Misplaced Pages

:Good article reassessment - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Joopercoopers (talk | contribs) at 12:40, 3 September 2007 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:40, 3 September 2007 by Joopercoopers (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Good article review/backlog

Shortcuts
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment
Semi-Automated Tools

User scripts for GAR:

Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria (GACR). GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. The GAR Coordinators — Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings — work to organize these efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the {{@GAR}} notification template, or make a comment on the talk page.

Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including not meeting the general notability guideline, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment can be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles can be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delist.

Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment instructions

Before opening a reassessment

  1. Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
  2. Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
  3. Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
  4. If there are many similar articles already nominated at GAR, consider delaying the reassessment request. If an editor notices that many similar GARs are open and requests a hold, such requests should generally be granted.

Opening a reassessment

  1. To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
  2. The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment).
  3. Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.
Manual opening steps
  1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
  2. Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
  3. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
  4. The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
  5. Transclude the assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste {{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}} at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion.
  6. Notify major contributing editors, including the nominator and the reviewer. Also consider notifying relevant active WikiProjects related to the article. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.

Reassessment process

  1. Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them.
  2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
  3. If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion.
  4. If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.

Closing a reassessment

To close a discussion, use the GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).

  1. GARs typically remain open for at least one week.
  2. Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
  3. If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time.
    • If there is no consensus, the reassessment may also be closed as keep.
  4. After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
    • If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.
Manual closing steps
  1. Locate {{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page.
  2. The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
    • If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
      • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
      • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
      • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (example)
    • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this,
      • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
      • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
      • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page, setting currentstatus to DGA (delisted good article). (example)
      • blank the class parameter of the WikiProject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment
      • remove the {{good article}} template from the article page (example)
      • remove the article from the relevant list at good articles (example)
  3. Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)

Disputing a reassessment

  1. A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect. A closure should only be disputed within the first seven days following the close.
  2. Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
  3. If discussing does not resolve concerns, editors should post at Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the coordinators.
Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82


Articles needing reviewing (add new articles above the top review in the list)

Note: Please remember to put a note on the article's talk page informing editors that it has been brought to WP:GA/R for review and possible delisting of its Good Article status. Include ] in the section heading.

RevoPower

RevoPower (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

The reason given on the talk page is very stand-offish, and doesn't actually explain how the article fails to meet WIAGA, just that the person who reviewed it didn't like it. The information in the article is as accurate as possible from reliable sources, and the reviewer offered absolutely no basis for their accusation of the article being an advertisement. The review offered absolutely no way the article could be improved, and pointed out no problems with sourcing other than apparently accusing the manufacturer of releasing fake specifications, and saying that a third party source is needed. The reviewer offered absolutely no reason why these sources were unreliable, or where reliable sources could be found. The reviewer additionally said that there was too much speculation, but didn't actually show any speculation, looking it over myself there is no speculation that isn't backed up by what the company says, and even the shortest look at WP:CBALL shows that speculation is in opinions and original research, not in future events. The review reeks of WP:IDONTLIKETHECOMPANY, not that the article itself doesn't actually meet the requirements for being a good article. Now, obviously if it wasn't worthy of being a good article, I wouldn't want it to be one, but the review gives absolutely no reason why the article doesn't meet the GA Criteria, except barely touching on reliable sources, only to say that the company isn't reliable enough to give the specifications and motivations behind their own product. Going through the GACR, 1 I feel is met, there are probably a couple errors but nothing that couldn't be spent by having a couple more sets of eyes look it over, 2 is the only thing the reviewer seemed to touch on, but again everything in the article is sourced, with nothing controversial that would make a primary source unacceptable, 3 I also feel is met, given that the article covers the major aspects of it, even though it is short, because there isn't much to say, 4 I also feel is met, although the reviewer disagreed and called it little more than an advertisement, without actually saying what was written like an advertisement, 5 is definitely met, I think there's been one vandal in the entire time the article has been up, and that was a bit of NPOV OR, no page blanking, most contributions to the article are minor things, like fixing acronyms and such, 6 is definitely met given the high quality photograph of the object that the company donated. I really wouldn't mind this article failing if someone gave a decent reason as to why it didn't meet the requirements, and didn't personally attack other editors in their review. If someone could give a decent reason as to how the article itself has problems that couldn't be quickly fixed, I'd be fine with it, not statements about the thing itself. lucid 05:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.
  • Delist. The references are weak and article is short. It's currently "B"-class. While I wouldn't go as far as to say it's an advertisement, it lacks enough references from reliable sources to qualify as GA-class. That said: keep up the good work. With some work the article may be able to progress to GA-class. Majoreditor 05:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Again though, you're not saying how the references are weak. I could add extra references from their press section and a quick google search, but it wouldn't add anything to the article except pdf links. If someone can come up for a reason that RevoPower's own sources are contentious or unduly self-serving I'd agree, but as it is I don't see how the sources are in any way unreliable. --lucid 06:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: You're missing the point Lucid, the references are unreliable because they are mostly from the company itself. See reliable sources. The gist is that reliable sources are published and independent of the subject matter. There is nothing stopping the company from saying whatever it wants about itself with absolutely no editorial oversight. Of course they are going to make themselves look good, of course they have a conflict of interest when presenting information about themselves. Find some independent sources to back up the assertion and the article would have a much better chance here. IvoShandor 08:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
        • (edit conf)Being from the company does not make something unreliable, being from the company and being controversial in a way that the company would be using to promote itself would be unreliable. They are going to make themselves look good, yes, but they can't really bend specifications. And what assertion? Clearly you're not talking about assertion of notability, given that's more than established, so what in the article needs asserting? What would be NPOV without a source-- or for that sake, with one? I can say with about 98% certainty that anything sourced to the company is somewhere else too, especially anything that would actually be in their favor (which I would probably support removing anyway, if it were serious), or could easily be removed without effecting the quality of the article-- barring of course the "the company says, claims, notes" etc. bits. The problem is you're saying the company has a reason to promote itself, which is of course true, what you haven't shown, or even said, is that their intent to promote has biased their facts in a real manner that lowers the quality of the article --lucid 09:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Basically, I am of the opinion that the site is absolutely self serving, its essentially an ad for a yet to be released product, so really it is nothing more than speculation on the company's part, about how the company thinks things will result for the product once it is released. There is also absolutely no indication who authored the material, most likely a PR rep. The article is primarily based on this self published source as well, which is directly in violation of the section of WP:V you have linked above. Sorry, but Delist. IvoShandor 09:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • And again, the secondary sources back up this information as well. If you can find anything in the article which is contentious or self-serving to the point where the article is obviously biased or unreliable, please tell me. Right now, there's no basis to improve on any part of it, no any reason to disapprove --lucid 09:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The burden is on you to prove the source is reliable, its neutrality is disputed here, it would be best if you just brought some independent sources, they shouldn't be too hard to find I would think. Since you ignored this part of what I wrote: There is also absolutely no indication who authored the material, most likely a PR rep. The article is primarily based on this self published source as well, which is directly in violation of the section of WP:V you have linked above. I have reposted it for you here, this alone is enough reason to oppose the use of the source. As for assertion, I meant assertions, as in statements of fact that are cited within the article. I wasn't questioning the notability. Why are you linking to WP:NPA in your edit summary. I didn't attack you at all, I looked at the article and the source and made a comment about it. If that's a personal attack, then I don't know what to say. IvoShandor 09:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Essentially, just balance out the sources with more independent ones, and the use of the company website becomes no problem. When the entire article is based on it though there is no way to know whether any of information has ever been confirmed independently, or fact checked. IvoShandor 09:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
As far as showing the source is reliable goes, I'd have to say that keeping in the company's specifications because everything else has higher MPG is a pretty good sign that they aren't making their stuff seem better than it is. Anyway, I've added more secondary sources, there's still a few more out there but they don't have much new, or are borderline reliable/notable (see the talk page for one), and removed some stuff that wasn't really needed and only really linked to the company's page. It's fairly well balanced now-- the FAQ is still used a lot, but it's needed to give a broad scope of the Wheel. --lucid 13:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure if i'm looking at the right section, but when I see the latest GA nomination failed heading, it sure looks like the reviewer gave several legitimate reasons for failure, such as the article reading like an advertisement, among other things. Not even commenting on the accuracy of the review, I really don't think the basis given for starting this GA/R is accurate at all. Homestarmy 16:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

the accuracy of the review is the entire point. --lucid 16:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
You said that the review "doesn't actually explain how the article fails to meet WIAGA, just that the person who reviewed it didn't like it. ", but the only review I see nearest to the bottom doesn't appear to be like that at all, quite the contrary really, there seem to be several WIAGA-relevant objections. Homestarmy 16:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Relevant, maybe, explanatory no. Saying "it reads like an advertisement" without actually providing something that reads like an advertisement, or saying that the sources are unreliable without actually showing where a source is wrong, or at the least contentious enough to not be reliable is little more than saying "I don't like it, here's a few blanket statements that could be said about any article without anything to back them up, that way they can't be disproven" --lucid 16:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see then. While I don't agree that specific examples of deficiencies in articles always have to be specified, I guess I can see how you could interpret his review to be meaningless. I'll give the article a closer look. Homestarmy 02:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Another Comment Well, reading the article, I don't think it really is an advertisment. It just appears that way because what's there is mostly positive in nature, though I don't think its written in a non-neutral way, its just that all the facts about the subject presented here are fairly positive. Lucid, is this really all the material available on this subject? No criticism or anything else? Homestarmy 02:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much. It's unreleased, so about the only criticism is people on message boards, which is obviously WP:UNDUE and not an RS. The closest thing to criticism is PopSci showing a meter from "Loafer" to "Lance" on the RevoPower article, with the arrow pointing to "Loafer", but that's not much of a criticism really, not to mention it can't really be cited because it's not in text. It did make a pretty big sweep through the blogosphere awhile back, one of them might have some criticism, but even the more popular blogs are generally not reliable sources. Of course, once it is released, it will probably get a surge of media attention, and I can look around then. If it's as popular as they're hoping for (100,000 units in the first 6 months, I think, I don't have the exact quote here) it wouldn't be surprising to see a bunch of towns passing laws and telling people they are/aren't ok and such on it, like those electric RAZOR scooters that were so popular a couple years back, or pocket rockets, or Segways, or any number of other weird transportation things that have come up in the past few years. Of course, if it gets in magazines that get to review it I'm sure there will be plenty of criticism, not to mention people complaining about how it's 'eliminating the point of biking' or something to that effect if it really catches on. I'm already thinking about the future of the article to be honest, I figure there will probably be a "Legality" and "Reception" section once it's released, and probably a new section for new types of wheels, as they are released (the four-stroke, hybrid, etc. models they mention) --lucid 04:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Harold Pinter

