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 25)

Good article review (archive)

(Page 23) →

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Result: Remain delisted. Several issues were brought up in the original GA/R that still have not been addressed, including 25 fact tags. Until these issues are addressed, the article cannot meet GA standards. LaraLove^T/_C 03:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous GA/R resulting in 6-2 Delist

No reasonable explanation as to why this was delisted. In my opinion, this is a strong article and meets GA criteria. Metamagician3000 14:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• support GA listing - article is broad with sufficient depth for the subject. well referenced, both in terms of quantity of references and diversity of sources. comments for improvement include creating a stub article for the redline link and incorporating the single line of the trivia section into the body of the article. LurkingInChicago 17:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just in case anyone is curious, it doesn't look like the article has changed significantly since May 4, [1] so I don't think there's a significant problem with the length of time between delisting and review. Homestarmy 20:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Keep pending the several fact tags are addressed. You might just want to remove that info. — Deckiller 02:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse delist - Many of the issues/concerns brought up by Jayron during the previous review have not been addressed.
  • The article is still riddled with fact tags.It fucking sucks
  • There is still a cleanup template for wikification.
  • NPOV issues regarding her political stance.
  • There is still a trivia section with one sentence of information. If this can't be acceptably worked into the article, it needs to be deleted.
  • She is still identified as atheist in the infobox with no source to back it up.
  • Additionally, the article is very stubby in places and there is an excessive number of quotes in "Israel and the Palestinians", in my opinion. References are also not consistently formatted. LaraLove^T/_C 19:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep delisted Please read the archive above for the places where this article fails WP:WIAGA criteria. Nothing has been fixed since the last, rather extensive, discussion was held. I am not sure what more reasonable explanation Metamagician needs to show where this article fails the good article criteria, but if it is important to them to get this article listed at the GA list, then they should improve the article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse delisttoo many fact tags--Sefringle^Talk 05:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse delist I have a problem with the prose. While it doesn't have to be at the level of an FA, it still has to be good. I find it weak, for example:
  • Following a TV news program exposé on her that revealed she had lied about her name, birthdate, and reason for asylum when she sought political asylum, Rita Verdonk (also VVD) announced that her Dutch nationality had to be considered invalid.
  • After earning a master's degree in political science from the prestigious University of Leiden, Hirsi Ali became a fellow at the Wiardi Beckman Foundation, a scientific institute linked to the left-wing Social Democratic Party PvdA, of which Leiden University Professor Ruud Koole was steward.
  • In January 2006, Hirsi Ali used her acceptance speech for the Reader's Digest "European of the Year" award to urge action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and to say that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad must be taken at his word in wanting to organize a conference to investigate objective evidence of the Holocaust.
• The overall flow of the article just isn't there. It is very choppy.Balloonman 04:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what is your recommendation? LaraLove^T/_C 04:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My comments start above where it says "endorse delist" and all of the bullet points below that point.Balloonman 04:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the second time in 24 hours! I seriously need to get some sleep and dye this blonde brunette! LaraLove^T/_C 05:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's what happens when you're up at 0-ungodly hours debating me ;-) Balloonman 21:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Behistun Inscription

Result: delist. Geometry guy 16:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an okay article, but it lacks in-line references, which I feel are necessary for this article. Also, this definitely needs a copyediting and another look-through by editors who are experts on the subject. Some parts, namely the first sentence of the article, are phrased in an unencyclopedic manner. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Without inline citations, only the titles of two of the references given sound like they definently would be referencing this article, the language one may only be referencing a small part of it, and the last one, who knows? And only two references for something like this, well, i'm pretty sure these statues appear in schoolbooks and that they are pretty famous, there certainly has to be more material on these things than just four references. There also seems to be some non-neutral language, for example, in the translation section, the last paragraph has questionable use of "Surprisingly" at the beginning, and "enterprising young boy" in the middle certainly isn't neutral, this isn't supposed to be a national geographic article. Homestarmy 16:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist—POV issues, and the article is too long to neglect inlines. Add inlines and remove the POV transitions, and it's a fairly easy keep. — Deckiller 02:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree: work needed to retain GA status. The article needs to make its sources clearer, and a few inline citations may be the easiest way to do this. I'm not sure if it has POV issues: this again could be resolved by citation. The lead also needs some work so that it summarizes the content of the article without stating additional unsupported facts. Geometry guy 10:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist - Other than some minor copy-edit issues, I don't see much wrong with this article, but the lack of inline citations is a disqualifier for me. With that said, Geometry guy, what is your recommendation, exactly? Is that a delist recommendation? LaraLove^T/_C 05:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I recommended that work is needed on the article for it to retain its GA status. If such work is not forthcoming, then whoever closes the discussion may read my remark as support for a delist consensus. I will comment again later if necessary, but I don't belong to the "vote first, ask questions later" school of reviewing ;) Geometry guy 12:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  "I recommended that work is needed on the article for it to retain its GA status" would warrant the use of "Conditional keep". You don't have to join my tea party—not that I think what you have described is my cup of tea—but I would appreciate the use of traditional recommendations for project consistency. LaraLove^T/_C 17:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies for any misunderstanding that my final quip may have created: I was not intending to criticise any reviewer for their approach and I have a high regard for the reviewers here. Although GA/R is part of the good article project, I regard it as process rather than a project, similar to FAR, AfD and CFD, and I contribute as I would to these other processes. In particular, I think it is often helpful in such a forum to comment and discuss before making recommendations, particularly if an article is being actively edited; but this is just my opinion, and these things may be largely a matter of taste. My comment also reflects general concerns about an apparent emphasis on vote-counting, and I would encourage editors to join Lara, myself and several others in the discussions on the talk page about this issue. Geometry guy 21:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WorkChoices

