a website owned by the band. Wentz identified himself as Clandestine.
28. ^ \"Exposes! Scandals!\". Citizens For Our Betterment. Archived from the original on 2008-08-22. http://web.archive.org/web/20080822030724/http://citizensforourbetterment.com/. Archived blog site. Sole content = Exposes! Scandals! Are America's sweethearts in love with their own sins? It is our responsibility as citizens for our own betterment to find out. Come November fourth we will. Being debated. Website owned by the band. Up for a time before and following the release of their album by the same name.
32. ^ Danger, Daniel (October 9, 2009). \"all out boy - greatest hits cover\". tinymediaempire.com. Retrieved on November 28, 2009. WordPress blog site, no RS to say this was posted by the artist Being debated. This is the official blog of the artist, who owns the domain it is connected to, which is evidenced by looking at the website. Unreasonable to question the authenticity of this source.
34. ^ Fall Out Boyz at YouTube (requires Adobe Flash) Pete Wentz refers to the band as \"pop punk\".[dubious – discuss] Copyright violation posting on YouTube, Wentz actuall says the band is moving away from pop-punk. Being debated. Unreasonable to claim a video made by a record label and released on their office YouTube account is a copyright violation. "Moving away from" is a valid reference to them being in the pop-punk genre, if only for their earlier releases. However, this was build up to a joke wherein Wentz (not seriously) claimed they were going into R&B.
35. ^ Adita, Bradley (March 2004). \"Fall Out Boy Interview\". Redline Distribution. http://www.redlinedistribution.com/interviews/FallOutBoy.shtml. Retrieved November 28, 2009. Defunct online music store, no evidence of edtirail policy, etc Being debated. Defunct or not, the interview still took place.
as can be seen there were a number of unresolved issues, which are mentioned in the review. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The references initially noted in the review were all addressed. I just saw the paragraph with new concerns of old references. How is it a copyright violation for the record label to release a video they made on their own YouTube account? And him saying they're "moving away from pop punk" is still a reference to them being pop punk. I don't see how one can claim that a video of the front man of a band is not reliable. Also, you're categorizing a site that belonged to the band as a self-published source? It doesn't contain the same information as it did at the time it was referenced, but just because the source died doesn't mean the information becomes untrue. It's not particularly important information, in my opinion, and can be removed, but the classification of this source as a SPS makes no sense to me. It's a primary source. As is the blog of the cover artist. I don't understand where this requirement to verify that a primary source is authentic by a secondary source came from. What brings the authenticity of the artist's blog into question? You also have that there's "no evidence" that Clandestine is Pete Wentz. It was the blog from the band's website. Who would impersonate him on his own website and him let the posts sit? That makes no sense. Fender can easily be considered reliable for all things music. VH1.com has never, in my years here, been questioned as a reliable source either. While Redline Distribution is now defunct, the interview still took place. Or are you questioning that the interview is authentic? Others updated or removed as unnecessary anyway. Lara ☁ 19:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit lost on which facts in the article are still considered to be without WP:RS. Is the list above a statement that everything without WP:RS next to it is not reliably source according to the reviewer?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them were unnecessary sources, added to information that didn't need to be sourced, already.had a source, or could be covered by another existing source. In a couple cases I found a new replacement. In all other cases I believe the questioned source is reliable. Lara ☁ 05:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What disagreement am I suppose to be evaluating here. As I look at the list above the first contentious ref is not to be found. I am lazy and need you to tell me what to look at to understand the dispute. At the time the article was delisted, what refs were in debate? Now what refs were in debate? Where there other topics at issue that are still in disagreement.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed the unnecessarily cumbersome table to the refs not marked by the reviewer as RS. I also added their current status and my comments for clarity. I believe I addressed all references called into question originally. I did not see his response to my notice that I'd made all requested changes until after the article was delisted. That response brought up new issues with other refs. That is what you see above. To my understanding, there were no other issues still pending with the article at the time of its delisting. Lara ☁ 16:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to TonyTheTiger, the original table showed the state of referencing at the time of de-listing not as it stands now. Improvements have been made since then, in response to this reassessment. I still have queries about those currently shown above and will await the comments of others in this discussion. One improvement could be made by directly attributing primary sources such as the Youtube and the artist's blog in the artcile, such as Pete Wentz in a clip posted on Youtube by Island Records said....' Also note that when I clicked on the link to the poster of that clip on Youtube, I got a copyright noticed saying this was not available to my arae (UK). The concerns were posted in responses to User:Jennavecia's comment on the review that everything had been fixed. This is clearly tehre in the review. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What issue is resolved by descriptive attribution? I would still have to site the source. Same with the artist's blog. I can say "[the artist] stated on his blog...", but the reader can see as much from clicking the source. Pointing out that Wentz makes a comment on a YouTube video is easily established when you click on the ref and see him speaking on a YouTube video. What is accomplished by changing the form of attribution? Lara ☁ 17:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has come up at many GA reviews and reassessments, it seems a good way to distinguish the use of primary sources.
  • Amongst the references now in the article I see [20] JBTV online which has no content, it may be broken
  • most of the VH1 references are actually reports from other sources such as MTV news. The original source should be cited, not the aggregator site
  • The Citizens fou Our Betterment site [21] has just one line of content: Exposes! Scandals! Are America's sweethearts in love with their own sins? It is our responsibility as citizens for our own betterment to find out. Come November fourth we will What is that supposed to support?
  • Friends or Enemies.com - their about us page says Launched in 2006, FriendsOrEnemies.com (FOE) has become the new backstage pass for music fans and lurkers, giving them the chance to experience what their favorite artists are doing when they're being the rock stars they are. Everyday FOE is unleashing video footage and photos direct from our VIP's phones, breaking news and so much more! Who are these VIPS, you ask? Bands like The Academy Is..., Cobra Starship, Fall Out Boy & Gym Class Heroes PLUS over 30 more you know and love. It doesn't appear to be a site owned by the band, more of a forum
  • Fender is indeed a musical equipment manufacturer - that doesn't make a biography posted on their website a reliable source.
  • Redline Distribution was a record store - that doesn't make an interview posted on their website a reliable source.
  • the copyright notice that I referred to earlier was found when I clicked on the poster link (IslandDefJamMG} was actually referring to another clip, so I can now see that this was indeed published by Island Records, so fine as a primary source for the statement, "this whole pop punk thing is over" Jezhotwells (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The JBTV link works fine for me. For "most of the VH1 references", there are only two. One is an interview done by VH1. The other does indeed reprint from MTV, but it includes the byline and I don't know where the original MTV report is. So, since VH1 is a reliable source, I don't see what the issue is. We don't require the original news reports when it's one paper reprinting a story from, say, The New York Times. As long as the source is reliable, it's enough. Again, the Citizens for Our Betterment site, at the time it was cited, contained different content. I checked the site recommended by the band on the last page of the insert for their Folie a Deux CD (see here) and rewrote the details. As for the FriendsOrEnemies site, my apologies; It's the CFOB site that belongs to the band. Friendsorenemies.com is the website they blog on and used extensively during their viral campaign, including to make official announcements about the release of the album. Also included in the aforementioned CD insert. So it remains a primary source. Lara ☁ 21:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's all. Geometry guy 21:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nokian Tyres