Harold Pinter (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Had made changes requested. Apparently, the reviewing editor(s) did not recognize them. Too bad. Archived the talk page: see Talk:Harold Pinter. --NYScholar 18:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the discussion here as this is what i believe the editor wants. This article was failed by User:Jayron32 beacuse the issues listed were not resolved. The issues can be found in Talk:Harold Pinter/archive2. Woodym555 18:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.
Please see the much-later comment by Jayron32, who says that he did not fail the article and who says that he recused himself from reviewing the article. See also Wrad's comments, where he points out that he failed the article without realizing that changes had been made to it. "It was failed" refers to his having failed it. He says that he is a new reviewer and that he has also recused himself from reviewing the article now. NYScholar 18:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see evidence of changes made. All I see is arguments about why they are not needed, and statements that the editor didn't have time to work on promoting it, as he hadn't nominated it and wasn't planning to. References in the article aren't standardized. We discussed it. Two reviewers agreed there was a problem. NYScholar disagreed. It was failed because reviewers' problems weren't addressed, only argued against in an unsatisfactory way. This should not be a GA until refs are standardized within the article, as it is, the article uses multiple formats and is very confusing, as agreed by two reviewers. Wrad 18:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
As the editing history should bear out, I made a lot of changes since Wrad made his comments. I don't know why he does not realize that. The comments were explanations of the changes. I have asked for specific examples of the lack of "standardized" format that he mentions, but he does not supply them. I have attempted what I consider to be one format that adapts MLA Style Manual format to some peculiarities of Misplaced Pages style sheet format (e.g., for the titles of articles in links so that they post with the link symbol outside the end quotation mark; that is inconsistent with normal MLA Style Format for punctuation of titles, in which the punctuation occurs inside the end quotation mark). The other punctuation is standard in both MLA Style Manual format and Misplaced Pages style sheet format. American English is the version of English consistently followed in text of article; quotations (as they should) follow the English version used in the original being quoted. Any so-called "problems" appear to be so very minor that it appears to me that failing the article as a "good article" in Misplaced Pages seems without basis. Notes refer to parenthetical in-text citations as subsequent references (an MLA Style Manual format for notes); MLA Style Manual format permits both in-text parenthetical citations and content notes. If a note requires considerable space, it is not wise to use a parenthetical citation. Editorial discretion is wise to use in such cases. Misplaced Pages's "guidelines" for "standardization" are not "written in stone"; and to act as if they are seems inconsistent with the concept of "guidelines" in the first place. In articles on literary topics, it is correct (standard practice) in academic scholarship to use MLA Style Manual format. Harold Pinter is a topic about which an immense amount of academic scholarship has been published. Misplaced Pages adapts already-existing bibliographical conventions; it does not invent them. Such conventions long pre-date Misplaced Pages. --NYScholar 02:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I actually did make specific examples. I have never seen parentheticals with notes, personally, unless the notes were additional information, rather than references. I could be wrong, though. It honestly seemed as though you had given up on the article becoming a GA. You never mentioned on the talk page that you had fixed anything until after it failed. I personally found the refs confusing in this article. I still do, although I admit they are better. I tried to explain this, and the other reviewer seemed to agree with me. It sounds like you've invented your own style and are trying to justify it in the face of wikipedia consensus (aka "guidelines"). This isn't impossible, but it is usually wise to acknowledge that consensus at least a little. If other editors disagree with myself and the other reviewer, I wouldn't be against promoting it. Honestly, this all seems like bad communication. Usually, editors leave some sort of message on the talk page to say that they have fixed things. I know you're not all that familiar to the process, but that's how it is. After I saw that you didn't seem all that motivated to fix it, and saw no indication of change on the talk page after several days, I failed it. Honestly, it is a bit hard to interpret when a person says one thing and does another. Anyway, I'm bowing out of this. I think that I can no longer provide an unbiased review. I am also pretty new to the process of reviewing, and may have done it wrong. Other editors can decide if it is a GA. I'm glad this review has come up. It is needed. Wrad 03:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I really did not have the time to make the changes, but I did so anyway. It took a lot of time. In the interim sometimes people would come along and introduce further inconsistencies and then I would have to correct those. I use editing summaries in the editing history; those indicate what I was trying to do. There are archived discussions that also indicate where changes have been made over a period of time. I think that whatever remains to be done may be so very minor that it is inconsequential. I have moved items from in-text citations to notes back and forth and have settled on what seems to be least obtrusive and still to be consistent with MLA Style Manual Format; where notes can be used as endnotes (footnotes), I have tried to use them as "content notes" (MLA); where reprinted items are involved, because the parenthetical citations would be too long to indicate them, I have used the notes citations for such information. Parenthetical citations are very sparely used; only in one or two instances are what used to be in notes now back within parentheses and that is because there already is a parenthetical citation being used and one of the reviewers asked me to use fewer "see also" or "cf." refs., which I have done. Sometimes, however, it is necessary to use see or Cf. and in those cases I have had to use them. I think the citations format is clear enough. I and other editors can consider further specific suggestions about particular parenthetical citations or notes citations; References list has an editorial interpolation (visible only in editing preview mode). --NYScholar 03:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see also the split-off part of the article, now Works of Harold Pinter, which shares the References and Further resources etc. sections with the main article. It has its own notes citations, which have to be complete because References, Further resources, etc. are in the main article. (Another editor moved what used to be the "Works" section of the main article into a separate article. I tried to work with that change after s/he did that edit. That was some time ago now, pre-good article nomination and review. --NYScholar 03:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Endorse delist - It does seem as if the majority of Wrad's suggestions (all of which I agree with) have not been completely addressed. Mainly, the mish-mash of reference styles. Consistency is key. Also (I don't think Wrad mentioned this) there are way too many External links at the end of the article. I'd recommend 1/3 of that. Drewcifer 06:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the above was posted, have made further revisions and updated sources for them in this article. I believe that the external links listed are all useful for readers interested in the subject. If, , specific links do not seem useful for readers interested in the subject, please indicate which ones those are. Thanks. --NYScholar 20:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC) I believe that my changes to the article over a period of the past week have indeed addressed the comments by Wrad (which were few) and those of the previous reviewer. I believe that Drewcifer could not possibly have examined the article in question carefully if he reached the conclusion posted above. I really do not see any serious problems with this article (given Misplaced Pages's own standards and policies) that would warrant its not being considered a "good article" in Misplaced Pages. Anyone who does is free to make precise specific line-by-line suggestions on the talk page. --NYScholar 04:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I never actually failed the article. I merely recused myself from reviewing it and returned it to the nomination page. I have no idea who reviewed it after me. Other than to make this comment, I will continue to recuse myself from making any critical remarks about the content of the article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The reviewer who failed the article (Wrad) has also (to a degree) qualified his objections (to a degree). (He did not realize when he failed the article that changes had been made to it.) For the format of citations (MLA Style format, adapted to Misplaced Pages style sheet for punctuation using links to citations) and use of "accessed" , MLA just uses two dates (first is date of publication/posting, second is date accessed); the URL follows in http format within angle brackets. Misplaced Pages style incorporates the link in the title of the citation between square brackets. (That is an adaptation of MLA style format to Misplaced Pages style sheet guidelines for external links. I can list the URL as an angle-bracketed address as well, but that seems unnecessary, since it shows up as a highlighted item in the actual link.) For the listing of MLA Style Manual format, see WP:CITE#References. Misplaced Pages links to some MLA Style Manual format information via its own "References" list. WP:CITE is a guideline not a policy; my MLA-style-format citations are consistent within the article, and I doubt that anyone could have difficulty understanding what the sources are that are being given; in the case of online sources, links are given so that they can be checked and verified. All printed sources are sources that I myself have checked and verified. I vouch for the sources listed. When content was added by other users, I documented it if possible; if not, I removed it. This is a biography of a living person who is also a public figure, and the person is also controversial; I have tagged the talk page with appropriate templates so that readers/users/editors new to the article can consult the related policies and guidelines. I also have kept in mind that this is an article that Misplaced Pages users may want to print out, and in its printed format, there is much useful bibliographical information. A key question to keep in mind is: are the sources cited in a way that they can be checked and verified (when online versions of the sources are accessible) and are the sources cited in a way that they can be checked and verified (when they are printed sources). The answer to both questions is, I believe, yes. Again, I have personally checked and verified every source that I have listed in this article; I consider the sources of content that I myself added to be reliable and verifiable. When subsequent users come along and post unreliable or unverifiable content in the article, I try to provide proper sourcing, or I remove the material as per WP:BLP. There has occasionally been vandalism to this article; and I check it from time to time to protect it from such vandalism and/or from unintentionally misleading editing. This has been a very time-consuming task for me and it troubles me that the review is not as careful as it could be. I did respond to comments by making changes to the article; I have done the best I could do given my other work obligations. Both previous reviewers have now recused themselves from reviewing this article (scroll up). If new reviewers have specific changes to citations format to suggest, please make them in the talk page of the article. I've done my best at this point. Thank you.--NYScholar 18:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi NYScholar. You seem to have waded into it. MMmmm, offhand this article seems a bit hagiographic.. I read it quickly & didn't see a word of criticism. I admit I read it quickly. Did I miss a section somewhere? I apologize if I did. Moreover, as for MLA, you can get away with using it, but it is as rare as hen's teeth on Misplaced Pages. As WP:CITE, which is not policy but which guides the edits of the overwhelming majority of us, recommends either Harvard or footnote-style. But as you've said, the practice is one of consensus rather than ironclad rules. So... the criticism? Did I miss it? Lack of such a section would Fail the article due to NPOV concerns. Sure, there isn't much criticism of Shakespeare, but Pinter is no Shakespeare. Both his work and especially his politics have been criticized somewhwere or other, I'm quite sure... --Ling.Nut 19:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)'
Thanks for the response, Ling.Nut.
Articles and parts of books listed in the Selected bibliography include sources critical of Pinter; clicking on the links to them will show that. I have attempted to follow Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view in the wording of statements in the text of the article, which are presented in what I believe is neutral language. If one wants to add "negative criticism" of Harold Pinter (whose politicial views are controversial, as the sentence about his Nobel Prize lecture states in the lead), then one still has to do so in keeping with WP:BLP and WP:BLP#Well known public figures and to cite sources in keeping with WP:V#Sources; previous versions of the article did not do that. One will find several items listed in the "Selected bibliography" which are critical of Pinter and/or which cite controversies relating to his political views and his work. The bio-bibligraphy by the Swedish Academy and Nobel Foundation already includes sources of diverse points of view on Pinter (his work and his politics). One is free to examine the editing history from its earliest version on to see how it developed over the past few years. There is also some discussion in the talk archive. I placed the "controversial article" template on the article because I am aware of past problems relating to the article and foreseeing the possibility that new users/editors will need to consult Misplaced Pages:Guidelines for controversial articles in the future if editing it. As I understand "good article" status, it relates to stable articles, and if such a section begins in this article its stability will change and this would not be a good time to re-review it then. I can monitor such development for accuracy of citations and documentation as time permits; but right now I have other work to turn back to (under deadline). --NYScholar 20:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Before logging out of Misplaced Pages to do that work, I have made some brief additions to the section on the Nobel Prize Lecture, which I suggest that one re-read, including references to related citations that need to be read as well. The citations and references linked in the Selected bibliography are part of the article and intended to be consulted as such. --NYScholar 21:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi NYScholar,
  • It's self-evident that you've put a lot of hard work and careful scholarship into this article. I appreciate your labors, and applaud the results.
  • I realize I've entered this discussion without much context. I'm trying to delve through the archives, etc. It may take a while. :-)
  • My majors throughout my recent academic career have been TESOL & Linguistics — both of which tend to use some flavor of Harvard notation. Moreover, MLA is rare on Misplaced Pages. For those reasons, I'm not familiar with MLA format. I'm looking into it. :-) However, I believe the problem that GA reviewers are bringing up with respect to a "mishmash" of styles is the combination of in-text citations and footnotes for providing full references. The footnotes are fine for regressions, comments, etc. such as "Further information about 'Artist and Citizen: 50 years of Performing Pinter' is accessible on ...". However, since you're providing full references in a Works cited section, it looks a bit odd to also use footnotes to provide a full citation of a source, e.g. "Mark Lawson, "Pinter to 'give up writing plays'", BBC News 28 Feb. 2005, accessed 19 June 2007." ... In the latter case, would it be possible to stick strictly to using the Works Cited Section? This would involve shifting some references from one style to the other.
  • Moreover, I really think the article needs a section explicitly dedicated to the criticism of Pinter's work and his politics. I know you mentioned that examples of criticism are rather easily found in the works cited etc., but to adhere to the letter of the law with respect to WP:UNDUE, the issue needs to be faced up-front and head-on. The section can be relatively brief, but it needs to exist and it needs to cite reliable sources.
  • I think once you get through GA you're almost a shoo-in for FA, once these issues are somehow addressed.
  • KUTGW! -- Ling.Nut 18:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much again, Ling.Nut. I have made further revisions to the article based on some of your comments above. Among those changes, I added a "Criticism" section that is keyed to the "Works cited" list. Unfortunately, right now, I am operating under a massive work deadline and this is all I can do for the time being. I hope that most of the comments that you made are taken into account by these revisions. The notes citations include information that is not in the "Works cited" section (to include them might lengthen it too much); for the time being at least the citations are all checked and verified (see editorial interpolations). For any further minor format changes: these will have to wait until I have more time I'm afraid. Just cannot do them now. Perhaps you can take another look and list the note citation numbers that you think need specific attention. Thanks. --NYScholar 21:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, since writing that, I did do more work to the article. I have tried to make the citations format work better with the "Works cited" list. There may be a few more items that need changing, but I think I've been able to make them mostly consistent with MLA Style Manual format and Misplaced Pages's idiosyncracies. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks. --NYScholar 06:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've gotta say, it's obvious you've put alot of work into the article, and alot of work lately based on all the advice given here, so kudos on alot of great work. Personally, I only see two remaining issues with the article: the image and the in-line citations. The fact that in-line ciations are there is great, they are just formatted a little oddly at times (I'm sure your getting tired of all this complaining about formatting and style and what not). Namely, the footnoe citations are fine, but the ones which refer to a source of information (rather than clarifying information like the footnotes) should be formatted more consistently. For those I would recommend using citation templates. As for the image, it seems that the fair-use thing isn't going to well (and based on the Fair-use rationale on that page, I can pretty much guarantee it'll be deleted), so I think I have an easy solution. Go to Flickr.com and do a search for Harold Pinter. There are many good images of him there. Find one you think is appropriate and let me know which one it is, and then I can ask the author for permission to use the image. I know "asking for permission" seems like a simple thing, but (as with most official Misplaced Pages stuff) it can be somewhat complicated. So, if you'd like I'd be happy to do that heavy lifting for you since I do it all the time. Anyways, I hope my suggestions are helpful, and let me know if you'd like to take me up on that offer with the image. Drewcifer 08:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I hope that I've fixed it all now. Re: citation templates: I hate them. They completely ruin the punctuation (which is very tricky) and the last name, first name posting in alphabetical lists ("Selected bibliography" in this article); plus I am using MLA-style dates (which is the same as European style just coincidentally) and they don't post correctly w/ the templates. I have hand-fixed the punctuation of titles throughout for each item, and I would hate to lose what I regard as consistency w/ the inconsistencies that the citation templates will introduce throughout. I have made content notes for the notes citations; "Works cited" includes items cited in the notes being used as references. There is really only one content note that I might convert later (I can't do it now; I'm too tired from all this work.) I really have to do work outside of Misplaced Pages, but I wanted to at least get this much done before leaving for (what I hope will be) an extended period of time. RE: the image: it's been a real problem; every image that I can find gets deleted by Misplaced Pages, even though I believe the teeny thumbnail low-resolution version (of the most recent one particularly) appears to be free and within fair use. I will look at the site that you suggest and get back to you asap. Thanks again for the thoughtful reply. (Which "in-line citations" do you mean? It is appropriate to provide the URLs (links) to sources for purposes of checking and verifying sources in notes citations (even the citation templates do that). If you tell me which note citation numbers you mean, I will take a look at them later. I just may not understand what you mean.) --NYScholar 09:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Re: the Flickr.com photos: on page 1 of a search for "Harold Pinter", there are two photos by Chris Saunders (which I've seen before on his site) which are possible choices (I think that I prefer the profile); on page 3 there is a group photo of three people w/ Pinter on the right in profile that (cropped) might be a possible choice. Other photos of him that I see there are copyrighted to other photographers (not noted there): e.g., the Nobel Prize announcement day photo (Oct. 13, 2005) w/ the jaunty cap and bandaged head: that's a press photo that is copyrighted. Also there are better photos of him looking healthier than that (2006-2007). I prefer the stills from the Nobel Lecture as possible photos (the one that was in the article for a long time before an editor deleted it even though I explained that I had permission from Illuminations to feature it on Pinter-related website(s). The derivative photos from the DVD would probably have the same copyright/fair use provision problems that the orginal one posted encountered from the Misplaced Pages editor who seems to delete a lot of photos from Misplaced Pages (see HP talk page). So please do try if you want to re: the photos mentioned from page 1 and 3 of the Flickr search. (My guess is that the photographer Chris Saunders appears to be a professional studio photographer, however, and I don't know if he will give permission for free licensing of his photographs.) The page 3 photo seems to be more of a personal photo taken privately. --NYScholar 09:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

C++

C++ (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Very little citations for an article that big. WikiProject notified. T Rex | talk 21:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to provide specific challenges to the text for which you think in-line citations are required, or are you going to continue to insist the rather vague "I'd like some more". Unless you provide details of your challenges this is essentially an unactionable GAC and should be ignored. --Joopercoopers 12:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist, Along with the citation issues I find that the article lacks an explanation for some of the jargon in the article and in other its explained fine. Also I think that the lead is still a bit to short for the size of this article. Tarret 22:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It appears that the GA requirements for in-line citations are being scaled down at bit as per discussions at WP:WIAGA. Drewcifer 23:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delist despite the change in criteria mentioned above, in-line citations would still be necessary in some sections, namely the Problems and controversies section (more would be better). Also the in-line citations are formmated inconsistently. Lastly, and this is just a recommendation, I'd say the Incompatibility with C section should come before the Problems and controversies section. Drewcifer 06:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist, too few citations. --Aqwis 12:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Edmund the Martyr

Edmund the Martyr (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Since GA was granted, the article has attracted a disruptive, single purpose editor: Special:Contributions/EdChampion and sock puppet: Special:Contributions/85.189.180.235 -- SECisek 19:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment The user's ridiculous use of bolding makes it very difficult for me to take him seriously, do his solitary actions really warrent having to review the article all over again for GA status? Homestarmy 21:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment As both the passing GA reviewer and the admin who protected the article from the edit war, I'd like to urge leniency here. I fully protected the article to encourage discussion between EdChampion/IP and the other established editors on the talk page, the regulars engaged in a productive discussion to enhance the article further while the EdChampion/IP pretty much declined to take part. His behaviour is now bordering on vandalism. I'd rather not re-review the article, it'd be better to deal with the behaviour of the single-purpose editing. The Rambling Man 21:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I did not decline to take part. Firstly, I was the one who started the discussion and then let others have their say, afterwards I replied and included suggested areas of compromise. I have fully explained to you why I did not reply over the Public Holiday weekend. I do have a life outside the WikiWorld. And there's nothing wrong with SPE; everyone has to start somewhere. EdChampion 19:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment A review seems hasty. This isn't the proper venue for dealing with a vandal. Drewcifer 21:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The editor in question deleted the GA tag this morning and I explained doing so did not delist the article. So here we are now. This is very frustrating for those of us who put in a good deal of work on this article. We have attempted to add in reasonable and accurate requests that he has made, but he keeps demanding that outrageous and fringe views be included. Everytime the other editors and I reach an agreement, he turns back up. Can somebody with more experience at WP offer us some leadership here? -- SECisek 21:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Does Request comment on users work? It seems doubtful as the user seems to have no other presence on Misplaced Pages but to disrupt Edmund the Martyr. I would never have guessed that there was even the possibility of a Fringe theory problem over this topic. It is weird. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Note consensus is not synonymous with unanimity. The definition of a consensus is general agreement (Oxford English Dictionary) or "general or widespread agreement among all the members of a group" (Encarta). With only one editor in disagreement, there is certainly a consensus understanding of what a Edmund the Martyr article should and should not contain. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I read somewhere that consensus literally meant unanimousness, so I dunno what to do about that, but if a user conduct RfC doesn't appeal to you, you could try the Fringe Theories noticeboard if you haven't already, its in the noticeboard template. But to Secisek, some strange things can garner controversy, and i've seen several of them pop up here before, we've had fights over obscure opera writers among other things. Homestarmy 01:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
From Misplaced Pages:Consensus, under the sub-heading Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Consensus in practice is this:

Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome. The following description of consensus ... argues a difference between consensus and unanimity...

So both real world and WP understanding of consensus does not encompass the concept of 'unanimity'. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Consenus includes not archiving the discussion on the talk page and preventing others from adding comments (as you did), even more so since you took no part. It includes refraining from being childish and the refusing to reopen the discussion (as Scott Cisek did). It is also worth reminding you that that you haven't make a single contribution to the page. I suggest you read the full article on consensus including "wikipedia decision making is not based on formal vote counting" EdChampion 19:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • HOLD EVERYTHING! How do you know my first name, it does not appear anywhere in Misplaced Pages, just who are you Ed? We all know well that there is no way you are a newbie, you know far too much about using the WP processes to disrupt. You once accused me of acting childlike, and here you are, Google-stalking me. That is very poor form. Just who are you, really? Somebody needs to trace the IP and see what other accounts EdChampion edits under. -- SECisek 20:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment well this I was not expecting. Can I give a bit of background (as seen through my eyes obviously) in the hope that the Article 's contents nbe reached by consensus. Although the article that went to GA did not include all I would have wished (of course it would not - it was a consensus. no-one was the sole author!!)- it did inform in an interesting way. The original sub headings of recent developments concerning Patron Saint and Flag status were created to inform users of these modern developments, and what religious and - or historical facts (if any) that could be relevant. They like the compromises developed on the talk page whilst the article was protected were improvements that would have enhanced the article. EdChampion and - or - two other anon users - sock puppets? have continually developed any information of such developments (e.g. status - specific religion - banner - flag) into statements representing their opinions. (for example Christian or Catholic Martyr) SECisek expression of frustration in the statement above, I totally agree with. As a good article I believe it stands, is there room for improvement? yes - will it become one without protection? --Edmund Patrick ( work) 17:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how one turns a banner, coin etc. into a personal opinions, besides which for EVERY claim I write - even on the talk page - I ALWAYS cite my sources. In the case of the martyr status this includes popes, doctors of the church - and I offered a compromised since it is my desire to reach a consensus too. EdChampion 19:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If anyone is interested in the matter at hand i.e. GA review (and not the detraction and calmny of those who make it their day job), to make things easier I have added one GA issue titled "Paragraph for Review" on the Edmund talk page for review.EdChampion 19:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Very likely to be sock puppets as well: Special:Contributions/79.74.238.223, Special:Contributions/85.189.181.99, Special:Contributions/79.72.130.63.