Result: Delisted by Giggy. There is no sign that this review will generate further discussion or contrary views, and I support the decision to delist the article, which clearly requires quite a bit of work to meet the GA criteria. Geometry guy 14:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a "barbeque-stopper" (controversial issue) in Australia, being a set of new industrial relations laws. This has been a GA since 2005 and now has some gaps - For example, having only one inline reference in the WorkChoices#Significant changes section, (criterion 2b) and the article not really covering what happened with WorkChoices in 2006. (3a) Was it being enacted the be all and end all of WorkChoices in 2006? There were some causes celebres in 2006 - like a 16 year old who got their paycheque cut by 30% under one of the new agreements. I'm not sure if that could go in the article without being a POV magnet, though. The references all need to be checked for non-404ing,(2b) and there's been some concern about POV in the talk page - weasel wording and the like. (4) I think it gets a bit POV in places. The references need to be consistently formatted, (2b) and the external links embedded in the text need to go.(1b) I've cleaned up the article somewhat, so now I'm submitting it for review. -Malkinann 23:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can't really talk about the POV as I'm not familiar enough with the controversy. But the article reads fairly well. The first section, where it is all bullet points, needs some serious work---and while I would like to see some of the information updated from 2005, I don't think the problems warrant delisting as a GA. IMHO, it probably meets GA criteria---but I don't have a strong enough sense for this article to vote to keep it.Balloonman 01:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist - Several fact tags and cleanup templates, listy and stubby in multiple sections, needs a good copy-edit for wikification and punctuation issues. Citations are not consistently formatted. That's just from scanning the article. LaraLove^T/_C 17:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also noted, upon looking back over the article, that the lead is not a summary of the article. Above issues have not currently been addressed. My recommendation stands. LaraLove^T/_C 03:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist - usage of ((fact)), cleanup templates, needs a serious copy edit. In fact, I'm delisting it now. Giggy _U^CP 05:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anabolic steroid

Result: Retain GA - Issues were addressed bringing the article back up to standards. LaraLove^T/_C 19:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ridiculously technical article, full of phrases like "elevated cholesterol (increase in LDL, decreased HDL levels)", "alterations in left ventricle morphology" (and that's just the lead...). History section seems to confuse anabolic steroids with allegedly performance-enhancing substances a lot: For instance "The word "doping" is thought to of originated from the Dutch word doop which means ‘sauce’ and the verb doopen means ‘to dip, or immerse.’ The Boers frequently dipped their bread into strong drinks before hardships or tough challenges." - what does this have to do with steroids? Then there's just plain awful writing, like "Anabolic-Androgenic steroids produce anabolic and virilizing (also known as androgenic) effects." An article that refuses to work its way down to laymen's level, with questionable history, and poor focus. Not, in my opinion, a Good article. Vanished user ^talk 15:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I had myself wondered why the history section starts with material that has nothing to do with Anabolic steroids, but the last review was cancelled before I said anything. Now that you mention it though, there's no reason that some of those phrases in the lead couldn't be dumbed down, many of those big words in particular have easy synonyms. (for instance, morphology could just be shape, or form and structure) "public understanding of the true risks remains limited." makes it sounds like the article is going to start warning the reader about stuff, definently a no-no. Also, are they only banned in U.S. sport organizations? Why does the article wait until much later to say that other countries make the usage of these steroids illegal? The movement for decriminalization section also seems odd, because all it names are a few people and one or two maganizes, that's a pretty insignificant looking movement if you ask me, and the last sentence has no referenced quote for "too great". For now, Delist. Homestarmy 15:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Homestarmy, I question whether or not you have even read the article or even Wikipedia policy for that matter. Firstly, ALL of your criticism has absolutely nothing to do with WP:WIAGA. If you read WP:WIAGA you will see that the article more than meets the criteria for being a good article. Secondly, You claim that the only sports bodies listed are American? Huh? The IOC is American? FIFA is American? UEFA is American? Try again? I urge you to change your vote. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Every single one of my criticisms has to do with the GA criteria. Myself and Adam have already demonstrated jargon, having off-topic material in articles violates 3b, my concerns over the decriminalization thing might possibly indicate undue weight if those few people named are really the end of the decriminalization movement, and by extension, be a NPOV violation, and my concerns over which countries ban what and the unreferenced semi-quote are minor, but I felt I might as well mention them since I noticed them. Homestarmy 16:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose delisting. The article fits the criteria for WP:WIAGA. Nowhere in WP:WIAGA does it say that good articles can't be technical and your criticism simply doesn't warrant a de-listment from good article. Moreover, I question your assertion that "increase in LDL, decreased HDL levels" is "technical language". Do you really think "LDL" and "HDL" are technical terms? They're used in common speech everyday in the media and on commercials, most people know what it means. The history of doping is only mentioned very briefly in the first paragraph of the history area. The history of modern pharmaceutical steroids is elaborated on right after that. Anabolic steroids are very relevant to sports doping and should be mentioned in its history. I highly suggest you read [WP:WIAGA]] to get an idea of what meets the criteria for a good article and what doesn't Anabolic steroids definitely meets the criteria for a good article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  From 1b:Wikipedia:Explain jargon. Homestarmy 15:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Criteria 1 includes Wikipedia:Explain jargon. This article violates that right and left. Vanished user ^talk 15:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you seriously saying that "LDL", "HDL" and "morphology" are jargon? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I've gone ahead and changed the cholesterol terms and cardiovascular terms to more understandable terminology. The other criticisms can be voiced on the talk page as they have nothing to do with good article criteria per WP:WIAGA. You should change your votes or withdrawal your submittal of this for review. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not the only examples of jargon, they were the first two. What about things like "Bone marrow stimulation: For decades, anabolic steroids were the mainstay of therapy for hypoplastic anemias not due to nutrient deficiency, especially aplastic anemia. Anabolic steroids are slowly being replaced by synthetic protein hormones (such as epoetin alfa) that selectively stimulate growth of blood cell precursors." Or "Anabolic steroids can cause many unwanted side effects. Most of the side effects are dose dependent and are caused by chemical reactions of the hormones, such as metabolism of androgens to form hormones which may interact with steroid receptors including the estrogen, progesterone, and glucocorticoid receptors, producing additional (usually) unwanted effects. The most common side effect are elevated blood pressure, especially in hypertensives,[18] and increased cholesterol levels due to the fact that some steroids can cause an increase in bad cholesterol and decrease good cholesterol levels.[19] Testosterone can also cause an increase in risk of cardiovascular disease[20] or coronary artery disease[21] in men with high risk of bad cholesterol. Acne is fairly common among anabolic steroid users, mostly due to the increases in testosterone which can cause stimulation of the sebaceous glands.[22][23] Conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone (DHT) can accelerate the rate of premature baldness for those who are genetically predisposed. Other side effects can include altered left ventricle morphology and induction of an unfavorable enlargement and thickening of the left ventricle, which loses its diastolic properties with the mass increase.[24] However, the negative relation of left ventricle morphology to decreased cardiac function has been disputed.[25] Also, liver damage can be caused by high doses of oral anabolic steroid compounds that are changed (17-alpha-alkylated) to increase their bioavailability and stability in the digestive system.[26] In a few cases where high doses of steroids were used for long periods, such liver damage may lead to liver cancer."?