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Keep per improvements made and comments below. Geometry guy 23:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for community reassessment as I believe that the article fails GA status on:

Jezhotwells (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "tire" → "tyres" are my fault since I'm a silly American in a rush. Am going to fix it now. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 01:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Sorry about that. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 01:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is a very small and specialized company. They are not Michelin or Goodyear. They mainly make tires for the local and regional market near Finland and have a small, loyal following for snow tires around the world. It started out as a stub 3 years ago and was difficult to write because little is known about the company but was expanded several times over. This is the background that others should know if they wish to evaluate the GA. It is not like Bristol, which is a big city. It is more like trying to write an article about the Stepping Out Theatre Company of Bristol.

None of the sources used are unreliable. The company references are used for facts, not overly positive statements. The company is small so many financial profiling companies do not review Nokian. I purposely tried to stay away from car magazines, which receive advertising and are less reliable than the sources that I referenced. Sources like the BBC News do not reference Nokian at all because Nokian Tyres does not engage in scandal, fraud, excessive pollution, etc.

Disclaimer: I do not own an Nokian tyres. I drive on Goodyears. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at all the references and my analysis is below:
Ref Link Comment
1 www.nokiantyres.com (info) [nokiantyres.com] SPS
2 Nokia – Nokia\'s first century – Story of Nokia (info) [nokia.com] SPS
3 Nokia – The birth of Nokia – Nokia\'s first century – Story of Nokia (info) [nokia.com] SPS
4 Idestam, Fredrik (1838-1916) (info) [kansallisbiografia.fi] RS
5 Expertise in Nordic Conditions (info) [nokiantires.com], Nokian Tires. Retrieved 2009-11-25. SPS
6 Nokian Hakkapeliitta R (info) [tiresbyweb.com], Tires by web. Retrieved 2009-12-04. SPS
8 Nokia\'s first century, 1865-1967) (info) [nokia.com], Nokia Connecting People. Retrieved 2009-11-25. SPS
9 Bridgestone buying share in Nokian Tyres (info) [highbeam.com], Tire Business, 3 March 2003. Retrieved 2009-11-26. RS
10 Expertise in Nordic Conditions (info) [nokiantires.com], Nokian Tires. Retrieved 2009-11-25. SPS
12 Nokian Tyres plc Stock Exchange Announcement December 1 2004 11 am NOKIAN TYRES BICYCLE TYRES BUSINESS TRANSACTION CONFIRMED (info) [nokiantyres.com] SPS Press Release (considered RS or company will be fined by regulatory agencies for securities fraud)
13 Nokian sells off tire division (info) [allbusiness.com], Bicycle Retailer, 6 December 2004. Retrieved 2009-11-27. News Aggregator, citeoriginal source Bicycle Retailer magazine
14 Finland\'s Nokian Tyres Plc to build factory in Kazakhstan (info) [findarticles.com], Nordic Business Report, 19 October 2007. Retrieved 2009-11-24. News archive, cite original sourceNordic Business Report is original source
15 Nokian Renkaat OYJ - Company Profile Snapshot (info) [ecnext.com], Wright Reports. Retrieved 2009-12-08. RS?
16 High Growth Forecasted for the Global & China Tire Market Report, 2008-2009 (info) [businesswire.com], Business Wire, 7 May 2009. Retrieved 2009-11-29. Passing mention
17 Annual Results 2008 (info) [nokiantyres.com] SPSReliable or Nokian would be fined for securities fraud by government
18 Premium Company Profile:Nokian Tyres (info) [researchandmarkets.com], Research and Markets. Retrieved 2009-12-08. RS?
19 Nokian Tyres (info) [yahoo.com], Yahoo Finance. Retrieved 2009-12-08. RS?
20 Kim Gran (info) [konecranes.com], Konecranes. Retrieved 2009-12-09. Self submitted company bio not RS