This account edits in a style that should be familliar to people following this debate: Special:Contributions/84.66.110.223. The edits defending the racist/facist British National Party‎ could be very illuminating if this IP could be connected to a certain sockpuppet. -- SECisek 22:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Does any of this having anything to do with the article's GA status? I'm inclined to say it does not, so I would recommend bringing this debate to the article's or your own talk pages. Unless there are any opinions otherwise, I'd like to close and archive this discussion. Drewcifer 06:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Drewcifer here, this isn't a GA review at all. The discussion should be continued on the talk pages. There's no need to delist the article. The Rambling Man 07:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Every editor save one has sounded a loud "keep". Do as you will. -- SECisek 06:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
??? Every editor? I count 6 "Comment" and no "Keep" (nor "Dealist" for that matter). What are you talking abbout?--SidiLemine 13:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
On the topic of ending this, assuming this user knows information about Secisek that he couldn't possibly know without knowing his real life identity, (which I assume he shouldn't know) it sounds like GA/R isn't the right place for this, Wikistalking is in a whole different area from this place. Homestarmy 19:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Veganism

Veganism (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article seems to lack a NPOV and lacks details explaining the criticism of this particular topic. Tarret 14:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Criticism is provided in 'Ethical concerns' section by POV of Davis and Jarvis, also various health precautions are included throughout the article. The article has barely changed since original GA review, so specific criticism of POV-ness would be appreciated. Kellen 22:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
To be more specific the article is very "pro-vegan" meaning that there is very little mention of the "counter-vegan" point of view. Also as the tag in the Demographics says the section lacks a more worldwide point of view most noticably in areas such as Asia, and Africa. Tarret 22:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - most governments do not record details of diet in their census, and so it's difficult to find reliable sources about numbers of vegans worldwide. I think there's an information-gathering attempt on the Talk page about this issue. -Malkinann 22:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment I typically contribute to the article from a "counter-vegan" perspective, if you will, and I'm not sure we need to put a whole lot more criticism into the article. Could you give specific examples of passages that need a "counter-vegan" rebuttal? Though you do have a good point - we need to gather a more global view particularly in the demographic section. Kellen has found some good sources that should be integrated into the article. There just isn't a lot of information out there about many parts of the world, though. Cheers, Skinwalker 23:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The demographics section is actually a virtually unsolvable problem; there are no good statistics for number of vegans almost anywhere in the world. The research has just not been done yet. I did some cross-wiki research but this yielded few results. Since there is no one we can cite, I do not believe this is a good reason for delisting.
There are also few, if any, notable "counter-vegans." There's a variety of people, including vegan orgs, pointing out the need for supplementation, so this is covered extensively in 'health,' but not much else. Kellen 23:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A Series of Unfortunate Events

A Series of Unfortunate Events (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Only passed a few days ago, the original reviewer left only this comment on the Talk Page as their review: "Enjoyed this one. Pass." Upon further review, I've found it to have the following issues:

  • Some of the images do not specify their source.
  • Many of the sections are poorly referenced, most notably the Distribution section.
  • The references are poorly formatted.
  • Small lead section.
  • Reception section could be expanded.

Chief editors, reviewers, and WikiProjects have been notified. Drewcifer

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.
It's decent, but I wouldn't say it satisfies all the criteria. Namely, criteria #1b and WP:Lead (too short, doesn't summarize article), criteria #6 and WP:NFCC (no sources for some images), criteria #2 and WP:CITE (poorly formatted references), and criteria #3 (the reception section is somewhat small, though I suppose that might just be my opinion). The 2nd bullet point above, the lack of in-line citations, is currently under debate at WP:WIAGA, so we can ignore that one for now. Drewcifer 09:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Taj Mahal

Taj Mahal (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

In-line referencing is spotty at best. Some sections are referenced well, some not at all. Appropriate WikiProjects and chief editors have been notified. Drewcifer 02:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.

I fail to see any single aspect of the "Good Article" criteria that this article doesn't meet and exceed. The article's FA status merits may be argued, and have been. Its GA status is more than obvious. I fail to understand even why this new review has even been requested, except to generate controversy and to give the requester, who apparently makes a habit of this, some sort of bizarre satisfaction. Such antics are the reason I have ceased to be an active WP editor. --Nemonoman 11:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought I made myself somewhat clear in the nomination: many sections of the article lack in-line citations. And yes, I suppose I have made a habit of bringing questionable articles under review: that's the whole point of the ongoing GA sweeps. Many GAs were passed before GA criteria existed, so now myself and a few other editors are checking every single GA article. I just finished sweeping the architecture GAs and found 5 (I think) articles which were worthy of further discussion. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way. Drewcifer 15:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
But once again, you assert "many section of the article lacks citations" and yet fail to say what it is in those sections that you challenge. If you want people to respond intelligently and productively to your activities here, then you're going to do more work than just "I've judged your article and found it wanting" - personally I think everyone's time would be better spent fixing the articles than arguing here. And frankly, wouldn't architecture articles be better reviewed by someone who at least knows something about, well y'know, architecture. --Joopercoopers 16:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not that I'm challenging any of the assertions made in the article or that I think someone made it up. I'm merely going by the simple premise that every paragraph (at least every section) should cite the source of its information. I could give you a list of the sections, but it would probably be easier for you to go and see for yourself. And I completely agree with you, I'd rather see an article improved rather than delisted. Hence, I posted on the Taj Mahal's talk page a few days ago bringing up my concerns. I also posted the article here while posting notices on the Architecture and India WikiProjects, as well as on the talk pages of 3 (4?) of the article's chief editors. If I truly wanted to see the article delisted I would've nominated it here without any warning. To the contrary, I've done everything in my power (outside of doing it all myself, and I admit to knowing very little about the Taj Mahal or architecture) to see the article improved and make the appropriate people aware of my concerns. Drewcifer 16:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Could you tell me where it says in policy that "every paragraph (at least every section) should cite the source of its information". You've got the wrong grip on policy if you think this is the case. WP:CITE, and WP:V says that material that is challenged should be cited with inline citations - otherwise a references section will be sufficient. The article has both a footnotes section and a references section (albeit misnamed - I've just correct it). You act imperiously here towards editors who have worked hard on articles and are rude enough to give nemonoman above a Non-apology apology in saying "Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way". What you mean is "sorry if that rubs you up the wrong way but I don't really give a toss - it's clearly your problem for being over-sensitive." 1. You admit to having no architectural knowledge. 2. You don't have any challenges to the information and so can't tell us what you think needs inline citations. 3. you misunderstand policy and the GA criteria (nowhere does it say references have to comply with MOS as you have asserted below). 4. you appear to be interested in some facile and infantile "drive" (with lollipops for reviewers who can upset enough good editors who might actually know what they are talking about) and 5. When you're questioned about it you respond with a shrug of the shoulders and a faint insult. Furthermore it's absolutely disingenuous to say that "you've done everything in your power" and then in parenthesis say "apart from actually doing any work to the article" - how do you think that makes editors feel? Your response to criticism, is to remind us you are capable of even more crass insensitivity and imperiousness "I would've nominated it here without any warning". You're activities are starting to look like disruption. I make a modest request here - If you want to challenge material in the article - spend a little time to read it. make notes about the bits which you think might need inline citations and then post them here. ie. a bit of work on your behalf, rather than making me feel someone is lauding it over me, might just persuade me to do something about it. --Joopercoopers 17:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's drop the personal attacks and focus on the article. Either it fits the criteria or it doesn't. End of story. That's what this page is for deciding. Wrad 17:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm commenting on the behavious, not the person and there's nothing there that is a personal attack. To characterise it as such is again, disingenous and simply an attempt to shut down the debate. Again, where is it policy that every sentence/paragraph/section needs an in-line reference? It isn't policy, so he needs to provide good faith challenges, rather than parachuting in from on high pontificating about matters of style.--Joopercoopers 17:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for summarizing the problem to its relevant points. Talking about how he hands out lollipops isn't getting Taj Mahal anywhere and makes it hard to understand your position. Wrad 17:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Well, where should I start? There really isn't any need for name-calling, personal attacks, or even harsh words here. I thought the article was worthy of discussion, so I brought it up here. Please don't feel like I'm targeting you or any articles, I'm simply trying to keep up the GA standard. To reiterate my position: I'd rather see an article improved rather than delisted. But having found 5 architecture articles which I have concerns with, I can't possibly do all the work myself. You can dismiss the GA sweeps if you want, but keep in mind that many GA class articles were given that status before criteria even existed, including Taj Mahal. So, speaking of criteria, you are correct: nowhere does it say "every sentence/paragraph/section needs an in-line reference". That is merely my interpretation of (somewhat vague) GA criteria. To quote the criteria directly: "WP:WIAGA 2b: "cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles." Ok, but then there's two footnotes, one of which says "Unambiguous citation is best done through footnotes or Harvard references at the end of a sentence (see the inline citations essay). It is highly recommended that the article have a consistent style of footnoting. Articles one page or shorter can be unambiguously referenced without inline citations. General statements, mathematical equations, logical deductives, common knowledge, or other material that does not contain disputable statements need not be referenced." The way that is worded, it is highly up to interpretation. My interpretation of it is this: any complete thought that is not common knowledge must come from some source. If a fact comes from a source, you should reference that source. Every sentence/paragraph/section presents a new fact or set of facts that is not common knowledge, and should therefore reference the source of that information. Pretty simple really. That is my own interpretation of the criteria, but I don't think I am alone. I admit to being a stickler about citations, and perhaps a bit to harsh in reviewing GAs, but that's the beauty of this page: we can discuss these things in a calm logical manner. So far very little of this discussion has been calm, logical, or even about the Taj Mahal article. Drewcifer 20:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, where should I start? In a less patronising vein I think. If my tone was unpalatable please see my previous, measured attempts to direct you to policy which appeared to go unheeded. I welcome your quest for enlightenment at the criteria page, listening is important on wiki, particularly as 40% of the emotionally communicative information we normally receive in face to face discourse is absent on-wiki. But you'll note the 'yawn oppose' and comments about repeating history. That popular misconceptions of policy abound on wikipedia is a breathing reality to me, but apparently news to you. Another reality is the way authors, who strive to do their best on wikipedia either get treated as vandals or trolls who need to be reminded of WP:NPA, when ARBCOM have frequently upheld the need for frank and robust debate. There are harsh words above but no personal attacks. If I sounded angry and annoyed above, then I'm glad, clearly my prose is improving, being ignored and spending inordinate time dealing with ignorance of both policy and subject is wearing and particularly irritating when policy such as WP:NPA is used to justify action with no debate. Lollipops (ie for haste) are not a good incentive for a considered encylopaedia.
To substance - I too lament the lack of discussion. The point at issue, (ie. the nomination) concerned solely the issue that In-line referencing is spotty at best. I have asked repeatedly for a challenges of what statements are challenged and would be more than welcome to discuss such in the calm and logical manner requested. Issues of one sentence paragraphs aren't part of the original nomination, but given that WP:GVF suggests A good article must be reasonably well written and Faulkner'S My mother's a fish is perhaps the best one sentence chapter I can think of; perhaps we can agree that such rules need to be discussed in the context of the article rather than blindly enforced throughout wikipedia? What is specifically wrong with the one sentence paragraphs in this article?--Joopercoopers 22:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to see we are on the same page here: let's discuss the article. My actions (debatable or not) are only marginally important to the discussion at hand. Since the very nature of my concerns with the article are under debate here, I hesitate to expand upon them, especially since I have for all intents and purposes done so already, but here it goes anways: any section or paragraph without an in-line citation. I could give you a list, but like I've already said, it would be easier for you to just go to the article and see for yourself.
But, my interpretation is under debate; a debate which I freely initiated. The rationale behind that discussion is not to have policy explained to me, but to point out and fix a flaw in its language. As it stands, the language leaves much up to interpretation, which is what got us in this mess in the first place. My main concern is the GA standard, and that any vagueness in criteria/policy/guidelines be cleared up. I don't mind being wrong - really I don't. I am more than happy to find my interpretation unpoopular if it results in the strengthening of the GA criteria. My point in all this being: I nominated this article for review based on my own interpretation of vague criteria, criteria which I hope to improve. I would hope that two things result from my nomination of this article: 1) the article be improved in some way (whether it be in-line citations or the prose issues also mentioned), and 2) the GA criteria is strengthened in some way. My goal is not to win a debate, but to improve the encyclopedia. Drewcifer 22:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
No doubt any article, even FA class, could be subject to criticisms of "not enough in-line citations" or open to questions whether part or all was "well written". My second novel comes out Tuesday. I worked on it for more than 20 years, had 3 different editors work on it, and I still know that many parts might be better written. It's a Good book. Probably not a Great or FA class book.
So you can find things to criticize. Does that suggest that the overall nature of the article is that it can't cross the bar of Good Article. Or is it that you hope to make a point of Raising the Good Article Bar? That's how I read your comments. Not that the article isn't Good, but that you want to change the Good Article criteria -- and it involves bouncing a couple of Good Articles to prove a point. Excuse me for feeling gamed.--Nemonoman 23:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
PS You brought this action with only vague allegations that the article lacked sufficient inline citations. Yet you yourself recognized (finally) that the GA criteria doesn't require this, and only belatedly point to a Misplaced Pages-talk page -- not even a Policy page! -- in support of the action. Yikes.
You furthermore have taken a single criticism -- that some sentences may not be well-written -- and belatedly attempt to use THAT as a justifcation for your action.
In fact you had NO cause of action, other than a desire to make a point. If you really felt that there were problems with the article, the Right Thing to Do would have been to list your concerns on the discussion page, or more to the point, attempt to correct the concerns (If combining sentences is your problem, you can easily solve it yourself -- if items are inadequately referenced, you can easily use ).--Nemonoman 01:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's a lot to take in there, so I'll take it one step at a time:
I'm not trying to prove a point. If you look at the other GA/Rs I have started, the majority of them have little to do with in-line citations: The Reputation (still active), Dru Hill (still active), Garbage (archived and delisted), Where Did Our Love Go (archived and delisted), KLF Communications (archived and delisted), etc. This track record shows a few things: I have been consistent with my criticism of article's lack of citations (so I'm not trying to prove a point at the cost of one or two articles), I have been fairly even handed with my criticisms of most articles, and I have not been careless with my nominations (all reviews that have been archived so far have either been delisted or improved by the article's editors).
In almost all of these cases (including Taj Mahal), I did post a notice on the Talk Page in an attempt to give fair warning. And, as I am trying to sweep through a large amount of GA articles as part of the GA sweeps, I can't possibly fix every problem I come across.
As I have said repeatedly, (I think I've said this at least 3 times on this page alone), the vague language of the criteria as they currently stand forced me to interpret the criteria: the fact that I have interpreted them on the side of stringency is not my fault per se, but the fault of poorly worded criteria. The link to the talk page is to a discussion in which I am attempting to rectify this flaw in the criteria, regardless of whether the changes agree with me or not.
In my experience, a good article is not necessarily a "Good Article." Just because an article is well crafter does not mean it passes the GA criteria. Taj Mahal is overall an excellent article, I just found it to be lacking in one particular area.

"Yet you yourself recognized (finally) that the GA criteria doesn't require this" You seem to misinterpret me. I didn't post to a Policy page, instead I copy+pasted text from one. I'm not going to reiterate what I already said just to prove I said it, so just take a look at my post starting with (undent) I suppose you could say I've admitted that the criteria doesn't say that, but what I meant to point out is the unclear wording and its need for interpretation, something which should hopefully be cleared up very soon.

But despite all this, if the changes to the criteria being discussed at WP:WIAGA go they way they seem to be going, this entire convoluted post will pretty much be null-in-void. Though you may want to address the concerns mentioned below (but just remember I didn't make those suggestion, so you can't get mad at me for that too). Drewcifer 02:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


“ In my experience, a good article is not necessarily a "Good Article." ”
So what IS the criteria for a "Good Article" -- if it's not enough to simply be a "good article"?
“ The vague language of the criteria as they currently stand forced me to interpret the criteria." ”
Ah, now I understand. It's completely clear.
“ Taj Mahal is overall an excellent article, I just found it to be lacking in one particular area. ”
However, as you go on to say, this lack might not be an actual lack, but rather the fault of poorly worded criteria.
Ahhhh. So I now I understand my problem in this discussion. I have been trying to make sense.
The vague language of your criticism -- the fact of your demanding Re-consideration of whether an"excellent article" still merits a "Good Article" rating -- made me think that (a) The article's quality had slipped, or (b) The Good Article criteria had changed. In fact, neither has happened, by your own admission. So this is your little tempest, stirred up in your little teapot, for your little gratification.
I'm done playing any further part in this soap opera. List it, or delist it. I don't care.--Nemonoman 09:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm glad I've finally been able to clarify a few things. I think you pretty accurately summarized my position (except for the second to last sentence). However it is important to remember that the criteria has changed. In fact, when Taj Mahal was rated GA, no criteria existed at all, or at least were a far cry from what they are today. And for the record, I don't get any gratification from any of this: why would I gain gratification from a debate that for all intents and purposes I've "lost"? In fact, I'm in the middle of doing my best to change/fix the criteria to avoid debates like this in the future, since I find them unhelpful to the encyclopedia as a whole. No debate should ever be based on the semantics of criteria, as this debate has. Drewcifer 15:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just off hand I see a lot of one and two sentence paragraphs, they should be combined or removed. IvoShandor 17:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree, the article seems to be pretty good, to be honest, it just suffers a little under the "well-written" criteria. I don't know that the article needs to have more inline citations for GA (I don't see that requirement at WP:WIAGA), but the prose could be better combined into coherent paragraphs. Also, the organization seems a bit odd. It starts with Origins, thes skips to Design and Architecture issues, then goes to construction, then has a section called "History". I think a more logical outline would have a "History" section with subsections "Origin", "Construction", and "Post-Construction", then an Architecture section describing the design, etc. As it is, it is a bit hard to follow the history of the building since everything is scattered. I doubt these prose fixes would take very long, and would support keeping it as GA if this was done (I also think this would help on its way to FA.) Wrad 17:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
edit as you see fit. --Joopercoopers 22:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I just think one and two sentence paragraphs are weak writing for an encyclopedia. They break up the coherent flow of the information for the reader, imo. You are free to diagree. They are fine for a novelist, who should toy with the language I think, but for an encyclopedia I think it is weak. IvoShandor 00:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
It's easy to determine the exact number of sentences required to make a good paragraph: If the meaning of the paragraph can be improved with a new sentence, then the paragraph is too short. If the meaning of a paragraph can be improved by removing a sentence, then it is too long. JoopersCoopers's My mother is a fish. example is a good one. My favorite: Jesus wept.
This paragraph is exactly the right length.--Nemonoman 01:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Because of my comments here. I've been informed that I assume bad faith. I find this disturbing.