  (WIAGA criteria: 1a (unclear prose) 1b (MOS, including Wikipedia:Explain jargon)) Vanished user ^talk 16:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (unindent) LDL and HDL are indeed jargon. I don't think many people could accurately define what lipoprotein particles are or why their density is important! A good alternative would be to just say "raise the levels of harmful forms of cholesterol." The article isn't great and is still a long way from FA material. However, it is reasonably comprehensive, well referenced, well formatted and stable. In general it does a reasonable job with its prose, although there are parts where this certainly could be improved. It could also be better in terms of expanding more on the medical, rather than the sports uses of steroids. However, all those shortcomings are things I would bring up in a FA nomination - the article is in my opinion good enough for GA. Tim Vickers 15:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I've made the adequate changes brought up in the criticism which are relevant to WP:WIAGA. All other criticisms should be voiced on the articles talk page. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has serious problems with WP:NPOV and WP:OWN. I've re-read the article and clicked through on a lot of the links, and a lot of the links don't support the arguments in the article. Often the links are to bodybuilding websites - not exactly NPOV. There's a lot of spin - for example the bit that people taking steroids are better educated than most drug users, but it doesn't mention that the reason they are taking steroids is for body image purposes. It should also point out that that is an Australian study, which may not apply to other countries. The article also has to move away from the term "myth" - a myth is something that isn't true, whereas in many cases the argument that's being made is that there hasn't been enough research to decide the issue one way or the other. User TimVickers did some good edits recently that helped a bit, but in my opinion this article has no business whatsoever being a good article.Jmkleeberg 16:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Jmkleeberg, I've made another pass through the section that I have renamed as "Misconceptions and controversies", since not all these ideas have been proven to be untrue. I have tried to remove any use of the word "myth" and make completely clear distinctions between which ideas are certainly untrue and areas where our knowledge is just unclear. Tim Vickers 21:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Jmkleeberg, Firstly, Your criticisms are very very vague and seem to reflect those of someone who hasn't read the article at all. You claim that links don't support the arguments being made? Examples? You claim that Bodybuilding sites aren't reliable or POV? The references to bodybuilding sites aren't being used where a POV is required, they are being used to reference specific assertions from specific people or groups and are therefore reliable since the people making the statements are the ones being referenced, moreover only a small % of the links are to bodybuilding websites, the vast majority are to scientific studies. Secondly, Please read WP:WIAGA and add criticism relevant to that. It's obvious that you have neither read the article itself nor the criteria for a good article here WP:WIAGA. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  WIAGA criteria: 2 (factual accuracy, particularly 2b, requiring reliable sources) 4 (questions about NPOV) Vanished user ^talk 16:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikidudeman, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but it does seem like you're attacking and belittling anyone who disagrees with you when you claim they haven't read the article, and/or don't know what a good article is. Vanished user ^talk 16:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Homestarmy, All of your relevant criticism per WP:WIAGA has been addressed [[2]]. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Vanished user, I'm stating facts. WP:WIAGA says nothing about most of the criticism being brought up. You can't delist an article from being a good article because it doesn't meet criteria that isn't even required of a good article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I've labelled the criteria being brought up in each complaint, except Homestarmy's, who did it himself Vanished user ^talk 16:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yet you still have the already corrected material listed as a criticism. You need to cross it out and change your vote or remove the article from review. The LDL/HDL thing has been fixed, The cardiac thing has been fixed, The history of doping thing has been fixed. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  What about the other two lengthy paragraphs I quoted in response? I said that jargon was *everywhere*, and gave examples, then gave more examples when you fixed those two and said it was done. Vanished user ^talk 18:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• *sigh* *facepalm* The history section was a copyvio of its source, and where there's one copyvio, there's usually others. I've deleted the page, as I don't see what else I can do. Vanished user ^talk 16:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  As a matter of a fact it was not. If you can elaborate on where the History section was copyrighted then please do so or simply removed the specific sentence or sentences that are copyrighted. You were totally unjustified in erasing the entire page. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  History section, before my recent trimming:

  Performance-enhancing substances have been used for thousands of years by societies around the world and have included natural and traditional substances whose aims were to promote vitality and strength. One of the earliest descriptions of performance-enhancing substances dates back 5,000 years and was described by Shennong who was a Chinese emperor around 2700 BC and is often regarded as the father of Chinese medicine. He is thought to have introduced the technique of acupuncture. One of the first written records about herbal performance enhancers, compiled around 1065–1771 BC, is Shen Nung Pen Ts'ao Ching’s "Divine Husbandman's Classic of Materia Medica", considered the earliest example of Chinese pharmacopoeia.^[1] Comments on professional athletes in ancient Greece suggest that a wide variety of natural anabolic substances were used to promote androgenic and anabolic growth. These ranged from testicular extracts to plant materials including fungi toxins. "The word "doping" is thought to of originated from the Dutch word doop which means ‘sauce’ and the verb doopen means ‘to dip, or immerse.’ The Boers frequently dipped their bread into strong drinks before hardships or tough challenges."^[2]

  http://www.dopingjouren.se/page.asp?page=history

  Performance-enhancing substances have been used in societies from time immemorial. This was described as early as 5,000 years ago by Shen Nung, Chinese emperor around 2800 BC, and venerated as the Father of Chinese Medicine. He is believed to have introduced the technique of acupuncture. The first written record about herbal medicine was compiled in 1065-771 BC, Shen Nung Pen Ts’ao Ching, “Divine Husbandman’s Classic of Materia Medica”, the earliest Chinese pharmacopoeia.

  In ancient Greece different fungi poisons were used.

  The word “doping” is believed to originate from the Dutch language, where “doop” means sauce and the verb “doopen” means to dip, or immerse. It is known that the Boers dipped bread in strong drinks before tough hardships.