21 Expertise in Nordic Conditions (info) [nokiantires.com], Nokian Tyres. Retrieved 2009-11-25. SPS
22 Ivalo Proving Ground (info) [nokiantires.com], Nokian Tires. Retrieved 2009-11-25. SPS
23 Nokian Tyres (info) [jcmtires.com], JCM Tires & Auto. Retrieved 2009-12-04. A tyre dealer?
24 History in Brief (info) [nokiantyres.com], Nokian Tyres. Retrieved 2009-11-24. SPS
25 Nokian Tyres completes second stage of Russian tyre factory (info) [findarticles.com], Nordic Business Journal, 22 November 2006. Retrieved 2009-11-24. News archive, cite the original article Nordic Business Journal
26 Nokian Tyres (info) [jcmtires.com], JCM Tires & Auto. Retrieved 2009-12-04. A tyre dealer?
28 Products (info) [nokiantyres.com], Nokian Tyres. Retrieved 2009-11-27. SPS
29 World\'s Leader in Winter Tires (info) [nokiantires.com], Nokian Tires. Retrieved 2009-11-26. SPS
30 High Growth Forecasted for the Global & China Tire Market Report, 2008-2009 (info) [businesswire.com], Business Wire, 7 May 2009. Retrieved 2009-11-29. Passing mention
31 Best for Harsh Winters (info) [consumersearch.com], Consumer Search. Retrieved 2009-11-26. Consumer site, not RS
32 Vinterdackstest (Winter Tire Tests) (info) [teknikensvarld.se], Teknikenvarld. Retrieved 2009-11-26. a 30 second audio reveiew
33 Tire Test: Nokian WR “All-Weather Plus” (info) [canadiandriver.com], Canadian Driver, 15 July 2003. Retrieved 2009-11-26. RS
35 Nokian Tyres Against Climate Change (info) [nokiantires.com], Nokian Tires. Retrieved 2009-11-26. SPS
36 A new front tyre complements the Hakkapeliitta family for heavy vehicles (info) [nokiantyres.com], Nokian Tyres. Retrieved 2009-11-25. SPS
37 Truck and bus tyres (info) [nokiantyres.com], Nokian Tyres. Retrieved 2009-11-25. SPS
38 Nokian Heavy Tyres Contact Information (info) [nokianheavytyres.com], Nokian Heavy Tyres. Retrieved 2009-11-25. SPS
39 Trucks tires restoration (info) [motorida.lt], Motorida Padangos Profesionalams. Retrieved 2009-12-09. passing mention
40 Interim Report for Nokian (info) [reifenpresse.de], Reifen Presse. Retrieved 2009-12-08. SPS: Press release
41 Corporate Governance (info) [nokiantyres.com], Nokian Tyres. Retrieved 2009-11-25. SPS RS or Nokian would be fined for securities fraud by government
42 Vianor tyre chain (info) [vianor.us], Vianor (USA). Retrieved 2009-11-24. SPS
43 Brief history of Vianor (info) [vianor.fi], Vianor. Retrieved 2009-11-24. SPS
44 Brief history of Vianor (info) [vianor.fi], Vianor. Retrieved 2009-11-24. SPS
46 Grismer Tires (info) [grismertire.com], Grismer Auto Service Centers. Retrieved 2009-11-24. tyre dealer not RS
Corrections added as a list for which references I'll look for a 2nd reference. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a couple of RS, the rest SPS or rehashed press realeases and information from outfits selling Nokian tyres. Yet a simple Google News search brings up lots of possible leads to good refs. At present the article appears as a collection of random facts backed up by statements on the company website. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been asked what SPS means, WP:SPS = self published sources, they may be used with care but should not be the overall majority of cites. You could try Google News and Google Scholar using Nokian Tyres as the search term. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will work on this. Thank you for telling me of Google News search, which is different from Google search. May I also point out that the above suggestion, while very good, is not a criteria for a GA. The GA criteria states "The good article criteria measure decent articles...they are not as demanding as the featured article criteria, which determine our best articles." The use of SPS has been done carefully and wholly in compliance with RS guidelines. This doesn't mean I won't improve the article; I will. However, please :) consider that the above suggestions are suggestions, not requirements for GA. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the task of finding addition references. Also consider:

Policy shortcut:
WP:SELFPUB

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is not unduly self-serving; Green tickY I never used anything from the company that said they were good
it does not involve claims about third parties; Green tickY
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; Green tickY
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity Green tickY

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly such self published sources should not be the majority of sourcing for an article. In order to satisfy the broadly based criteria what is needed is some commentary by non-involved 3rd parties. There is plenty there in the press, go get it. And cut out the tyre dealerships, etc. They are in no way RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will certainly work on it! :) An article can always be improved and I want to do it! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Out of 68 references, 14 are from Nokian Tyre, 4 from Vianor, a much lower percentage than before. For some information, the Nokian references are top rate and the best, such as finding out the names of the products as other sources are likely to talk about only 1 product model. Nokian references are never used to prove that a certain tire model is the best. Will continue to work on finding other references. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot find information such as product names from reliable sources, then you should simply omit this information from the article. Just include some general information about main the products. Offliner (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just took a quick look at the article. I do not believe this meets GA criteria. The chapter organization seems clumsy, and the prose isn't too good. But it shouldn't be too much work to fix all this.

Some examples:

Regarding the sources, I think company publications such as annual reports are reliable sources about the company itself. Things like company history, statistics, etc. can be taken from these sources, but should be coupled with information from third-party sources. Online retail sites are not reliable sources and they should be replaced as soon as possible. Offliner (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. The last paragraph in history...I agree with you completely and was going to make a separate section. Annual reports are very reliable because if they lie, they could get sued by investors. Another reviewer mistakenly thought that annual reports were self published sources and not to be used. All online retail sites have been removed as references. Improvement is a continous process and a lot of work is expected in the next 7-10 days so please allow the opportunity for this to happen before stripping the GA title. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another sentence that makes doesn't make much sense is Nokian tyre demand is seasonal but the company has improved the extent of the fluctuations. Offliner (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, fixed that. Nokian tyres used to be nearly 90% winter tyres but they are trying to fix that by making summer tyres. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't get it. What does "has improved the extent of the fluctuations" mean? (I checked with a native English speaker, who didn't understand it either.) How about saying something simpler, like "the demand for Nokian tyres has previously been highly seasonal, due to 90% of their products being winter tires. However, recently the company has been able to lessen the seasonal effect by making summer tyres." Offliner (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment. I fixed this except didn't quote 90% since this is just a figure of speech, exact % was not released. Also recruited another editor to help give advice on copy editing. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The referencing is indeed much improved. The lead does need fixing. Please read the wiki-liked guidelines for the lead above, Suomi. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, which I did not know about. Major fixing has been done to the lead. Thank you for the suggestion. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A big thank you for pointing this out. Fixed this and several other similar problem wordings. Will also continue to look for more. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The citations need to be checked again. I found two different citations given the same name, "<ref name="Expertise in Nordic Conditions">"". --Malleus Fatuorum 18:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OOOOoopps! Fixed that. A nice editor helped me name the reference to eliminate duplicates and I should have checked it. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing these thing out. All fixed. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Unable to locate the exact name of subsidiary (Nokia Tyres, Nokia Tires, Nokia Tyre and Rubber) but re-worded to avoid that problem. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will return to this page in a few days. See [24] For emergency fixing, e-mail me Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Fiorenzo Ceriani; Valentina Gentileschi; Silvia Muggia; Hans Spinnler. "Seeing Objects Smaller Than They are: Micropsia Following Right Temporo-Parietal Infarction". Third Neurological Department of the University of Milan. Retrieved 2009-09-30.
More