I and others have worked hard to make a pretty decent article out of a complete rat's nest. Look at the history of this article to see how much effort it takes, often on an hourly basis, to maintain some semblance of scholarly authenticity.

I am sick to death of Misplaced Pages and its culture. I quit. My best wishes to some of the excellent human beings I have met while being an editor. --Nemonoman 11:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion (which has gotten crazily out of hand by the way) as well as the pending revisions to the GA criteria based on discussion at WP:WIAGA, I recommend closing this review and keeping the article as a GA article. However, a few other editors have expressed other concerns besides lack of in-line citations, so I'll refrain from doing so without the constent of those editors. Drewcifer 20:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Great Comet of 1882

Great Comet of 1882 (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

No inline citations, lacking in references as well. Was promoted way back in September 05. T Rex | talk 19:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.

Delist per nom. Drewcifer 19:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Delist per nom. Quote absolutely needs a citation. It is a pretty short article, so I don't know if it really needs more references, but the fact that there are no citations in the article at all means that the material isn't verifiable. Raime 00:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Warned by Agne; how did it slip through the cracks? Delist. (Did we try to identify anyone to notify..?) --Ling.Nut 00:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Spira (Final Fantasy)

Spira (Final Fantasy) (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article was promoted to Good status on February 2, 2006, but I have just looked over the page today, one and a half years later, and I think it is no longer worthy of being a Good Article. The article is largely told in an in-universe style, there's no section on the world's reception and criticism, and it has grown too large for only thirty individual references to cover. Can one of you look over the article and review it as soon as possible? That would be nice. Cat's Tuxedo 22:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.

First and foremost, Locations in Spira needs to be merged to this article. A LOT of trimming is needed, and the out-of-universe sections need significant expansion. I doubt there are enough hands to work on this right now, so it should be delisted. — Deckiller 22:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Deck is right, the article needs to be fixed up to current writing in fiction criteria. Judgesurreal777 20:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So shall I delist the article now? Cat's Tuxedo 14:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what should be done, but if you delist it, please consider delisting Locations in Spira too, per the arguments above. Kariteh 14:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Imbrex and tegula

Imbrex and tegula (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

After reviewing the article, I've found it to have the following problems: lack of references, poorly formatted references, no lead section, disproportionately large images, and a lack of breadth (examples of use, for example). Drewcifer 04:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.
Delist, no lead is an instant-fail in my book, no matter how many ways you slice it, you can't have a lead section if all there is is the body. Homestarmy 20:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Weimar Republic

Near complete lack of inline citations (the article was apparently promoted without any at all). I'm fairly certain that standards for GA no longer accomodate this. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Delist - References are the only real problem, but it's definitely an issue. Drewcifer3000 19:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Also, make sure you notify the article's Wikiprojects too. The aim is to get an article improved rather than delisted whenever possible. Drewcifer3000 19:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Regional and national music is believed to be inactive, but I'll still notify.T Rex | talk 22:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't even see that one on the talk page. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Delist Referencing is definitely a problem. But it looks a good study of the period.--Peter cohen 23:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Delist, the article is good, it just lacks sources. If the sources are added again a listing should be possible. Daimanta 23:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Music of Hungary

Music of Hungary (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

A good majority of the popular music section contains original research, I wasn't sure if this was enough to be delisted. This with all the other Music of X articles were primarily written by User:TUF-KAT who has since left. T Rex | talk 11:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.

Weak delist - Certainly not beyond help. The popular music sections in particular need some formatting and referencing. Drewcifer3000 16:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Delist - Unless someone takes the initiative and fixes the referencing issues. At the moment, it doesn't meet criteria. On another note, it's good to see the new template being used *feels special* :) Giggy\ 06:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Music of Hawaii

Music of Hawaii (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

The article doesn't quite meet the broadness criteria. A good portion of the article is unsourced and the last few sections contain original research. There are also expansion notices in the article. T Rex | talk 11:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.

Delist - per nomination. Also the "Jazz" and "Other" sections are poorly formatted. Drewcifer3000 16:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Delist - Similar issues to Music of Hungary (above). Giggy\ 06:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

St Thomas the Martyr's Church, Oxford

St Thomas the Martyr's Church, Oxford (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Although only reviewed a few months ago, the article seems somewhat weak based on its lack of references, poor reference formatting, lack of breadth (only historical and architectual), and small lead section. Chief editors, previous reviewers, and appropriate Wikiprojects have been notified. Drewcifer3000 07:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.
  • Comment 1. Please see comments in the 'Presido' article below - please state what material in the article you think needs citing - ie. good faith challenges. 2. poor reference formating is a MOS issue and as such, a guideline - by what logic do you insist on it as a requirement for GA? 3. To aid 'breadth' can you suggest some areas you feel aren't sufficiently covered so we can improve them? 4. Lead section summarises a pretty short article - seems fine by WP:LEAD. --Joopercoopers 10:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Happy to extrapolate:
  • Lack of references:
    • When I'm wrong I'm wrong. The article seems to have sufficient references given it's size, so my mistake. I've stricken the comment from above.
  • Reference style:
    • GA criteria 1a: "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation."
      • But you objection is the formating of the citations - not included in the GA list - and even at FA (despite Tony1 efforts the contraty) not complying with every ever-changing wishlist of the ever-growing MOS is not a reason not to promote, so it certainly shouldn't be a delist reason here.--Joopercoopers 11:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
        • The layout section mentions references. I'm not aware of any discussion with Tony1, I'm just going by the criteria as they read. But, as far as reference formatting goes, what I usually say is that a particular approach isn't required, but consistency is. The references are currently not formaatted consistently with one another.Drewcifer3000 16:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


  • Lead:
    • From MoS guidelines for lead sections: "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The lead does not mention it's architecture.
  • Breadth:
    • Although I don't actually know if such information exists or is all that relevant, what about the church in modern times? It's obviously still standing, so is it still used? As for the architecture was it built in a certain style? What little knowledge of church architecture I know leads me to believe that alot of churches were built in particular contemporary fashions, each church a bit more extreme than the last. Though like I said, I could be wrong, or this information might not even exist. Overall it just seems like a very small article, especially looking at how big the sources are.
Hopefully these are easy fixes, the second and third in particular. Drewcifer3000 10:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The lead does briefly mention that some of the original architecture is retained. Judging by the photos it seems like a fairly typical English parish church with the usual hodge-podge of architectural styles that's the result of standing for centuries. Except in wealthy town centre parishes (or very occasionally if there was a particualrly wealthy local landowner) and arguably Abbeys and Cathedrals, English churches have tended to grow by accretion, rather than being demolished and re-built all of a piece. As for current activities it's an active parish church of the established Church of England with all that implies. Possibly the significance being under the care of the Bishop of Ebbsfleet rather than the Diocesan could be added, with all that implies for opposition to the ordination of women, from a quick look a tthe parish website tht seems to be the most significant difference from the "norm".
All of that sounds like interesting stuff that should be in the article. To the layman that fills in some gaps. Drewcifer3000 16:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Note 2 of the criteria highly recommends that the article have a consistent style of footnoting. In addition to looking pretty, it's appropriate that credit is given where credit is due, and it's important that all the information be consistent so that it's easy for the user to read. I'll format it if I have time, however, if I or someone else here is not able to do this, it really does need to be done. Lara♥Love 13:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Keep - To expand on my above comment, I went through the article and corrected some minor issues (use of dashes, ref formatting) and I have to agree that the lead could be expanded a bit. Nothing vast, just a couple extra sentences. It's very basic right now. I'd also like to see some expansion in the body, as noted in the above comments. Otherwise, it's a good article. I particularly like the first image and think it should be nominated at WP:FI. Regards, Lara♥Love 14:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would note that even a cursory glance at this building shows it to be cast mostly in the Gothic or Gothic Revival style. IvoShandor 14:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That would be Gothic, based upon its age, somewhere a source must say this, the crenellation on the parapet is a dead give away and the pointed arches on the windows. Looking at the full image through the external link, it looks like most of the additions tried to match up with the original style, though I am sure there are elements from other styles as well, the Gothic Revival movement was quite popular around the time some of the additions and changes took place. IvoShandor 14:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Like I said above, that's interesting stuff, and as a layman I had no idea about any of that. That stuff should be in the article, no? Drewcifer3000 16:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely it should. I wouldn't write an article about a historic building, church or otherwise, without doing as much research as I could about the architecture. IvoShandor 08:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delist - Lead could use some expansion; it is a little inadequate right now. Also, per Drewcifer, I think the scope of the article should be widened. However, these are minor concerns. Otherwise, the article is well-written and well-referenced. I'll change this to a Keep if the lead and body are expanded. Raime 14:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Music of Albania

Music of Albania (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Firstly the lead includes irrelevant info such as the political nature of the country. The prose is not all that great and the article is full of redlinks. There are {{fact}} tags in the article and there many unsourced claims such as "music is considered the most sophisticated in the country" in the city of Korca. The further reading section is small for some reason and the books in that section are not in cite book format. T Rex | talk 23:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.
  • Delist - Not the worst article in the world, but it could use some work. Yea, there's alot of redlinks, though some redlinks is generally ok. But that's kind of alot. And why have a Main article: Albanian folk music when Albanian folk music doesn't exist. That kind of defies logic. Referencing is also fairly messy. References should be after punctuation not before. This. Not this. And the "Notes and references" and "Further reading" sections are a bit of a mess too. And I know there's some way to format audio samples better than the way it is there right now. Also the stuff mentioned in the nomination, though "Further reading" sections don't have to be in cite book format. Drewcifer3000 07:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per Drewcifer. This article has far too many redlinks. The Main article link to a redlink needs to be removed. Any statements with fact tags need to be addressed. Further reading section needs to be consistently formatted - Some have ISBN#s, others don't. Some have bullets, others don't. The reference section is also messy, and could use some cleanup. Citations in the article need to be correctly placed after punctuation. The lead poorly summarizes the article; I don't think this topic warrants a paragraph about the political history of Albania. And the audio section is kind of inappropriate in its current state; it needs some formatting work.
  • Comment: I just removed all the red links, and the main article links, which anyone could have done. IvoShandor 09:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I also trimmed the further reading section (It was basically one writer's bibliography which violated WP:UNDUE) Cite book format? Templates? Those aren't required. The books have at least author, title and publisher, and ISBN if available (anything published before 1966 is highly unlikely to have an ISBN at all btw (See ISBN)), it doesn't matter what format they are in, this isn't FA. IvoShandor 09:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I also think that considering the political history of the nation had influence on its music that a couple sentences relating the two aren't unwarranted, the lead doesn't go into too much detail about that anyway, it mentions it. The fact tags should be cleared up but this article could easily be fixed, are the main editors around? Does anyone know? IvoShandor 09:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Sound sample fixed. Delist unless someone can source the info, because the article is underreferenced. Most of the other smaller issues should be cleared up (except for the small and odd typeface in the notes section, I would add some refs if I knew anything at all about the topic, which I do not, it doesn't look like there are main editors and there doesn't appear to have been any kind of GAC review originally. IvoShandor 09:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)



Hurricane Georges

This article was recently delisted due to needing to be "cleaned up", whatever that means. In leiu of the fact that there is no all-encompassing "An article should be clean" part of the GA criteria, and also because I really don't see how this article fails the GA criteria terribly, I reccomend this article be relisted. Yes, there is that "Other Notes" section at the bottom with some trivia-esque bullet points, but I don't think that alone is reason enough to delist what otherwise seems to be a pretty good article, and how hard could they be to either remove or incorporate into the rest of the article? Homestarmy 23:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

''Relist. I don't see a problem (though it would be nice if the refs had full biblio info and accessdates). Is it standard operating procedure when delisting a GA to change all project assessments? Fine if project GA assessments are reduced, but I thought A was internal to a project and independent of the GA process entirely. Gimmetrow 04:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
From what I've seen, it is usually standard to demote project assessments from GA-class to B-class when a GA is delisted. However, since completing the Good article nomination process is not a requirement for A-class articles, you are correct. Even though this article has been delisted, it can still be assessed as an "A-class" article. However, if an article is thought to not meet GA-criteria, it probably shouldn't be classified as "A-class" anyways. A-class identifies an article as complete, well-written, and well-referenced. If an article is delisted, it probably doesn't meet those standards. Raime 17:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak Endorse Delist due to completely inconsistently formatted references (all should use cite web format would help if all were in consistent cite web format), somewhat short lead, and Notes/trivia section (This can easily be merged into prose). Overall, the problems are pretty minimal, and I'll change this to Relist if they are addressed. Raime 17:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - as far as I know, using citation templates aren't a GA requirement. Consistency is required, but using cite web format is not. Drewcifer3000 18:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, complete inline citations are needed for GA-criteria, and I don't think Havana Effects qualifies as a full citation. But you are definitely correct, templates are not a requirement. But consistency is, and there is no current consistency in the listed references. Using cite web format seems logical in this case. Raime 18:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm just always careful to point out that cite templates aren't required, but they help alot and do most of the work for you. It's definitely a good recommendation to make though, especially in this case. Drewcifer3000 18:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
You're definitely right. I'll be more careful to do so in the future. :) Raime 22:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Now they're formatted, so that point is moot. Titoxd 08:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Endorse delist - The article is quite decent, but the notes section needs to be cleaned up some; full bibliographic info, such as authors, publishers, and accessdates are needed. However, this will change quickly as I have sent a notice to User:Hurricanehink and User:Thegreatdr, who BOTH are fantastic editors who take good care of the tropical storms articles. I have confidence these issues can be fixed easily. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - The delistment was not originally what was planned in my mind. I was gonna downgrade it from A to GA, but I took the advice of another user and downgraded it to B. I can see now that what I have done has become an issue and I apologize for my drastic actions. I am actually working on turning Georges into a Featured Topic and beginning work in ways of sub-articles, (See: Effects of Hurricane Georges in the Dominican Republic). I planned to have this article stable again in a few weeks hopefully. If no one objects, I'm gonna vote that it stay as B until it is ready. I should have the article ready in a couple weeks. Thanks for your time and patience.Mitch 13:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Delist - lacks references and poorly formats what references are there. And the last 6 or so refs are actually the same thing. Hopefully Mitch can fix this article up. Other than the references it's a decent article, so good luck. Drewcifer3000 06:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, nope. They are all different data events by the National Climatic Data Center. As for the formatting, that should not be an issue, as I've gone ahead and formatted them with {{cite web}} and its kin of templates. Titoxd 08:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Woops. You're right. Those 6 or so are still oddly formatted though. The others look nice and pretty though. Drewcifer3000 08:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Because they're awaiting an additional pair of eyes for fact-checking. Otherwise, those pages are quite simple to format. Titoxd 08:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Relist struck through prior vote. I knew this one could get fixed up easily. Good job. This is GA quality in spades now... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Relist Looks good to me. Drewcifer 19:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