  The first paragraph of the source, plus its comments on doping, are practically identical - except the first paragraph is missourced. Vanished user ^talk 16:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  IDENTICAL??? What are you talking about Adam? The article paraphrased what the source said. This is NOT a violation of copyright. The Dutch part was already deleted and if you thought that specific aspect of the history was copyrighted then you ERASE THAT PART you don't delete the article! Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi - Jmkleeberg again - had to go out and do some errands - but here are the sentences that I've noticed that didn't have adequate support:

  "no serious health defects have been identified that are caused by the long-term use of anabolic steroids."

  This needs a supporting footnote, and it doesn't have one.

  "While risk of death is present as a side-effect of many drugs, the risk of premature death from either the medical or illegal use of anabolic steroids seems to be extremely low."

  This sentence has three footnotes, but when I read the summaries on PubMed they don't support the contention of the sentence.

  Here are the cites:

Schroeder E, Vallejo A, Zheng L, et al. (2005). "Six-week improvements in muscle mass and strength during androgen therapy in older men". J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 60 (12): 1586–92. PMID 16424293. Bhasin S, Woodhouse L, Casaburi R, et al. (2001). "Testosterone dose-response relationships in healthy young men". Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 281 (6): E1172-81. PMID 11701431. Fudala P, Weinrieb R, Calarco J, Kampman K, Boardman C (2003). "An evaluation of anabolic-androgenic steroid abusers over a period of 1 year: seven case studies". Annals of clinical psychiatry : official journal of the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists. 15 (2): 121–30. PMID 12938869.

• The article also relies on a Steve Kotler article, a piece of popular journalism in Los Angeles Weekly by someone who is not a medical doctor, and is admittedly written in a "devil's advocate" tone.Kotler, Steven (July 2005). "Sympathy for the Devil". LA Weekly. Retrieved 2007-04-24.

  "While lower levels of testosterone have been known to cause depression, and ending a steroid cycle temporarily lowers testosterone levels, the hypothesis that anabolic steroids are responsible for suicides among teenagers remains unproven. Although teen bodybuilders have been using steroids since at least the early 1960s, only a few cases suggesting a link between steroids and suicide have been reported in the medical literature."

  Note: A paragraph from this review has been courtesy blanked. Daniel (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The section also quotes Dr. Mauro Di Pasquale. He is an MD in good standing - I checked the Ontario medical licensing website - but he doesn't seem to be making his living from medical work any more. [3] He doesn't have a tenured position at a university, he isn't accepting patients, and he doesn't have admitting privileges at a hospital. He is a bodybuilder. His recent work is publishing books on bodybuilding and selling dietary supplements to bodybuilders. He was previously the medical director of the World Wrestling Federation.Jmkleeberg 01:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Concerning the sentences...

  "no serious health defects have been identified that are caused by the long-term use of anabolic steroids." The refs are identified before hand, 57-60.

  "While risk of death is present as a side-effect of many drugs, the risk of premature death from either the medical or illegal use of anabolic steroids seems to be extremely low." Sure it does, take a look at just one of them which says concerning the study "few clinically relevant changes in physiological parameters or laboratory measures were noted throughout the study"

  Concerning Steve Kotler, I don't rely on him for anything but a source for a quote. The quote from Di Pasquale.

  The article from [name redacted per request] is relevant because he is Assistant Professor at Department of Psychology at the University of South Florida. Very credentialed person despite the fact he is a "bodybuilder" he has a doctorate in clinical psychology. The fact that it's not in a peer reviewed journal doesn't mean it's not reliable, it cites it's sources as well.

  P.S. Please add this sort of criticism on the articles talk page, Even the nominator of this review has decided it's GA material. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I don't think the article has enough problems anymore to warrant delisting, but there are several things that don't appear right to me. In the Movement for Decriminalization section, what's with the "it is perhaps worth nothing..." bit? There's no reference, and Wikipedia shouldn't be speculatively noting things like that unless there's a very good reference. I also still don't understand why it seems there's only a few magazines and people named, as far as I can tell, this is a really tiny and relatively insignificant group of people. Also, something like "including lawyer Rick Collins whose book, Legal Muscle, is one of the most detailed published resources on anabolic steroids and the law." really needs a source, because without one, that's compleatly debatable OR since "most detailed" can be so relative. Also, in the Misconceptions section, there's a Lyle Alzado named as an example, but his article doesn't appear to have any references that actually back up the idea that he was rumored to of died from steroid use. Homestarmy 04:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The Movement for Decriminalization is not very notable alone by itself however in the context of Anabolic Steroids (which is itself very small) it is very notable. It cites its sources and there are only 2 paragraphs dedicated to it, which per undue weight is actually a fair amount. As for the Lyle Alzado statement, I just now referenced it. I also reworded the Rick Collins statement to get rid of the POV tone. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose delisting - Recent major improvements in readability and citations in response to GA review have largely covered the concerns raised in the nomination. Tim Vickers 17:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. On the surface this should be an easy "keep": indeed the article is well on its way to FA status. However, the closer I inspected the article, fixing minor issues, the more problems I found, and maybe this is an opportunity to fix them, so that the next FAC is successful.
  • This article will constantly have to deal with the fact that its subject is controversial. Hence it needs to be NPOV++ in order to be stable. At the moment, however, parts of the article give the impression of being a guide to using anabolic steroids: advice is given on their use, users are shown to be sensible, and evidence is presented that they are effective, not harmful, and should not be controlled. These points may all be true, and I do not wish to dispute them, but this impression opens the article up to unnecessary criticism. A similar issue concerns the overuse of the term "side effect". I don't think these are major problems with the article: they could be easily fixed without significant changes to the content. However, I believe they underlie other problems with the article, because controversy and neutral point of view matters have distracted editors from other issues.
  • In fact, most of the controversial stuff is reasonably well-handled; it is the factual matters that are problematic. Recent edits have significantly improved the comprehensibility of the article, and reduced the use of jargon, but there is more to do. I am not against jargon per se, but each paragraph should be as accessible as is appropriate for its content. In paragraphs concerned with the biochemical effects of steroids, it would be foolish to eliminate terminology from biology and medicine entirely. On the other hand, the same scientific tone is unnecessary for paragraphs on more straightforward matters such as history or administration.
  • The article is well cited, but several times I found puzzlement on consulting a citation. What does Ref.6 have to do with the 1996 study? (And what 1996 study, by the way - the book?) Why cite a reference to support the vague claim that users are typically around the age of 25, after not citing a reference for the more precise claim that the median age is 27? And the 2.7% figure for high-school use is supported by a reference that is apparently unrelated.
  • My main concern, however, is that the factual content is disorganised and repetetive. What does "administration" have to do with "biochemical mechanisms", and why is the latter needed in addition to the section on "Anabolic and androgenic effects"? As for these last two terms, I would guess that "anabolic" means "stimiluting tissue growth", and "androgenic" means (approximately, in lay terms) "stimulating the maintenance and development of masculine attributes", but the article is all over the place here. I realise that that "muscle growth" is probably both, but in the lead, the muscle growth aspect is implicitly excluded "androgenic", whereas in the "biochemical mechanisms" section, it is taken as the definition! This disorganisation and repetition is reflected within the lead itself, which mentions three times that anabolic steroids stimulate muscle growth.