National Ignition Facility

This article has been under a lot of GA scrutiny lately (just take a look at the talk page), so I hesitate to bring it up here, but it seems to me like it doesn't quite fulfill all the requirements. My few issues with it are its small lead, a CRAZY caption for the first image, poorly formatted references, entire sections without in-line citations ("Background") and others without enough (the first half of "NIF and ICF"). Drewcifer3000 05:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I don't think the lead is too short, and picture captions aren't really related to the GA criteria, but I do have some concerns about overly dense jargon, such as the second half of this sentence: "....unforeseen problems caused by non-uniformities in the compression of the target (hydrodynamic instabilities).", and I have no idea what this sentence in the lead means, "Nevertheless NIF achieved first light in December 2002", is this some kind of fusion power related euphemism? The first unreferenced section appears partly referenced by its parent section, but indeed, certain critical parts of the article seem to be without citations, where plenty of fact statements are being made. Homestarmy 15:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Surely there's some sort of MoS thing about having an entire paragraph as a caption? My issue with the lead isn't necessarily its length, but that it doesn't summarize the whole article. And of course the reference issues. And I didn't really notice the dense jargon, but I suppose I agree with you on that one. Like I said, I was hesitant to bring it up, but I figured it warranted further review. Drewcifer3000 00:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know of any MoS guideline about picture caption size, but I suppose the lead could be expanded somewhat by going more into the process detailed in the NIF and ICF section. The background section doesn't seem to have much to do directly with the NIF, but its existance doesn't seem unwarranted since this appears to be a rather technical article. I'm not really decided either way on this one, I just though the jargon thing might be useful for anyone trying to fix the article. Homestarmy 00:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe that WP:CAP talks about that. Lara♥Love 15:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well considering that most of this discussion seems to boil down to the caption and the "poorly formatted references", it seems to me that Drewcifer3000 just volunteered to fix it! :-) Seriously though, with the exception of the references issue (see the talk page for a tiring discussion of that topic), is there anything left that really strikes anyone as a GA-fail? Maury 19:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If it was a simple fix, I would do so, but knowing completely nothing about anything the article is talking about, I'm afraid I can't be of much help. My problems with the article are pretty much described in the article's nomination. Looking at the discussion page, I can see that some of the information is un-referenced for decent reasons, mainly because the information is repeated in various sections. So, my main question is, why repeat it? Ideally, only the lead should summarize/repeat the article (and therefore is ok to be unreferenced). Not only does repeating something leave uncited parts of the article, but it's just kind of redundant. As far as the reference formatting, try using citation templates. Those do all the work for you. And the caption, I can see why it is important information, but why not make that it's own section? There's enough text there to warrant a subsection of background at the very least. A lead image isn't necessary, or required of GA status, so moving it wouldn't hurt anything. Hope this advice seems doable. Drewcifer3000 20:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I've tried a couple of the CITE systems, and I can't say I found any of them particularly helpful. Even with the tools, it's just too much work to do the whole CITE thing. Yeah, I know, someone said that you should use CITE, but I can't help but feel that the cabal in question didn't actually have to use it. My real complaint with CITE is that it's inline, and since the template is so frikin' huge, it makes the articles almost uneditable if you do use it. Its so bad that I have given up completely on FA, and only go for GA these days -- GA doesn't even need inlines, and I'm just lazy enough to do those when the feeling strikes me. I have this nasty feeling in my gut that someone will actually go and make a new CITE system that actually works, and then all of the regs will be updated to say that you should use that system instead. And then I'll get messages saying articles are being put into GAR because they use the old system rather than the new one.

But here's the point I want you to consider -- let's say I did re-write all of the refs into CITE... do you think the article would be improved as a result? Or to put it another way, would you describe the current article as bad? Don't get me wrong, I am not writing off your suggestions by any means. But the process of getting even a GA has become so incredibly Byzantine that the idea of going through it again makes me shudder. I want to be sure that the article has real problems, as opposed to being listed for not following some regs that are quite possibly going to change in the future.

Maury 01:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Maury. Verifiability equals credibility. Insisting on citation of sources often improves the quality of an article (by improving the quality of its info sources), but that isn't always the case. However, it does always improve the verifiability of the content. Thanks! -- Ling.Nut 02:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you talking about citing sources (aka references), or CITEing sources? I am talking about the later, not the former. Maury 18:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I empathize with everything you've said: citing can be a very arduous task. Indeed, making a GA is a very difficult task, laregly because of in-line citations. The rationale behind them are manifold, and I won't go into that here, but I can assure you that the GA criteria will continue to require them, even if the actual process of making them is somehow made easier. That said, ask yourself a simple question: is GA status really that important to you? You've definitely made a good article here, so kudos there, but is it really that important to you for it to be a "Good Article" with a capital GA? If it is, then it would be worth putting in some time to add some in-line citations and take into consideration the other comments made. If not, then let it go. Regardless of it's classification in Misplaced Pages, I doubt 75% of Misplaced Pages's readers will know or care. That's just my honest opinion, take it as you will. Drewcifer 05:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
GA does not require inline refs, read 2.b. And, as the article in question does use inline refs, is there any remaining issue of concern here, or should we all just move along? Maury 18:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
To quote directly from WP:WIAGA 2b: "cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles." Ok, but then there's two footnotes, one of which says "Unambiguous citation is best done through footnotes or Harvard references at the end of a sentence (see the inline citations essay). It is highly recommended that the article have a consistent style of footnoting. Articles one page or shorter can be unambiguously referenced without inline citations. General statements, mathematical equations, logical deductives, common knowledge, or other material that does not contain disputable statements need not be referenced." The way that is worded, it is highly up to interpretation. My interpretation of it is this: any complete thought that is not common knowledge must come from some source. If a fact comes from a source, you should reference that source. Pretty simple really. That is my own interpretation of the criteria, but I don't think I am alone. And also, keep in mind that the in-line citations are only one issue out of 4 that I brought up in the original nomination, the others being the lead, caption, and reference formatting.. Drewcifer 22:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. The problem (or at least, the main problem) with that idea is the term "common knowledge." Please note this article is in WikiProject Physics and thus falls within the purview of Misplaced Pages:Scientific citation guidelines.
  2. Is that an oppose vote, or merely a continuation of the philosophical discussion? If it's the former, please show actionable points. But bear in mind #1 above.. :-) Thanks! --Ling.Nut 23:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I suppose it's an Oppose vote. To reiterate the things that I think should be improved: the lead should be expanded to reflect WP:LEAD, the caption of the main image should be fixed somehow (I'd recommend just making the image and the explanation a subsection of the background section), format the references and in-line citations (I'd recommend using citation templates), and of course, add some in-line citations. This last point seems to be a point of contention, but to quote from the Scientific citation guidelines: "The verifiability criteria require that such statements be sourced so that in principle anyone can verify them. However, in many articles it is cumbersome to provide an in-line reference for every statement... Therefore, in sections or articles that present well-known and uncontroversial information ... it is acceptable to give an inline citation for one or two authoritative sources ... in such a way as to indicate that these sources can be checked to verify statements for which no other in-line citation is provided. These inline citations are often inserted either after the first sentence of a paragraph or after the last sentence of the paragraph." I cut some parts out of the quote to make it more readable, so feel free to read the whole paragraph on the main page. The page also has an example which might help. Honestly, a good portion of the article already follows those guidelines, so it really shouldn't be that much of a problem to add a citation at least per paragraph. Drewcifer 02:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Maury, two things: First and foremost, I'm OK with this article as GA. I say Move along, nothing to see here — Pass. Second (and far less important, in this particular context), I still haven't quite figured out what you're unhappy with about citing refs. I mostly like the system we used in Georg Cantor, thou even that could be improved upon.. my main beef is that the inline refs should've been templated to make them clickable back to the relevant reference in the references section... so instead of plain text such as "Dauben 2004, p. 1." you'd have something clickable like Dauben (2004:1) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFDauben2004 (help). In fact. I may just change them some day. I dunno, I'm kinda lazy though :-P HTH --Ling.Nut 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I should have linked to this earlier... go to water memory, click edit, and try to follow the text. It visually illustrates the problems that you end up with when you try to edit them. The solution, IMHO, is to put the REF tag in the text and the CITE at the bottom. That's how it used to work with the original NOTE system, but if I reconstruct the history correctly, everyone complained so they made the new REF system work inline. But then they introduced CITE after this, and I think that's where the problem began. Maury 20:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


Bringin' on the Heartbreak

Originally reviewed and given GA status a year and a half ago, on more recent review, I've found it to have the following issues:

  • No in-line citations at all in the first half of the article. What in-line citations there are are poorly formatted.
  • One image is under Fair-Use dispute
  • Short lead paragraph.

WikiProject Songs has been notified. Drewcifer3000 22:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis (drug)

Article was last reviewed on May 27, 2006 by Cedars, so it's been awhile. Has entirely too many 'citation needed' tags, and there could be issues with the lead section. Might want to check out the section called 'the high', too. Either way, it's probably good for this article to have another look at this time, since it's been awhile. Dr. Cash 00:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delist as per nom. The citation tags are the only real problem though. Hopefully someone can adopt the article soon and fix them up. Otherwise a pretty good article. Drewcifer3000 17:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Hold it This looks like a job for Superman. Let me have a short while with it and see about the cite needed tags. What's wrong with the lead?--SidiLemine 10:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Cool, glad to see someone's willing to work on it. Also, while we're at it, i noticed that the references are formatted inconsistently. Might want to check on that too. Drewcifer3000 17:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Yup, will do. Can someone please add fact tags as needed, and I'll do it as they come. I think this could actually have a shot at FAC. What do you think?--SidiLemine 17:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment I would suggest reconsidering which sources are cited on the more medical matters. Cochrane or other systematic reviews, such as ], are better for reporting the state of play on current research than individual experimental studies. --Peter cohen 20:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm totally new to this kind of articles, and to medical quesytions in general. If you can, please point out the "weak" sources you find and I'll try to replace them with better ones.--SidiLemine 11:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The link that I was suggesting replacing is the one with the ref name "Study Finds No Link Between Marijuana Use And Lung Cancer" at . Unfortunately, I don't have time to get involved with checking all the other citations at present. (Another good article review post yesterday has already distracted me far too much and "interesting" things are happening as a result of my involvement.) If you're looking for the best citations on a topic then the phrase "systematic review" is a good indicator. Basically, it involves the reviewer(s) setting out clear criteria for what counts as something relevant to their area of interest and for assessing what they have decided is relevant. They then search article databases for as many relevant articles they can find and also the "grey literature" of findings that have not been published e.g. because they didn't have interesting results etc. These are assessed according to the defined criteria. Because systematic reviews assess the work of other researchers and put together the results of the papers that have been assessed as of a good standard using transparent criteria, they are just the sort of secondary literature that Misplaced Pages policy favours. Anyway, I'll put cannabis on my watch list and have a look when I have more time.--Peter cohen 20:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the good advice. I'll be sure to look into it.--SidiLemine 15:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Definitely an improvement, but I would say some of the sections still need some in-line citations. I think that is just the nature of the beast: alot of the content of the article is "controversial or contentious" because the subject is controversial and contentious, therefore in-line citations are required. So the problem sections, as I see them, would be the last paragraph of Government debate, Criminalization and legalization (you may be able to lift some sources from the Legality of cannabis page), and The high. Also, the references still need to be properly formatted. I know this sounds like a ton of work, but hopefully still seems doable. Drewcifer 09:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Gustavus Franklin Swift

Main editor Lordkinbote is a retired wikipedian. No other editors have more than 5 edits. WP:BUSINESS, WP:WPBIO, WP:CHICAGO and WP:Illinois notified.

This article has many sections that are unreferenced. I have not examined the article beyond its referencing and nothing else jumps out at me. However, I feel the article is substandard and hope that it gets adopted by someone who can clean it up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Downgrade to B quality for lack of referencing per User:TonyTheTiger. Several sections lack references altogether and the article has few inline references. In the Notes section, there is a inline citation for an author named White, but the note does not indicate which of his two books listed in the Reference section is being cited. Furthermore, some of the material seems to be shared or copied from the article Refrigerator car rather than sources about the subject himself. There is a further problem with this article that it is unlikely that it will be adopted for cleanup anytime soon; despite the large Reference and Bibliograhy sections, the references draw on local sources that are obtainable only from the Chicago library service and therefor expensive to obtain outside this catchment area. However, if a more comprehensive scheme of referencing can to be added to this article and cleanup effected, I would nominate this article for FA status as the subject is hightly notable. I have therefor raised its Business assessement importance from low to medium, as this article is closely related to the development of the Refrigerator car, which in turn is a major driving force in the extraordinary economic development of the mid-West. --Gavin Collins 03:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist as per nom and review above. I agree with the above reviewer, if it wasn't for the issues with inline citations, this could be a FAC. But without it doesn't qualify for GA status. Drewcifer3000 17:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per lack of references, lack of inline citations, and improperly formatted citations. Raime 13:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Griffith

Main editor JCarriker is a retired wikipedian. No other editors have more than 2 edits. WP:WPBIO, WP:CHICAGO and WP:Illinois notified.

This article seem well referenced, but needs to be wikified and rearranged. It does not have a separate WP:LEAD and is redundant in places. I feel the article may be substandard and hope that it gets adopted by someone who can clean it up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delist - lacks a lead paragraph, very limited in scope (merely a historical account), bloated Filmography (I think MoS states that only a few entries should be listed), second External link is unneccessary since it shows the same image already on the page. Also the first image is mis-tagged. Has a fair-use tag, but gives no fair-use rationale. But I think it is old enough to be public domain. Not sure which, but either way it should be fixed. Drewcifer3000 17:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist - Fails to meet layout criteria. It's also not broad. The filmography, however, is selected, as he acted in more than 60 films. And the image does qualify for public domain. Both do, actually. {{PD-US}} would be the tag for that. Lara♥Love 15:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per above comments. It needs a lead paragraph, is not very broad, and needs wikification in some areas. It would help to subdivide the article into separate sections, and it should have an infobox per WP:BIO. More references would help, but I think due its current short length this article's 8 references satisfy GA requirements. However, the existing references need to be consistently formatted. Raime 20:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Pikachu

Given recent history, a delisting of a Pokemon probably needs review. This one was removed because it has some guide-like content and in-universe content.

Also, Charizard was only a redirect for a very short time, and there is nothing in the history of Crawdaunt to suggest it was ever a redirect, so the reason for their delisting is not valid. Gimmetrow 19:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Relist - Similar to the Golduck issue below. Although the issues raised are relevant, I don't believe them to be grounds for delisting, not to mention on-the-spot delisting without any sort of review or consensus. Drewcifer3000 20:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Relist I feel that some good points have been raised, however, i dont believe that they warrant the page being de-listed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Toepoke (talk • contribs)
Endorse delist - I'll change this if the in-universe issue is corrected. Lara♥Love 16:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Relist. The supposedly in-universe section is three paragraphs. Not an issue. Gimmetrow 17:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - there are also some unsourced comments about how "players" (fictional players in the game, or real players?) use their Pikachu. WP:NOT#GUIDE says that this is ok, but it really ought to be sourced to one of the Pokemon fansites or something. -Malkinann 01:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Golduck

Another Pokemon, removed because it has some guide-like content and (basically) because it has a cite-needed tag on the origin of the name. Gimmetrow 19:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Relist - Delisting the article without a review based on a few small issues seems hasty. Although I agree with the points Link to the Past made, I don't think they're grounds for delisting. Drewcifer3000 20:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment the "biological characteristics" section is very in-universe. It's a fictional creature, so its biological characteristics are fictional, and should be treated as such. -Malkinann 06:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Endose Delist - I will change this if the in-universe issue is corrected. Lara♥Love 16:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Relist. The supposedly in-universe section is three paragraphs. Not an issue. Since the the "in-universe cleanup" tag has not been justified on the article talk page, it could be summarily removed. Gimmetrow 17:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I think the complaint about "guide-like" comment may have intended to reference WP:NOT#GUIDE, which essentially says that "saying how something is used is encyclopedic, but saying how to use it is not". I'd expect a Pokemon's article to have (sourced) information about the particular R-P-S arguments that make that Pokemon strong against x type or weak against y type. -Malkinann 01:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

David Hammond

Although it was given GA status only a month ago, this article seems somewhat weak to me. The article is very small, has a few redlinks, choppy/short sentences, poorly formatted references, and a poorly formated External Link section (and only one External link, to boot). Also, the main infobox image is fair-use, but as per WP:FUC criteria #1, images of living persons cannot be fair-use. Drewcifer3000 15:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: Redlinks are not criteria to delist. Mrprada911 03:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist: Not even close, though I don't think red links matter if they are notable. If they do, they absolutely shouldn't. That fair use image needs to go if this person is alive, it should be deleted, but I am not an admin. Also, this article doesn't even come close to being broad in its coverage. IvoShandor 19:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist: Reads more like an artist biography from a theatre programme than an encyclopaedia article. Sentence in lede garbled. Missing basic information such as date of birth. No references to books - I would have expected a notable person to appear in theatrical reference books.--Peter cohen 14:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep:I wrote this article, so I'll address the criticisms; It is no sin for an article to be short as long as it is comprehensive, and if it is missing something, (besides a free image, which I can get, and i removed the fair use image), what does it need? And when did "short sentences" become good prose or formatting external links become a GA removal criteria and not a minor fix? Please remember "I Don't like it" is not a criteria for removal. Judgesurreal777 23:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright, i added an external link, removed the red links, formatted both external links, added his birth date and location, and removed the fair use image. However, the references format is great, I don't see anything wrong with it. Judgesurreal777 00:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edits have improved the article a great deal. Luckily it didn't take much to fix some of the problems. My mistake about the reference being inconsistent, what I meant was that they didn't use citation templates. Although I'm a strong supporter of using them, this isn't a requirement of GA status, so I've stricken the comment from my nomination above. As for the other issues, it isn't merely that the article is short, but that it's length is just a pretty easy indication of an article's lack of breadth. As it stands, I think the article could use a Filmography of some kind, as well as some expansion of the teaching/directing section. For instance, it mentions a number of the plays he worked on, but only in one sentence. Most of those sentences equate to something like "Hammond worked as the director of X." And then its off to the next similar sentence about some other project. It would be good to expand each of those sentences into at least a few more, if not a full paragraph detailing his involvement, the play itself, it's reception, his approach, and stuff like that. As it is, it reads somewhat like proseline.
I wouldn't worry too much about the article being delisted right away. You're actively trying to improve it based on this review, so no one is anxious to delist the article unless it proves to be beyond help. Drewcifer3000 19:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It still needs a thorough copy edit. Taking one sentence as an example, Hammonds theatrical works were a staple of the North Carolina theatre scene for over a decade, and continues to teach at New York Universitys graduate acting program and recently at Guilford College. is missing two apostrophes and is garbled by the change of subject between the two clauses without the second subject being stated. --Peter cohen 20:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I listed David Hammond as GA because the article seemed to be GA class. Also you can see that I did not quickly promote the article, see Talk:David Hammond#Fail GA. Also as a side note the Fair Use image of a livening person has been removed. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribs) 13:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment The article really seems to fail the broadness criteria of a Good Article. See WP:WIAGA. While article length viewed in isolation should not be a reason for delisting, it woudl appear, given the sources, that there is a LOT of expanding that could go on. To state it another way, the article fails to give the full picture of the subject given the availible sources. The length is not commensurate with the availible source material, and thus seems to be less-than-broad enough. I am avoiding delist vote because it appears that an active editor is interested in improving it, and I want to see where this goes. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


The Reputation

The leading editor Bdj (only editor with more than 4 edits) Teemu08 (2nd leading editor with many WP:GA, WP:FC credits), WP:CHICAGO, WP:Illinois and WP:ALM have been notified. Originally reviewed and given GA status a year ago, on more recent review, I've found it to have the following issues:

  • Inappropriate fair-use image in infobox (which doesn't have a fair-use rationale either)
  • Although the band is now defunct, the article speaks about the band in present tense at times.
  • Inconsistent reference style.
  • Very limited in its scope. Just a historical account.
  • Small lead paragraph.
  • No external links.