  I'd be happy to have a go at fixing some of this myself, because I think this article should remain GA and head rapidly for FA. However, editors more expert and/or familiar with the article (such as Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman) may have comments, or may be more able to effect such changes; I would surely make many mistakes without some support. Geometry guy 22:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate your recent edits and improvements Geometry Guy and Lara. I consider myself very knowledgeable of Anabolic steroids and sex hormones however I am not very good at the small things such as the minor grammar errors or the fact that the wording sometime might be confusing. That is something someone else might want to take a chance at improving. I'll see what I can do with making the wording more coherent so that the sources match up exactly with the wording. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist - I have posted a detailed peer review on the article talk page. It covers many issues, including some not included in the GA criteria. For this discussion I will mention only those issues concerning WP:WIAGA. In my opinion, the article fails the following criteria:
  • 1a: There are multiple areas within the article where the prose can be improved. There are also several issues with grammar and punctuation.
  • 1b: Words to avoid. I need to look at this closer, but I believe there are several instances where the use of "however" and "although" imply that one POV is favored over the other.
  • 3b: I find there are several redundancies within the article. It needs to be trimmed and focused. I also believe some of the included information is not necessarily relevant to the article/encyclopedic.
  • 4a: NPOV issues, some in connection with the above states issues regarding criterion 1b.
• Although I've noted many issues and feel that the article fails multiple criteria, I do believe that this article can easily, and even quickly, be brought up to standards. There are many issues, but they are almost all minor. If the issues are addressed I will, of course, change my recommendation. LaraLove^T/_C 06:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You seem to being far too strict for GA criteria per WP:WIAGA. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I've just made numerous changes per your talk page review. Tell me now if it meets the GA criteria. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  As I noted above, the review I left on the talk page is a peer review. I also noted there that it is far more detailed than would be for GA. As far as my review here, that's not too strict. I'm upholding the quality of GA. LaraLove^T/_C 05:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Does it still not meet the criteria for GA? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose delist - Considering the recent improvements to this article, I feel it clearly meets GA standards at this point and, in my opinion, is on its way to FA. LaraLove^T/_C 13:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as GA. I worked through the article: it was further from featured article standard than I first thought, and still has some way to go, but in my opinion, it now meets the GA criteria very comfortably. Geometry guy 13:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Ignition Facility

Result: Renominated at GAC. Geometry guy 22:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article failed both FA and GA, but in both cases the complaints were addressed in a short period after being listed. Then nothing happened... the motions failed after no additional review. Is this the right place to go? Maury 17:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article was failed and the issues have been repaired, you might be better off just sending it back to GAC. From what I can tell this is for if you have issue with a review pertaining to an article's status (e.g. you think the reason your article was failed was irrelevant ot the Good Article Criteria.) --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it depends on when the article failed. Was the article put on hold and then failed after the hold expired, or was it simply failed, the reasons listed and then addressed? More importantly, when did the fail occur? I'll look over the talk page and let you know. LaraLove^T/_C 17:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but the backlog there is so huge I was hoping to avoid it because it's already gone through most of it. Looking at items below, it doesn't seem like this is the "GA complaint queue"... Maury 17:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been almost four months since it failed. If it failed a week ago, we could take care of it here, but not after several months. Although there is a backlog at GAC, we're not a bypass for it. Nor is FAR a bypass for FAC. If you want it reviewed for GA and FA again, you need to renominate at GAC and FAC, however, I can tell you now, it probably won't pass.

• Remove the random wikification of stand-alone years.
• For as many images as are included, consider a gallery. Currently, it messes up the edit links. Images should not affect the formatting of the article.
• Remove any emboldened terms in the article after the title sentence.
• See WP:CITE regarding the necessary information that should be listed for references.
• The article could also use additional wikification.

Those are the issues I find just in scanning the article. LaraLove^T/_C 18:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it probably won't pass So, then, it seems this was the right place to turn. Please see the talk page for more. Maury 20:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, perhaps a relevant Peer Review would be in order. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

I've moved it over, should I just remove this text? Or should it remain for historical purposes? Maury 22:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism

Result: Immediately delisted by LaraLove^T/_C 05:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC) - Reasons left on article talk page.[reply]

The article is mostly original research, and has very little citations. It hardly meets the good article criteria.--Sefringle^Talk 04:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per worrying lack of citations. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rite of Spring

Result: Delisted by VirtualSteve. This articles review provides a clear consensus to delist - I note that it had been done so as per LaraLove's dif below and will now add a comment at the article.--VS ^talk 07:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been delisted prematurely citing this process as the reason. However, this discussion and its recommendations do not currently warrant delisting. Therefore, this discussion should continue as normal. If no improvements are made and further recommendations result in delisting, then it shall stand. On the other hand, should improvements be made that bring the article up to standards, it should them be relisted as GA. LaraLove^T/_C 06:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for delisting: Article is badly undercited, especially the more scholarly analysis. Would require someone with good knowledge and available literature to cite the stuff. The paragraph on Disney's Fantasia is very close to trivia. History needs more citations also. Centy – reply• contribs – 23:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you leave a message on the talk page of the article? That's meant to be so that people who are interested in the article (and who hopefully wrote some of it) can know about the review and address the concerns brought up in it. -[[User:Mahttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_bold.png

Bold textlkinann|Malkinann]] 00:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I will comment that the article cites two books, and an essay, specifically on the Rite of Spring; if any of the criticism is not from there, it would surprise me. It seems consensus at first glance. It would be bizarre to omit the section on Disney, since, even with a sequel, this is where many readers will have met it; if we delete it, it will return.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pmanderson (talk • contribs) 16:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Please sign your comments, mate. I can completely understand the concern about sections of an article spontaneously respawning, however, as it is, the Disney section doesn't have any inline citations, and some of the information in it could be considered controversial - an argument between Disney and Stravinsky.-Malkinann 01:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist - I agree that there is not sufficient inline citation. The lead is also insufficient. I recommend further wikilinking. Paris and benevolence, for example. For the articles current state, I must support the nomination. LaraLove^T/_C 15:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Easy Delist---wow, I wish all of the articles we reviewed were this clear cut. This article is woefully undercited. The lead alone would be enough to delist. This article needs a lot of help to get up to GA status.Balloonman 04:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Good writing, but unfortunately well underreferenced. Not an easy fix, this article makes many challengeable claims that need inline cites to back them up. Also, there are numerous direct quotes that have no obvious source. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There have been some changes to the article, but the addition of only one reference. Additional recommendations would be appreciated. LaraLove^T/_C 02:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This article is a solid piece of work and it would be a pity to delist it. However, it does need some fixing. At present, the lead does not stand alone as an overview of the article. This should be fairly easy to fix: the article is sufficiently accessible that anyone could summarise it. The section on "Musical characteristics" needs some clarification. Presumably the commentary of Perle comes from his book, but the page numbers refer to the score. In the section on Disney's Fantasia, Stravinsky's comments appear to have a source, but there is no source for the rest of the material. Someone familiar with the article needs to fix these issues. If they do, I'd be happy to give the lead a shot. Geometry guy 15:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. The article should be improved as suggested above and then renominated. Geometry guy 14:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist due to insufficient verifiability. LuciferMorgan 15:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore

Result: Delisted by VirtualSteve. This article's review provides a clear consensus to delist - however I note that with the help of a few dedicated editors it could quite easily regain GA status.--VS ^talk 07:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for delisting

• the section of culture is terribly written and poorly organized.
• the section of education wrote too much unncessary details like how many foreign students are studying there, PRIME, etc.
• subheadings are not really necessary in many sections, like history, transportation, etc.
• references didn't follow MOS format properly; and also further reading mixed with that section make it very untidy.
• quite a few statements with a tag of "citiation needed" and nobody pay attention to them.
• information is not that up-to-date, e.g. GDP per capita shown in the part of economy is 2005 that is almost three years ago.
• photos are basically oversized that hurt the layout and left many unnecessary space in many paragraphs. Coloane 05:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• VERY VERY Weak Keep and cleanup The article needs some help as you do bring up some valid concerns. But overall I thought it was a pretty good article. The problems that it has are easily fixed by somebody willing to make any effort whatsoever at cleaning it up. The education section and foot notes in particular need to be cleaned up.Balloonman 18:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)VERY VERY weak Delist the cleanup hasn't occurred... Lara, are you happy, I changed my vote Balloonman 18:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • re photos -- oversized? looks fine to me. there is no whitespace on my 19", whether by 1152 or 640.
  • re culture section -- the whole part in parenthesis is indeed very clumsily presented.
  • re references -- looks more like a case of inconsistent format. but for a few, most use the citeweb temp or equivalent.
  • re subheadings -- not particularly troubling to me.
  • re cit tags -- solvable problem, without first mentioning a couple of them are redundant. Chensiyuan 15:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist - I agree with several points of the nomination, although I do not feel there is an issue with subheadings. I also don't think the images are oversized, but I do think there are an excessive number of images. It does affect the layout and spacing of the article, and I believe the article should be trimmed down to include fewer images per Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Images. Stagger remaining images as necessary to avoid clashing with article contents. The fact tag issue also needs to be resolved. Cite references for these claims or delete the info. There also needs to be consistency in formatting of references. The article could use a copy-edit as well. I made some minor changes, but I don't have time to go over it in-depth right now. LaraLove^T/_C 19:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Issues have not been addressed. Further recommendations are needed. LaraLove^T/_C 02:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delist - the 'international rankings' list needs to be prosified and explained better, and the [citation needed]s need to be taken care of. I feel it's close, but doesn't quite fit the criteria.-Malkinann 01:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Apart from the poorly-written Culture section, most of the issues are minor, and if you rope in a couple of dedicated SGpedians, they should be able to fix everything within a week or two. GA standards are lower than FA standards, and this article is still generally "good". The current Culture and Education sections have changed considerably since the article passed GA, and Wikipedians wishing to improve the article may find it useful to refer to the version I linked to. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You posted a message on WT:SG! on 16 June, and there was no response. There was also no response to the GA/R message left on the article talk page on 15 June. It seems that ropeable and dedicated SGpedians are in short supply at the moment. GA/R is not the place for articles to sit for weeks or months waiting for someone to improve them. If no one wants to fix the (I agree, fairly minor) concerns now, then the article will be delisted. It can be renominated at a later date, when improvements have been made. Geometry guy 18:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, J.L.W.S., for pointing out the difference between GA and FA standards to those of us here at GA Review. Salutations aside, the issues, while minor, are numerous and disqualify the article from GA. If the issues are addressed quickly, the article will retain GA. Otherwise, as Geometry guy pointed out, the article will be delisted. If someone in a couple of weeks or so decides to address the issues, the article can subsequently be renominated at GAC. Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 19:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shortly after posting a notification about the GA/R, I posted another notification about Xiaxue's AFD. Perhaps nobody noticed the former notification. I'll post another notification, and inform several SGpedians through MSN. Although I usually contribute to less-developed articles, and lack experience with such well-developed articles, I'd be happy to help address some of the easier-to-address issues. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist The sectio of culture is poorly written. Information from the part of economy is not up-to-date. Trenastewart 17:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I am finding this GA/R rather odd. I have the impression from the nomination and elsewhere that there is a sense of frustration that this article is nearly good enough, but no one can be bothered to fix it. Several of the concerns raised are either spurious, or have nothing to do with the GA criteria, while others are easily fixed. First, 2005 GDP data is not out-of-date! The best we could hope for is 2006 data, but we have to use secondary sources such as the IMF for this kind of information, and it takes time for them to verify and analyse government figures. Secondly, the subheading issue is a matter of taste, and not a GA criterion. Thirdly, the culture section was indeed pretty poor, but this is a section which relies on subarticles, and hence can be written in WP:Summary style. I made a start today by "copy and precis" from the relevant subarticles. I also reorganised the image layout and added ((cite web)) to the few badly formatted web citations: more easy fixes.