Drewcifer3000 04:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Delist per nom. Lead needs to be expanded, image issues need to be dealt with, prose and tense needs to be improved, references need to be correctly and consistently formatted (including wikification of dates for user preferences). Lara♥Love 18:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per issues raised by Drew and Lara. Giggy 00:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Major problems are improperly formatted references and very inadequate lead, and the fair use image without a fair use rationale is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with in order to meet criteria. Prose also needs to be improved, and I think the "Releases" section would work better as a table. Raime 17:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm going to try to revamp the article based on suggestions found here, starting with the references and image (I've already located a free license one on Flickr). --Brandt Luke Zorn 03:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Great work overall. Though I still think the lead and the bredath (Music section) need work. Actually, one follows the other: the lead is so short since there really isn't much to the article other than a timeline. You could definately mention their releases in the lead though, maybe not each by name, but at least mention how many albums they released or something like that. There seems to be quite alot of info from reliable sources in the references, so maybe some direct quotes would do the Music section some good? Also you may want to change that to "Musical style" rather than simply "Music." Drewcifer 08:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Henry Rollins

Article has an unnecessary trivia section and a very large amount of lists. Article also lacks a section on the criticisims of the artists work. --Tarret 03:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delist - Necessity of quote in the lead (which is not recommended) is questionable. Wikilinked term in quote is also not recommended. Terribly under-referenced. References also need to be consistently formatted. Otherwise, it shouldn't be too far from GA. Correct the noted issues and renominate at WP:GAC. Lara♥Love 05:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
It's still under-referenced. Fact tag near the end (although, there needs to be additional references past that one tag). Also, the inclusion of the official website external link in the body needs to be removed. Lara♥Love 13:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. (Removed the external link). It needs more references and expansion; it doesn't cover Rollins career in Black Flag too well. CloudNine 13:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Not enough references, improperly-formatted references, way too list-y (I'd recommend separating the end into a new discography/bibliography article, perhaps List of Henry Rollins works or something like that), a big uncited trivia section, switches between citations and external jumps, no sections on either the impact and popularity nor criticism of his work. -- Kicking222 18:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Delist Keep Inconsistent referencing (Link no 3 should have been an inline reference and appears to be broken). Trivia section should be deleted/integrated. Personally, I don't have a problem with the rest of the lists. The biography section from the last three pargraphs of Henry Rollins#Black Flag down is very sparcely referenced. Given the number of forked articles, I'd guess that a lot of the facts are referenced in those articles. Things like Rollins's friend being shot should be easy to source and fixable in a relatively short time. If the referencing can't be fixed in reasonble time from now, then delist stands.(Datestamp matches my striking initial comments and inserting new text.)--Peter cohen 21:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC) In view of progress since I last looked, I've changed my vote from conditional delist to conditional keep just to acknowledge what is happening.--Peter cohen 23:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The article will have to be completely rewritten before that. It is based on a complete copyvio of this article. That's still a great work you did Cloud Nine. If you are willing to reword it, I'd be glad to help with the few missing sources.--SidiLemine 14:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Amazing. Does that mean it isn't suitable as a source?
  • Delist - Not broad in coverage, lacks alot of references. Drewcifer3000 20:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist - Broadness is a serious issue, and there are a few tags that need resolving. The Radio and Television work is a real problem; there are only two recent things listed, where as I know for a fact he has done a LOT more TV than this. He's a frequent contributor on the VH1 nostalgia programs, he's done a 1/2 hour standup special on Comedy Central (Live and Ripped). A very quick google search turned up this: Not saying it is an adequate or reliable source, but it's a start. IMDB might be a good start too... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, large parts of the article are still unreferenced or in need of more referencing, such as the entire Rollins Band section, and most of the Black Flag section. Plus, the article contains no reception of Rollin's work, for an artist of his type there is LOTS of criticism (positive and negative) out there to draw from. This article makes NO review of the reception of his work, which again, seems to indicate a lack of broadness required for a GA. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, I agree. Still referencing and expanding; I'll create a 'Legacy' section soon. CloudNine 10:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Another suggestion: The Works section should have a paragraph or two talking about his works. That's not to say you should just list them, but give a brief overview of both his solo works and works within a band. Just having a link for a section isn't all that great. Drewcifer3000 03:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep it's a LONG way away from FAC, but IMHO, it is a GA. The references could be enhanced, but it's not grounds enough to delist.Balloonman 05:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I still don't see where the major problems have been adressed (broadness and referncing issues. see above). This has been here for a month. Even if the vote is deadlocked, we should archive this as a no-consensus. Could everyone please re-read the article and see what you think about this. I'd like to see this one off the backlog soon... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems like CloudNine is still working on the article, but I still don't think it meets criteria. Since it has been here for a month, and there still seems to be alot of work (criticisms, prose cleanup, etc) I'd recommend delisting the article for now with an invitation to renominate the article here when chief editors feel the article is ready. However there is no consensus here to delist, so at least archive this discussion and hope for the best. Drewcifer 10:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I haven't had too much time to work on the article recently, although I think it's improved greatly since the initial version. (My priority is the Rollins band section) I'm not sure about including a "Musical style", "Criticisms" or "Legacy" section; Rollins' only solo releases have been spoken word, and I've not read many criticisms of them. What do you think? CloudNine 10:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I take part of my comments above back. Criticisms are usually reserved for specific articles or songs, since people's opinions might change drastically. I guess my only concern with the article is an overall lack of breadth (the whole is one big Biography section), but I'm just not sure what else to add. Catch 22 I guess. Drewcifer 10:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Shortcuts
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment
Semi-Automated Tools

User scripts for GAR:

Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria (GACR). GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. The GAR Coordinators — Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings — work to organize these efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the {{@GAR}} notification template, or make a comment on the talk page.

Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including not meeting the general notability guideline, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment can be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles can be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delist.

Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment instructions

Before opening a reassessment

  1. Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
  2. Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
  3. Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
  4. If there are many similar articles already nominated at GAR, consider delaying the reassessment request. If an editor notices that many similar GARs are open and requests a hold, such requests should generally be granted.

Opening a reassessment

  1. To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
  2. The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment).
  3. Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.
Manual opening steps
  1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
  2. Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
  3. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
  4. The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
  5. Transclude the assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste {{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}} at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion.
  6. Notify major contributing editors, including the nominator and the reviewer. Also consider notifying relevant active WikiProjects related to the article. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.

Reassessment process

  1. Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them.
  2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
  3. If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion.
  4. If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.

Closing a reassessment

To close a discussion, use the GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).

  1. GARs typically remain open for at least one week.
  2. Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
  3. If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time.
    • If there is no consensus, the reassessment may also be closed as keep.
  4. After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
    • If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.
Manual closing steps
  1. Locate {{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page.
  2. The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
    • If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
      • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
      • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
      • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (example)
    • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this,
      • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
      • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
      • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page, setting currentstatus to DGA (delisted good article). (example)
      • blank the class parameter of the WikiProject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment
      • remove the {{good article}} template from the article page (example)
      • remove the article from the relevant list at good articles (example)
  3. Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)

Disputing a reassessment

  1. A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect. A closure should only be disputed within the first seven days following the close.
  2. Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
  3. If discussing does not resolve concerns, editors should post at Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the coordinators.
Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82



Articles needing reviewing (add new articles above the top review in the list)

Note: Please remember to put a note on the article's talk page informing editors that it has been brought to WP:GA/R for review and possible delisting of its Good Article status. Include ] in the section heading.

RevoPower

RevoPower (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

The reason given on the talk page is very stand-offish, and doesn't actually explain how the article fails to meet WIAGA, just that the person who reviewed it didn't like it. The information in the article is as accurate as possible from reliable sources, and the reviewer offered absolutely no basis for their accusation of the article being an advertisement. The review offered absolutely no way the article could be improved, and pointed out no problems with sourcing other than apparently accusing the manufacturer of releasing fake specifications, and saying that a third party source is needed. The reviewer offered absolutely no reason why these sources were unreliable, or where reliable sources could be found. The reviewer additionally said that there was too much speculation, but didn't actually show any speculation, looking it over myself there is no speculation that isn't backed up by what the company says, and even the shortest look at WP:CBALL shows that speculation is in opinions and original research, not in future events. The review reeks of WP:IDONTLIKETHECOMPANY, not that the article itself doesn't actually meet the requirements for being a good article. Now, obviously if it wasn't worthy of being a good article, I wouldn't want it to be one, but the review gives absolutely no reason why the article doesn't meet the GA Criteria, except barely touching on reliable sources, only to say that the company isn't reliable enough to give the specifications and motivations behind their own product. Going through the GACR, 1 I feel is met, there are probably a couple errors but nothing that couldn't be spent by having a couple more sets of eyes look it over, 2 is the only thing the reviewer seemed to touch on, but again everything in the article is sourced, with nothing controversial that would make a primary source unacceptable, 3 I also feel is met, given that the article covers the major aspects of it, even though it is short, because there isn't much to say, 4 I also feel is met, although the reviewer disagreed and called it little more than an advertisement, without actually saying what was written like an advertisement, 5 is definitely met, I think there's been one vandal in the entire time the article has been up, and that was a bit of NPOV OR, no page blanking, most contributions to the article are minor things, like fixing acronyms and such, 6 is definitely met given the high quality photograph of the object that the company donated. I really wouldn't mind this article failing if someone gave a decent reason as to why it didn't meet the requirements, and didn't personally attack other editors in their review. If someone could give a decent reason as to how the article itself has problems that couldn't be quickly fixed, I'd be fine with it, not statements about the thing itself. lucid 05:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.
  • Delist. The references are weak and article is short. It's currently "B"-class. While I wouldn't go as far as to say it's an advertisement, it lacks enough references from reliable sources to qualify as GA-class. That said: keep up the good work. With some work the article may be able to progress to GA-class. Majoreditor 05:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Again though, you're not saying how the references are weak. I could add extra references from their press section and a quick google search, but it wouldn't add anything to the article except pdf links. If someone can come up for a reason that RevoPower's own sources are contentious or unduly self-serving I'd agree, but as it is I don't see how the sources are in any way unreliable. --lucid 06:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: You're missing the point Lucid, the references are unreliable because they are mostly from the company itself. See reliable sources. The gist is that reliable sources are published and independent of the subject matter. There is nothing stopping the company from saying whatever it wants about itself with absolutely no editorial oversight. Of course they are going to make themselves look good, of course they have a conflict of interest when presenting information about themselves. Find some independent sources to back up the assertion and the article would have a much better chance here. IvoShandor 08:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
        • (edit conf)Being from the company does not make something unreliable, being from the company and being controversial in a way that the company would be using to promote itself would be unreliable. They are going to make themselves look good, yes, but they can't really bend specifications. And what assertion? Clearly you're not talking about assertion of notability, given that's more than established, so what in the article needs asserting? What would be NPOV without a source-- or for that sake, with one? I can say with about 98% certainty that anything sourced to the company is somewhere else too, especially anything that would actually be in their favor (which I would probably support removing anyway, if it were serious), or could easily be removed without effecting the quality of the article-- barring of course the "the company says, claims, notes" etc. bits. The problem is you're saying the company has a reason to promote itself, which is of course true, what you haven't shown, or even said, is that their intent to promote has biased their facts in a real manner that lowers the quality of the article --lucid 09:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Basically, I am of the opinion that the site is absolutely self serving, its essentially an ad for a yet to be released product, so really it is nothing more than speculation on the company's part, about how the company thinks things will result for the product once it is released. There is also absolutely no indication who authored the material, most likely a PR rep. The article is primarily based on this self published source as well, which is directly in violation of the section of WP:V you have linked above. Sorry, but Delist. IvoShandor 09:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • And again, the secondary sources back up this information as well. If you can find anything in the article which is contentious or self-serving to the point where the article is obviously biased or unreliable, please tell me. Right now, there's no basis to improve on any part of it, no any reason to disapprove --lucid 09:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The burden is on you to prove the source is reliable, its neutrality is disputed here, it would be best if you just brought some independent sources, they shouldn't be too hard to find I would think. Since you ignored this part of what I wrote: There is also absolutely no indication who authored the material, most likely a PR rep. The article is primarily based on this self published source as well, which is directly in violation of the section of WP:V you have linked above. I have reposted it for you here, this alone is enough reason to oppose the use of the source. As for assertion, I meant assertions, as in statements of fact that are cited within the article. I wasn't questioning the notability. Why are you linking to WP:NPA in your edit summary. I didn't attack you at all, I looked at the article and the source and made a comment about it. If that's a personal attack, then I don't know what to say. IvoShandor 09:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Essentially, just balance out the sources with more independent ones, and the use of the company website becomes no problem. When the entire article is based on it though there is no way to know whether any of information has ever been confirmed independently, or fact checked. IvoShandor 09:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
As far as showing the source is reliable goes, I'd have to say that keeping in the company's specifications because everything else has higher MPG is a pretty good sign that they aren't making their stuff seem better than it is. Anyway, I've added more secondary sources, there's still a few more out there but they don't have much new, or are borderline reliable/notable (see the talk page for one), and removed some stuff that wasn't really needed and only really linked to the company's page. It's fairly well balanced now-- the FAQ is still used a lot, but it's needed to give a broad scope of the Wheel. --lucid 13:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure if i'm looking at the right section, but when I see the latest GA nomination failed heading, it sure looks like the reviewer gave several legitimate reasons for failure, such as the article reading like an advertisement, among other things. Not even commenting on the accuracy of the review, I really don't think the basis given for starting this GA/R is accurate at all. Homestarmy 16:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

the accuracy of the review is the entire point. --lucid 16:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
You said that the review "doesn't actually explain how the article fails to meet WIAGA, just that the person who reviewed it didn't like it. ", but the only review I see nearest to the bottom doesn't appear to be like that at all, quite the contrary really, there seem to be several WIAGA-relevant objections. Homestarmy 16:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Relevant, maybe, explanatory no. Saying "it reads like an advertisement" without actually providing something that reads like an advertisement, or saying that the sources are unreliable without actually showing where a source is wrong, or at the least contentious enough to not be reliable is little more than saying "I don't like it, here's a few blanket statements that could be said about any article without anything to back them up, that way they can't be disproven" --lucid 16:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see then. While I don't agree that specific examples of deficiencies in articles always have to be specified, I guess I can see how you could interpret his review to be meaningless. I'll give the article a closer look. Homestarmy 02:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Another Comment Well, reading the article, I don't think it really is an advertisment. It just appears that way because what's there is mostly positive in nature, though I don't think its written in a non-neutral way, its just that all the facts about the subject presented here are fairly positive. Lucid, is this really all the material available on this subject? No criticism or anything else? Homestarmy 02:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much. It's unreleased, so about the only criticism is people on message boards, which is obviously WP:UNDUE and not an RS. The closest thing to criticism is PopSci showing a meter from "Loafer" to "Lance" on the RevoPower article, with the arrow pointing to "Loafer", but that's not much of a criticism really, not to mention it can't really be cited because it's not in text. It did make a pretty big sweep through the blogosphere awhile back, one of them might have some criticism, but even the more popular blogs are generally not reliable sources. Of course, once it is released, it will probably get a surge of media attention, and I can look around then. If it's as popular as they're hoping for (100,000 units in the first 6 months, I think, I don't have the exact quote here) it wouldn't be surprising to see a bunch of towns passing laws and telling people they are/aren't ok and such on it, like those electric RAZOR scooters that were so popular a couple years back, or pocket rockets, or Segways, or any number of other weird transportation things that have come up in the past few years. Of course, if it gets in magazines that get to review it I'm sure there will be plenty of criticism, not to mention people complaining about how it's 'eliminating the point of biking' or something to that effect if it really catches on. I'm already thinking about the future of the article to be honest, I figure there will probably be a "Legality" and "Reception" section once it's released, and probably a new section for new types of wheels, as they are released (the four-stroke, hybrid, etc. models they mention) --lucid 04:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Harold Pinter

Harold Pinter (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Had made changes requested. Apparently, the reviewing editor(s) did not recognize them. Too bad. Archived the talk page: see Talk:Harold Pinter. --NYScholar 18:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the discussion here as this is what i believe the editor wants. This article was failed by User:Jayron32 beacuse the issues listed were not resolved. The issues can be found in Talk:Harold Pinter/archive2. Woodym555 18:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.
Please see the much-later comment by Jayron32, who says that he did not fail the article and who says that he recused himself from reviewing the article. See also Wrad's comments, where he points out that he failed the article without realizing that changes had been made to it. "It was failed" refers to his having failed it. He says that he is a new reviewer and that he has also recused himself from reviewing the article now. NYScholar 18:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see evidence of changes made. All I see is arguments about why they are not needed, and statements that the editor didn't have time to work on promoting it, as he hadn't nominated it and wasn't planning to. References in the article aren't standardized. We discussed it. Two reviewers agreed there was a problem. NYScholar disagreed. It was failed because reviewers' problems weren't addressed, only argued against in an unsatisfactory way. This should not be a GA until refs are standardized within the article, as it is, the article uses multiple formats and is very confusing, as agreed by two reviewers. Wrad 18:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
As the editing history should bear out, I made a lot of changes since Wrad made his comments. I don't know why he does not realize that. The comments were explanations of the changes. I have asked for specific examples of the lack of "standardized" format that he mentions, but he does not supply them. I have attempted what I consider to be one format that adapts MLA Style Manual format to some peculiarities of Misplaced Pages style sheet format (e.g., for the titles of articles in links so that they post with the link symbol outside the end quotation mark; that is inconsistent with normal MLA Style Format for punctuation of titles, in which the punctuation occurs inside the end quotation mark). The other punctuation is standard in both MLA Style Manual format and Misplaced Pages style sheet format. American English is the version of English consistently followed in text of article; quotations (as they should) follow the English version used in the original being quoted. Any so-called "problems" appear to be so very minor that it appears to me that failing the article as a "good article" in Misplaced Pages seems without basis. Notes refer to parenthetical in-text citations as subsequent references (an MLA Style Manual format for notes); MLA Style Manual format permits both in-text parenthetical citations and content notes. If a note requires considerable space, it is not wise to use a parenthetical citation. Editorial discretion is wise to use in such cases. Misplaced Pages's "guidelines" for "standardization" are not "written in stone"; and to act as if they are seems inconsistent with the concept of "guidelines" in the first place. In articles on literary topics, it is correct (standard practice) in academic scholarship to use MLA Style Manual format. Harold Pinter is a topic about which an immense amount of academic scholarship has been published. Misplaced Pages adapts already-existing bibliographical conventions; it does not invent them. Such conventions long pre-date Misplaced Pages. --NYScholar 02:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I actually did make specific examples. I have never seen parentheticals with notes, personally, unless the notes were additional information, rather than references. I could be wrong, though. It honestly seemed as though you had given up on the article becoming a GA. You never mentioned on the talk page that you had fixed anything until after it failed. I personally found the refs confusing in this article. I still do, although I admit they are better. I tried to explain this, and the other reviewer seemed to agree with me. It sounds like you've invented your own style and are trying to justify it in the face of wikipedia consensus (aka "guidelines"). This isn't impossible, but it is usually wise to acknowledge that consensus at least a little. If other editors disagree with myself and the other reviewer, I wouldn't be against promoting it. Honestly, this all seems like bad communication. Usually, editors leave some sort of message on the talk page to say that they have fixed things. I know you're not all that familiar to the process, but that's how it is. After I saw that you didn't seem all that motivated to fix it, and saw no indication of change on the talk page after several days, I failed it. Honestly, it is a bit hard to interpret when a person says one thing and does another. Anyway, I'm bowing out of this. I think that I can no longer provide an unbiased review. I am also pretty new to the process of reviewing, and may have done it wrong. Other editors can decide if it is a GA. I'm glad this review has come up. It is needed. Wrad 03:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I really did not have the time to make the changes, but I did so anyway. It took a lot of time. In the interim sometimes people would come along and introduce further inconsistencies and then I would have to correct those. I use editing summaries in the editing history; those indicate what I was trying to do. There are archived discussions that also indicate where changes have been made over a period of time. I think that whatever remains to be done may be so very minor that it is inconsequential. I have moved items from in-text citations to notes back and forth and have settled on what seems to be least obtrusive and still to be consistent with MLA Style Manual Format; where notes can be used as endnotes (footnotes), I have tried to use them as "content notes" (MLA); where reprinted items are involved, because the parenthetical citations would be too long to indicate them, I have used the notes citations for such information. Parenthetical citations are very sparely used; only in one or two instances are what used to be in notes now back within parentheses and that is because there already is a parenthetical citation being used and one of the reviewers asked me to use fewer "see also" or "cf." refs., which I have done. Sometimes, however, it is necessary to use see or Cf. and in those cases I have had to use them. I think the citations format is clear enough. I and other editors can consider further specific suggestions about particular parenthetical citations or notes citations; References list has an editorial interpolation (visible only in editing preview mode). --NYScholar 03:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see also the split-off part of the article, now Works of Harold Pinter, which shares the References and Further resources etc. sections with the main article. It has its own notes citations, which have to be complete because References, Further resources, etc. are in the main article. (Another editor moved what used to be the "Works" section of the main article into a separate article. I tried to work with that change after s/he did that edit. That was some time ago now, pre-good article nomination and review. --NYScholar 03:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Endorse delist - It does seem as if the majority of Wrad's suggestions (all of which I agree with) have not been completely addressed. Mainly, the mish-mash of reference styles. Consistency is key. Also (I don't think Wrad mentioned this) there are way too many External links at the end of the article. I'd recommend 1/3 of that. Drewcifer 06:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the above was posted, have made further revisions and updated sources for them in this article. I believe that the external links listed are all useful for readers interested in the subject. If, , specific links do not seem useful for readers interested in the subject, please indicate which ones those are. Thanks. --NYScholar 20:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC) I believe that my changes to the article over a period of the past week have indeed addressed the comments by Wrad (which were few) and those of the previous reviewer. I believe that Drewcifer could not possibly have examined the article in question carefully if he reached the conclusion posted above. I really do not see any serious problems with this article (given Misplaced Pages's own standards and policies) that would warrant its not being considered a "good article" in Misplaced Pages. Anyone who does is free to make precise specific line-by-line suggestions on the talk page. --NYScholar 04:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I never actually failed the article. I merely recused myself from reviewing it and returned it to the nomination page. I have no idea who reviewed it after me. Other than to make this comment, I will continue to recuse myself from making any critical remarks about the content of the article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The reviewer who failed the article (Wrad) has also (to a degree) qualified his objections (to a degree). (He did not realize when he failed the article that changes had been made to it.) For the format of citations (MLA Style format, adapted to Misplaced Pages style sheet for punctuation using links to citations) and use of "accessed" , MLA just uses two dates (first is date of publication/posting, second is date accessed); the URL follows in http format within angle brackets. Misplaced Pages style incorporates the link in the title of the citation between square brackets. (That is an adaptation of MLA style format to Misplaced Pages style sheet guidelines for external links. I can list the URL as an angle-bracketed address as well, but that seems unnecessary, since it shows up as a highlighted item in the actual link.) For the listing of MLA Style Manual format, see WP:CITE#References. Misplaced Pages links to some MLA Style Manual format information via its own "References" list. WP:CITE is a guideline not a policy; my MLA-style-format citations are consistent within the article, and I doubt that anyone could have difficulty understanding what the sources are that are being given; in the case of online sources, links are given so that they can be checked and verified. All printed sources are sources that I myself have checked and verified. I vouch for the sources listed. When content was added by other users, I documented it if possible; if not, I removed it. This is a biography of a living person who is also a public figure, and the person is also controversial; I have tagged the talk page with appropriate templates so that readers/users/editors new to the article can consult the related policies and guidelines. I also have kept in mind that this is an article that Misplaced Pages users may want to print out, and in its printed format, there is much useful bibliographical information. A key question to keep in mind is: are the sources cited in a way that they can be checked and verified (when online versions of the sources are accessible) and are the sources cited in a way that they can be checked and verified (when they are printed sources). The answer to both questions is, I believe, yes. Again, I have personally checked and verified every source that I have listed in this article; I consider the sources of content that I myself added to be reliable and verifiable. When subsequent users come along and post unreliable or unverifiable content in the article, I try to provide proper sourcing, or I remove the material as per WP:BLP. There has occasionally been vandalism to this article; and I check it from time to time to protect it from such vandalism and/or from unintentionally misleading editing. This has been a very time-consuming task for me and it troubles me that the review is not as careful as it could be. I did respond to comments by making changes to the article; I have done the best I could do given my other work obligations. Both previous reviewers have now recused themselves from reviewing this article (scroll up). If new reviewers have specific changes to citations format to suggest, please make them in the talk page of the article. I've done my best at this point. Thank you.--NYScholar 18:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi NYScholar. You seem to have waded into it. MMmmm, offhand this article seems a bit hagiographic.. I read it quickly & didn't see a word of criticism. I admit I read it quickly. Did I miss a section somewhere? I apologize if I did. Moreover, as for MLA, you can get away with using it, but it is as rare as hen's teeth on Misplaced Pages. As WP:CITE, which is not policy but which guides the edits of the overwhelming majority of us, recommends either Harvard or footnote-style. But as you've said, the practice is one of consensus rather than ironclad rules. So... the criticism? Did I miss it? Lack of such a section would Fail the article due to NPOV concerns. Sure, there isn't much criticism of Shakespeare, but Pinter is no Shakespeare. Both his work and especially his politics have been criticized somewhwere or other, I'm quite sure... --Ling.Nut 19:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)'
Thanks for the response, Ling.Nut.
Articles and parts of books listed in the Selected bibliography include sources critical of Pinter; clicking on the links to them will show that. I have attempted to follow Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view in the wording of statements in the text of the article, which are presented in what I believe is neutral language. If one wants to add "negative criticism" of Harold Pinter (whose politicial views are controversial, as the sentence about his Nobel Prize lecture states in the lead), then one still has to do so in keeping with WP:BLP and WP:BLP#Well known public figures and to cite sources in keeping with WP:V#Sources; previous versions of the article did not do that. One will find several items listed in the "Selected bibliography" which are critical of Pinter and/or which cite controversies relating to his political views and his work. The bio-bibligraphy by the Swedish Academy and Nobel Foundation already includes sources of diverse points of view on Pinter (his work and his politics). One is free to examine the editing history from its earliest version on to see how it developed over the past few years. There is also some discussion in the talk archive. I placed the "controversial article" template on the article because I am aware of past problems relating to the article and foreseeing the possibility that new users/editors will need to consult Misplaced Pages:Guidelines for controversial articles in the future if editing it. As I understand "good article" status, it relates to stable articles, and if such a section begins in this article its stability will change and this would not be a good time to re-review it then. I can monitor such development for accuracy of citations and documentation as time permits; but right now I have other work to turn back to (under deadline). --NYScholar 20:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Before logging out of Misplaced Pages to do that work, I have made some brief additions to the section on the Nobel Prize Lecture, which I suggest that one re-read, including references to related citations that need to be read as well. The citations and references linked in the Selected bibliography are part of the article and intended to be consulted as such. --NYScholar 21:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi NYScholar,
  • It's self-evident that you've put a lot of hard work and careful scholarship into this article. I appreciate your labors, and applaud the results.
  • I realize I've entered this discussion without much context. I'm trying to delve through the archives, etc. It may take a while. :-)
  • My majors throughout my recent academic career have been TESOL & Linguistics — both of which tend to use some flavor of Harvard notation. Moreover, MLA is rare on Misplaced Pages. For those reasons, I'm not familiar with MLA format. I'm looking into it. :-) However, I believe the problem that GA reviewers are bringing up with respect to a "mishmash" of styles is the combination of in-text citations and footnotes for providing full references. The footnotes are fine for regressions, comments, etc. such as "Further information about 'Artist and Citizen: 50 years of Performing Pinter' is accessible on ...". However, since you're providing full references in a Works cited section, it looks a bit odd to also use footnotes to provide a full citation of a source, e.g. "Mark Lawson, "Pinter to 'give up writing plays'", BBC News 28 Feb. 2005, accessed 19 June 2007." ... In the latter case, would it be possible to stick strictly to using the Works Cited Section? This would involve shifting some references from one style to the other.
  • Moreover, I really think the article needs a section explicitly dedicated to the criticism of Pinter's work and his politics. I know you mentioned that examples of criticism are rather easily found in the works cited etc., but to adhere to the letter of the law with respect to WP:UNDUE, the issue needs to be faced up-front and head-on. The section can be relatively brief, but it needs to exist and it needs to cite reliable sources.
  • I think once you get through GA you're almost a shoo-in for FA, once these issues are somehow addressed.
  • KUTGW! -- Ling.Nut 18:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much again, Ling.Nut. I have made further revisions to the article based on some of your comments above. Among those changes, I added a "Criticism" section that is keyed to the "Works cited" list. Unfortunately, right now, I am operating under a massive work deadline and this is all I can do for the time being. I hope that most of the comments that you made are taken into account by these revisions. The notes citations include information that is not in the "Works cited" section (to include them might lengthen it too much); for the time being at least the citations are all checked and verified (see editorial interpolations). For any further minor format changes: these will have to wait until I have more time I'm afraid. Just cannot do them now. Perhaps you can take another look and list the note citation numbers that you think need specific attention. Thanks. --NYScholar 21:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, since writing that, I did do more work to the article. I have tried to make the citations format work better with the "Works cited" list. There may be a few more items that need changing, but I think I've been able to make them mostly consistent with MLA Style Manual format and Misplaced Pages's idiosyncracies. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks. --NYScholar 06:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've gotta say, it's obvious you've put alot of work into the article, and alot of work lately based on all the advice given here, so kudos on alot of great work. Personally, I only see two remaining issues with the article: the image and the in-line citations. The fact that in-line ciations are there is great, they are just formatted a little oddly at times (I'm sure your getting tired of all this complaining about formatting and style and what not). Namely, the footnoe citations are fine, but the ones which refer to a source of information (rather than clarifying information like the footnotes) should be formatted more consistently. For those I would recommend using citation templates. As for the image, it seems that the fair-use thing isn't going to well (and based on the Fair-use rationale on that page, I can pretty much guarantee it'll be deleted), so I think I have an easy solution. Go to Flickr.com and do a search for Harold Pinter. There are many good images of him there. Find one you think is appropriate and let me know which one it is, and then I can ask the author for permission to use the image. I know "asking for permission" seems like a simple thing, but (as with most official Misplaced Pages stuff) it can be somewhat complicated. So, if you'd like I'd be happy to do that heavy lifting for you since I do it all the time. Anyways, I hope my suggestions are helpful, and let me know if you'd like to take me up on that offer with the image. Drewcifer 08:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I hope that I've fixed it all now. Re: citation templates: I hate them. They completely ruin the punctuation (which is very tricky) and the last name, first name posting in alphabetical lists ("Selected bibliography" in this article); plus I am using MLA-style dates (which is the same as European style just coincidentally) and they don't post correctly w/ the templates. I have hand-fixed the punctuation of titles throughout for each item, and I would hate to lose what I regard as consistency w/ the inconsistencies that the citation templates will introduce throughout. I have made content notes for the notes citations; "Works cited" includes items cited in the notes being used as references. There is really only one content note that I might convert later (I can't do it now; I'm too tired from all this work.) I really have to do work outside of Misplaced Pages, but I wanted to at least get this much done before leaving for (what I hope will be) an extended period of time. RE: the image: it's been a real problem; every image that I can find gets deleted by Misplaced Pages, even though I believe the teeny thumbnail low-resolution version (of the most recent one particularly) appears to be free and within fair use. I will look at the site that you suggest and get back to you asap. Thanks again for the thoughtful reply. (Which "in-line citations" do you mean? It is appropriate to provide the URLs (links) to sources for purposes of checking and verifying sources in notes citations (even the citation templates do that). If you tell me which note citation numbers you mean, I will take a look at them later. I just may not understand what you mean.) --NYScholar 09:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Re: the Flickr.com photos: on page 1 of a search for "Harold Pinter", there are two photos by Chris Saunders (which I've seen before on his site) which are possible choices (I think that I prefer the profile); on page 3 there is a group photo of three people w/ Pinter on the right in profile that (cropped) might be a possible choice. Other photos of him that I see there are copyrighted to other photographers (not noted there): e.g., the Nobel Prize announcement day photo (Oct. 13, 2005) w/ the jaunty cap and bandaged head: that's a press photo that is copyrighted. Also there are better photos of him looking healthier than that (2006-2007). I prefer the stills from the Nobel Lecture as possible photos (the one that was in the article for a long time before an editor deleted it even though I explained that I had permission from Illuminations to feature it on Pinter-related website(s). The derivative photos from the DVD would probably have the same copyright/fair use provision problems that the orginal one posted encountered from the Misplaced Pages editor who seems to delete a lot of photos from Misplaced Pages (see HP talk page). So please do try if you want to re: the photos mentioned from page 1 and 3 of the Flickr search. (My guess is that the photographer Chris Saunders appears to be a professional studio photographer, however, and I don't know if he will give permission for free licensing of his photographs.) The page 3 photo seems to be more of a personal photo taken privately. --NYScholar 09:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