However, doing this drew my attention to genuine (rather than spurious) concerns. The main one is the lack of reliable secondary sources. Only two books are cited, and most of the web references are either to primary sources (such as the Singapore government), or to Channel NewsAsia. Bizarrely, in one case when a primary (governmental) source would be acceptable (the 280m building height restriction), the cite is to a web page comparing Singapore with Liechtenstein! This is not the right way to source an encyclopedia article.

One other GA criterion which is not met is WP:LEAD. I'd be happy to fix the lead if someone else fixes the sources. Geometry guy 21:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Once all the legimate problems (and all the spurious ones) are identified, we can slowly deal with them one by one. According to the GA criteria, "it is generally acceptable... to have a small percentage of sources with borderline reliability". From my experience with less-developed articles on Singaporean films, I know that due to external systemic bias, finding reliable referenced information on Singaporean topics can be very difficult. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bold text

Pokemon articles

Mudkip

Result:Delisting confirmed by VirtualSteve Article is tagged as requiring expansion, and is currently protected due to instability issues.--VS ^talk 07:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similar, had a sort of review,[4] but was only removed somewhat later by another editor without further comment.[5] Gimmetrow 20:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ivysaur

Result:Delisted by VirtualSteve Article no longer exists - is now redirected to List of Pokémon (1-20)--VS ^talk 07:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same situation as Charizard and Crawdaunt, [6] the original review was older than Crawdaunts but at least gave a little bit of helpful advice, once again, no comment on the talk page was given to justify the delist, just the same edit summary explanation as in Charizard. Homestarmy 00:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crawdaunt

Result:Delisted by VirtualSteve Article no longer exists - is now redirected to List of Pokémon (1-20)--VS ^talk 07:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same sitation as Charizard, [7] but seems to of been passed much more recently, and while the original review passing it seems rather lacking, there was still no comment on the talk page for delisting the article immedietly, and the edit summary didn't defend the decision to delist this article at all in terms of the GA criteria. (It was just "This is in no way even GA quality.") Homestarmy 00:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charizard

Result:Delisted by VirtualSteve Article no longer exists - is now redirected to List of Pokémon (1-20)--VS ^talk 07:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This immedietly delisted article was delisted with no comment on the talk page at all, [8] and while I am aware the quality of references generally used in all Pokémon articles is considered suspect due to heavy reliance on guidebooks, I don't think that failing the very high standards of references that should be used in FAs automatically means they fail the standards of GAs too, certainly not enough to not even give an actual comment about delisting the article. I'm neutral on this article for now, as I haven't really examined it, and although i'm inclined myself to think that most of the references given for this article at least are relatively reliable, i'd prefer not to defend the references without a full story. Homestarmy 00:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These were all summarily delisted, and incorrectly. (I had to fix the currentstatus, etc.) Charizard has been nominated for FA a bunch of times and the same problems come up. The primary questionable reference is serebii.net, which this article uses for 7 of 58 references, which isn't bad. The other references tend to be fairly superficial, product listings and such, which relates to an issue of completeness, as the article doesn't have a lot on the creation of the character and other out-of-universe content. This is not a "great" article, but I think it's a "good" article. While I'm less familiar with the other two articles, a brief review of the references suggests the same issues. Gimmetrow 03:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are people's thoughts on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Popular_culture_and_fiction? Does serebii.net fit under that definition? -Malkinann 07:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist ALL These are fictional creations. There is not going to be much in the way of secondary sources---the closest you are going to get are guidebooks. I found the articles to interesting and informative. They were written clearly about characters in a game/anime/video game. I think they meet the criteria for GA.Balloonman 04:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Mudkip for review, too. Gimmetrow 20:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that one, but the user appears to of actually said something that time, there's actually a section on the talk page, saying it was unstable. Homestarmy 21:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, there was a sort of a review, then someone almost two weeks later changed the template. Gimmetrow 21:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reslist All - I actually thought I'd already done this... possibly this is where I was when my internet went down. Anyway, I don't see an issue with in-universe in these articles. They appear to meet the criteria in my opinion. LaraLove^T/_C 14:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist all except Mudkip. They all meet the criteria except for Mudkip, which has content issues (the rarely cited 3a) and a blank footnote, in addition to the question of its stability. Geometry guy 16:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This all may soon become irrelevant, it seems that almost all Pokémon articles are being redirected to lists, it appears that people have finally decided that individual Pokémon (outside of legendaries and a few of the most notable) don't deserve their own articles. Homestarmy 17:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Power of Nightmares

Result:Listed as GA by VirtualSteve Results show clear consensus that article meets Good Article Criteria.--VS ^talk 08:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recently failed by PocklingtonDan. The review cited especially a failure in the neutrality criteria, and recommended that the article be given a "critique" of the subject matter. From what I can tell from the reviewer's comments, their idea of such a section would constitute original research. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• List as a GA It looks like the article DOES contain critical reviews, however. It is listed right in the article, and its well referenced too. I see no obvious variance from WP:WIAGA, and had I been the principal reviewer, I probably would have passed it. A few awkward turns of phrase here or there, but this is easily GA quality writing. I say it should be listed. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As the GA reviewer, I should point out that the article's author has not mentioned that I failed the article not just on the grounds of neutrality but also on the grounds of stability, with both the edit history and talk page demonstrating the article's lack of stability.My issue with the neutrality f the article is that the various claims are presented as fact without stating they are the author's beliefs only or evaluating or citing them. Just as one example among many the article states "The Neo-Conservatives, with their conservative Christian allies, attempt to demonize Clinton throughout his presidency with various real and fabricated stories of corruption and immorality". Not "The documentary argues that neo-Conservatives, with their conservative Christian allies, attempt to demonize Clinton throughout his presidency with various real and fabricated stories of corruption and immorality". There is quite a difference between the two, with the former being an uncited statement uncritically repeating the film's claims. If this was an article on a fictional novel it would be fine to say "Goldilocks ate all the bears' porridge". However, when reporting claims made by a documentary I would expect sentences to read "The documentary claims... It goes on to say... Contrary to popular accepted views". If somebody made a documentary saying for instance "Clinton is a lizard", For example, in David Icke's articles outlandish claims are preceded by "According to Icke, ", "His latest work sees George W. Bush as", "Icke's core ideas...", "what Icke calls the", "He writes that", etc., etc. In contrast, The Power of Nightmares simply states in plain prose as fact every claim of the film series. Either the statements need to be cited, evaluated, or else reworded to make clear that they are all claims. I don't think this is unreasonable to make clear this is opinion/sedition rather than established fact. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I haven't reviewed the article entirely yet, but I did check out the talk page and edit history, and it doesn't not show me any sign of an edit war and lack of stability. The edit history shows NO SIGN of instability. Most of the discussion page is over a year old, with only the last little bit being less than three months old. There was some recent discussion about some parts of the article, but it seems to me that it's been dealt with in the proper manner. - T-75|talk|contribs 05:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have also not reviewed the entire article as of yet, however I did look over the talk page and history and I agree with Theo. There was a quite lengthy dispute on the talk page about 3 months ago. It seems to have been resolved at this point, however. The history shows no edit warring, at least none in the past few months. Recent discussions on the talk page seem civil and constructive. As far as neutrality, I'll comment on that in my forthcoming review (and by "forthcoming", I mean "in a few hours"... at the earliest). LaraLove^T/_C 07:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse fail Copy-edit and relist as GA
  • The lead should be a summary of the article. Currently, it does not adequately summarize Airings and distribution or include anything from Reactions or the subheading of Criticisms.  Done
  • I feel there is a need for more wikification.  Done
    • "America" should be wikified as "The United States of America" or "The United States" considering "America" is a colloquialism and, therefore, is not encyclopedic. Subsequent uses should be "The United States". Currently, there is an inconsistency with this as both are used in subsequent appearances as well as "U.S." and "USA".  Done
    • I also believe Individualism (this first appears in Part 1, but is later sublinked as "individualist" under Content), Westernization, Eastern Bloc, Bill Clinton, and Jihad should be wikified.  Done
  • Is there a reason that 'evil' in the second paragraph of Part 1 is in single quotes as opposed to double quotes?  Done
  • Punctuation is off in the article. Commas are missing and misplaced. This is something I may correct myself at a later time. Currently, however, it needs a good copy-edit. LaraLove^T/_C 04:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tried to do some work towards this, altohugh a few times replacing "America" with "United States" seemed a touch awkward. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 06:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Copyedit and relist as GA. This article is about a documentary, not about the claims made in the documentary. It should describe the content and the reaction to it. It seems to me that the article does this. Assembling facts and arguments to counter claims made in the documentary is original research, and such material should only be included if it can be sourced to a reaction to the documentary (e.g. a program or article which refers to the documentary). The sentence quoted by PocklingtonDan is in a section entitled "Synopsis". In such a section it is appropriate to remind the reader regularly that claims are being reported, not endorsed, and the article does this: it is not necessary to begin every sentence with "The documentary argues that...". Indeed, one must also be careful not to give the impression that the claims are being dismissed. If this documentary were being used as a source for an article on neo-conservatism, it would be an entirely different matter, but it is not.

LaraLove has raised some minor concerns: these should be addressed, and then the article should be relisted. Geometry guy 16:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a professional copyeditor, but I've run the whole thing through Winword and no major errors came up.--Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the article for copyedit at any rate. Hopefully an expert will come by at some point. Im the meantime maybe I can get more of the refs reformatted per the Peer Review. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes to the article have added British English despite the fact that the article is written in American English. This needs to be corrected also. LaraLove 18:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you have in mind? What is the distinction between American and British English outside of spelling? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My deepest apologies. When I checked the edit history and saw the addition of British English, I had a different article in mind for which there had been discussion about which should be used. I have no idea why I got them confused... they are totally unrelated. With that said, the changes should be British English, so disregard that comment. LaraLove 04:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I did the copy-edit, therefore my recommendation has been amended to "Relist as GA". LaraLove 05:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton University

Result: Delist - a clear consensus with valid arguments, and no sign that the issues are being addressed. Geometry guy 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been listed as a GA for some time now, this article's history suggests that this important page has been unfortunately stagnant. After a comprehensive reorganization to bring it in line with a WikiProject Universities-suggested section structure and trimming away of former news items, boosterism, and other cruft, the article still has many rough edges that do not currently meet GA criteria. These include: several embedded lists, poor verifiability due to inconsistent and sparse citations, and inconsistent coverage of topics (prominent buildings, traditions, fictional representations merit more attention than faculty & research, current administration, schools and departments, noted alumni, important historical eras like WWII, Cold War, last 25 years). Madcoverboy 22:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. The article is on the whole quite well written, but there are some real messy parts - the lists of fiction and traditions definitely fail the article on GA criteria, especially in regards to lack of adequate citations/references. LordHarris 16:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse delist - per lordharris, the article is quite well written. however, the lists of fiction and traditions should be incorporated into the body of text and a majority should be referenced. contributions to WWII, faculty and research could be greatly expanded and would improve notability of the topic. LurkingInChicago 17:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse delist - I don't think the topic needs much in the ways of improving notability. That aside, these are the issues I noted:
  • The lead is not a summary of the article.
  • Why are there sentences in parenthesis? A third of a long paragraph, at one point. This is not encyclopedic.
  • Fact tags need to be taken care of. That's an automatic disqualifier for me.
  • George Washington need not be wikified more than once. Corrected that myself.
  • Are all redlinks notable subjects? If not, remove the wikification.
  • If Nassau Hall has enough information to warrant its own article, it can be explained in a little more detail here. Lead information, for example, would be good.
  • References are inconsistently formatted. May I recommend the use of ((Cite web)). I believe it helps with consistency and completeness. See WP:CITE for details on what information is necessary.
• That's not a complete review. I got about 1/2 way. If progress is made with regards to improving the article, I will finish the remainder of the article. Until then, sleep awaits me. LaraLove^T/_C 06:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]