C++

C++ (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Very little citations for an article that big. WikiProject notified. T Rex | talk 21:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to provide specific challenges to the text for which you think in-line citations are required, or are you going to continue to insist the rather vague "I'd like some more". Unless you provide details of your challenges this is essentially an unactionable GAC and should be ignored. --Joopercoopers 12:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist, Along with the citation issues I find that the article lacks an explanation for some of the jargon in the article and in other its explained fine. Also I think that the lead is still a bit to short for the size of this article. Tarret 22:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It appears that the GA requirements for in-line citations are being scaled down at bit as per discussions at WP:WIAGA. Drewcifer 23:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delist despite the change in criteria mentioned above, in-line citations would still be necessary in some sections, namely the Problems and controversies section (more would be better). Also the in-line citations are formmated inconsistently. Lastly, and this is just a recommendation, I'd say the Incompatibility with C section should come before the Problems and controversies section. Drewcifer 06:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist, too few citations. --Aqwis 12:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Edmund the Martyr

Edmund the Martyr (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Since GA was granted, the article has attracted a disruptive, single purpose editor: Special:Contributions/EdChampion and sock puppet: Special:Contributions/85.189.180.235 -- SECisek 19:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment The user's ridiculous use of bolding makes it very difficult for me to take him seriously, do his solitary actions really warrent having to review the article all over again for GA status? Homestarmy 21:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment As both the passing GA reviewer and the admin who protected the article from the edit war, I'd like to urge leniency here. I fully protected the article to encourage discussion between EdChampion/IP and the other established editors on the talk page, the regulars engaged in a productive discussion to enhance the article further while the EdChampion/IP pretty much declined to take part. His behaviour is now bordering on vandalism. I'd rather not re-review the article, it'd be better to deal with the behaviour of the single-purpose editing. The Rambling Man 21:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I did not decline to take part. Firstly, I was the one who started the discussion and then let others have their say, afterwards I replied and included suggested areas of compromise. I have fully explained to you why I did not reply over the Public Holiday weekend. I do have a life outside the WikiWorld. And there's nothing wrong with SPE; everyone has to start somewhere. EdChampion 19:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment A review seems hasty. This isn't the proper venue for dealing with a vandal. Drewcifer 21:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The editor in question deleted the GA tag this morning and I explained doing so did not delist the article. So here we are now. This is very frustrating for those of us who put in a good deal of work on this article. We have attempted to add in reasonable and accurate requests that he has made, but he keeps demanding that outrageous and fringe views be included. Everytime the other editors and I reach an agreement, he turns back up. Can somebody with more experience at WP offer us some leadership here? -- SECisek 21:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Does Request comment on users work? It seems doubtful as the user seems to have no other presence on Misplaced Pages but to disrupt Edmund the Martyr. I would never have guessed that there was even the possibility of a Fringe theory problem over this topic. It is weird. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Note consensus is not synonymous with unanimity. The definition of a consensus is general agreement (Oxford English Dictionary) or "general or widespread agreement among all the members of a group" (Encarta). With only one editor in disagreement, there is certainly a consensus understanding of what a Edmund the Martyr article should and should not contain. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I read somewhere that consensus literally meant unanimousness, so I dunno what to do about that, but if a user conduct RfC doesn't appeal to you, you could try the Fringe Theories noticeboard if you haven't already, its in the noticeboard template. But to Secisek, some strange things can garner controversy, and i've seen several of them pop up here before, we've had fights over obscure opera writers among other things. Homestarmy 01:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
From Misplaced Pages:Consensus, under the sub-heading Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Consensus in practice is this:

Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome. The following description of consensus ... argues a difference between consensus and unanimity...

So both real world and WP understanding of consensus does not encompass the concept of 'unanimity'. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Consenus includes not archiving the discussion on the talk page and preventing others from adding comments (as you did), even more so since you took no part. It includes refraining from being childish and the refusing to reopen the discussion (as Scott Cisek did). It is also worth reminding you that that you haven't make a single contribution to the page. I suggest you read the full article on consensus including "wikipedia decision making is not based on formal vote counting" EdChampion 19:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • HOLD EVERYTHING! How do you know my first name, it does not appear anywhere in Misplaced Pages, just who are you Ed? We all know well that there is no way you are a newbie, you know far too much about using the WP processes to disrupt. You once accused me of acting childlike, and here you are, Google-stalking me. That is very poor form. Just who are you, really? Somebody needs to trace the IP and see what other accounts EdChampion edits under. -- SECisek 20:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment well this I was not expecting. Can I give a bit of background (as seen through my eyes obviously) in the hope that the Article 's contents nbe reached by consensus. Although the article that went to GA did not include all I would have wished (of course it would not - it was a consensus. no-one was the sole author!!)- it did inform in an interesting way. The original sub headings of recent developments concerning Patron Saint and Flag status were created to inform users of these modern developments, and what religious and - or historical facts (if any) that could be relevant. They like the compromises developed on the talk page whilst the article was protected were improvements that would have enhanced the article. EdChampion and - or - two other anon users - sock puppets? have continually developed any information of such developments (e.g. status - specific religion - banner - flag) into statements representing their opinions. (for example Christian or Catholic Martyr) SECisek expression of frustration in the statement above, I totally agree with. As a good article I believe it stands, is there room for improvement? yes - will it become one without protection? --Edmund Patrick ( work) 17:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how one turns a banner, coin etc. into a personal opinions, besides which for EVERY claim I write - even on the talk page - I ALWAYS cite my sources. In the case of the martyr status this includes popes, doctors of the church - and I offered a compromised since it is my desire to reach a consensus too. EdChampion 19:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If anyone is interested in the matter at hand i.e. GA review (and not the detraction and calmny of those who make it their day job), to make things easier I have added one GA issue titled "Paragraph for Review" on the Edmund talk page for review.EdChampion 19:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Very likely to be sock puppets as well: Special:Contributions/79.74.238.223, Special:Contributions/85.189.181.99, Special:Contributions/79.72.130.63.

This account edits in a style that should be familliar to people following this debate: Special:Contributions/84.66.110.223. The edits defending the racist/facist British National Party‎ could be very illuminating if this IP could be connected to a certain sockpuppet. -- SECisek 22:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Does any of this having anything to do with the article's GA status? I'm inclined to say it does not, so I would recommend bringing this debate to the article's or your own talk pages. Unless there are any opinions otherwise, I'd like to close and archive this discussion. Drewcifer 06:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Drewcifer here, this isn't a GA review at all. The discussion should be continued on the talk pages. There's no need to delist the article. The Rambling Man 07:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Every editor save one has sounded a loud "keep". Do as you will. -- SECisek 06:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
??? Every editor? I count 6 "Comment" and no "Keep" (nor "Dealist" for that matter). What are you talking abbout?--SidiLemine 13:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
On the topic of ending this, assuming this user knows information about Secisek that he couldn't possibly know without knowing his real life identity, (which I assume he shouldn't know) it sounds like GA/R isn't the right place for this, Wikistalking is in a whole different area from this place. Homestarmy 19:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Veganism

Veganism (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article seems to lack a NPOV and lacks details explaining the criticism of this particular topic. Tarret 14:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Criticism is provided in 'Ethical concerns' section by POV of Davis and Jarvis, also various health precautions are included throughout the article. The article has barely changed since original GA review, so specific criticism of POV-ness would be appreciated. Kellen 22:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
To be more specific the article is very "pro-vegan" meaning that there is very little mention of the "counter-vegan" point of view. Also as the tag in the Demographics says the section lacks a more worldwide point of view most noticably in areas such as Asia, and Africa. Tarret 22:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - most governments do not record details of diet in their census, and so it's difficult to find reliable sources about numbers of vegans worldwide. I think there's an information-gathering attempt on the Talk page about this issue. -Malkinann 22:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment I typically contribute to the article from a "counter-vegan" perspective, if you will, and I'm not sure we need to put a whole lot more criticism into the article. Could you give specific examples of passages that need a "counter-vegan" rebuttal? Though you do have a good point - we need to gather a more global view particularly in the demographic section. Kellen has found some good sources that should be integrated into the article. There just isn't a lot of information out there about many parts of the world, though. Cheers, Skinwalker 23:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The demographics section is actually a virtually unsolvable problem; there are no good statistics for number of vegans almost anywhere in the world. The research has just not been done yet. I did some cross-wiki research but this yielded few results. Since there is no one we can cite, I do not believe this is a good reason for delisting.
There are also few, if any, notable "counter-vegans." There's a variety of people, including vegan orgs, pointing out the need for supplementation, so this is covered extensively in 'health,' but not much else. Kellen 23:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A Series of Unfortunate Events

A Series of Unfortunate Events (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Only passed a few days ago, the original reviewer left only this comment on the Talk Page as their review: "Enjoyed this one. Pass." Upon further review, I've found it to have the following issues:

  • Some of the images do not specify their source.
  • Many of the sections are poorly referenced, most notably the Distribution section.
  • The references are poorly formatted.
  • Small lead section.
  • Reception section could be expanded.

Chief editors, reviewers, and WikiProjects have been notified. Drewcifer

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.
It's decent, but I wouldn't say it satisfies all the criteria. Namely, criteria #1b and WP:Lead (too short, doesn't summarize article), criteria #6 and WP:NFCC (no sources for some images), criteria #2 and WP:CITE (poorly formatted references), and criteria #3 (the reception section is somewhat small, though I suppose that might just be my opinion). The 2nd bullet point above, the lack of in-line citations, is currently under debate at WP:WIAGA, so we can ignore that one for now. Drewcifer 09:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Taj Mahal

Taj Mahal (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

In-line referencing is spotty at best. Some sections are referenced well, some not at all. Appropriate WikiProjects and chief editors have been notified. Drewcifer 02:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.

I fail to see any single aspect of the "Good Article" criteria that this article doesn't meet and exceed. The article's FA status merits may be argued, and have been. Its GA status is more than obvious. I fail to understand even why this new review has even been requested, except to generate controversy and to give the requester, who apparently makes a habit of this, some sort of bizarre satisfaction. Such antics are the reason I have ceased to be an active WP editor. --Nemonoman 11:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought I made myself somewhat clear in the nomination: many sections of the article lack in-line citations. And yes, I suppose I have made a habit of bringing questionable articles under review: that's the whole point of the ongoing GA sweeps. Many GAs were passed before GA criteria existed, so now myself and a few other editors are checking every single GA article. I just finished sweeping the architecture GAs and found 5 (I think) articles which were worthy of further discussion. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way. Drewcifer 15:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
But once again, you assert "many section of the article lacks citations" and yet fail to say what it is in those sections that you challenge. If you want people to respond intelligently and productively to your activities here, then you're going to do more work than just "I've judged your article and found it wanting" - personally I think everyone's time would be better spent fixing the articles than arguing here. And frankly, wouldn't architecture articles be better reviewed by someone who at least knows something about, well y'know, architecture. --Joopercoopers 16:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not that I'm challenging any of the assertions made in the article or that I think someone made it up. I'm merely going by the simple premise that every paragraph (at least every section) should cite the source of its information. I could give you a list of the sections, but it would probably be easier for you to go and see for yourself. And I completely agree with you, I'd rather see an article improved rather than delisted. Hence, I posted on the Taj Mahal's talk page a few days ago bringing up my concerns. I also posted the article here while posting notices on the Architecture and India WikiProjects, as well as on the talk pages of 3 (4?) of the article's chief editors. If I truly wanted to see the article delisted I would've nominated it here without any warning. To the contrary, I've done everything in my power (outside of doing it all myself, and I admit to knowing very little about the Taj Mahal or architecture) to see the article improved and make the appropriate people aware of my concerns. Drewcifer 16:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Could you tell me where it says in policy that "every paragraph (at least every section) should cite the source of its information". You've got the wrong grip on policy if you think this is the case. WP:CITE, and WP:V says that material that is challenged should be cited with inline citations - otherwise a references section will be sufficient. The article has both a footnotes section and a references section (albeit misnamed - I've just correct it). You act imperiously here towards editors who have worked hard on articles and are rude enough to give nemonoman above a Non-apology apology in saying "Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way". What you mean is "sorry if that rubs you up the wrong way but I don't really give a toss - it's clearly your problem for being over-sensitive." 1. You admit to having no architectural knowledge. 2. You don't have any challenges to the information and so can't tell us what you think needs inline citations. 3. you misunderstand policy and the GA criteria (nowhere does it say references have to comply with MOS as you have asserted below). 4. you appear to be interested in some facile and infantile "drive" (with lollipops for reviewers who can upset enough good editors who might actually know what they are talking about) and 5. When you're questioned about it you respond with a shrug of the shoulders and a faint insult. Furthermore it's absolutely disingenuous to say that "you've done everything in your power" and then in parenthesis say "apart from actually doing any work to the article" - how do you think that makes editors feel? Your response to criticism, is to remind us you are capable of even more crass insensitivity and imperiousness "I would've nominated it here without any warning". You're activities are starting to look like disruption. I make a modest request here - If you want to challenge material in the article - spend a little time to read it. make notes about the bits which you think might need inline citations and then post them here. ie. a bit of work on your behalf, rather than making me feel someone is lauding it over me, might just persuade me to do something about it. --Joopercoopers 17:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's drop the personal attacks and focus on the article. Either it fits the criteria or it doesn't. End of story. That's what this page is for deciding. Wrad 17:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm commenting on the behavious, not the person and there's nothing there that is a personal attack. To characterise it as such is again, disingenous and simply an attempt to shut down the debate. Again, where is it policy that every sentence/paragraph/section needs an in-line reference? It isn't policy, so he needs to provide good faith challenges, rather than parachuting in from on high pontificating about matters of style.--Joopercoopers 17:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for summarizing the problem to its relevant points. Talking about how he hands out lollipops isn't getting Taj Mahal anywhere and makes it hard to understand your position. Wrad 17:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Well, where should I start? There really isn't any need for name-calling, personal attacks, or even harsh words here. I thought the article was worthy of discussion, so I brought it up here. Please don't feel like I'm targeting you or any articles, I'm simply trying to keep up the GA standard. To reiterate my position: I'd rather see an article improved rather than delisted. But having found 5 architecture articles which I have concerns with, I can't possibly do all the work myself. You can dismiss the GA sweeps if you want, but keep in mind that many GA class articles were given that status before criteria even existed, including Taj Mahal. So, speaking of criteria, you are correct: nowhere does it say "every sentence/paragraph/section needs an in-line reference". That is merely my interpretation of (somewhat vague) GA criteria. To quote the criteria directly: "WP:WIAGA 2b: "cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles." Ok, but then there's two footnotes, one of which says "Unambiguous citation is best done through footnotes or Harvard references at the end of a sentence (see the inline citations essay). It is highly recommended that the article have a consistent style of footnoting. Articles one page or shorter can be unambiguously referenced without inline citations. General statements, mathematical equations, logical deductives, common knowledge, or other material that does not contain disputable statements need not be referenced." The way that is worded, it is highly up to interpretation. My interpretation of it is this: any complete thought that is not common knowledge must come from some source. If a fact comes from a source, you should reference that source. Every sentence/paragraph/section presents a new fact or set of facts that is not common knowledge, and should therefore reference the source of that information. Pretty simple really. That is my own interpretation of the criteria, but I don't think I am alone. I admit to being a stickler about citations, and perhaps a bit to harsh in reviewing GAs, but that's the beauty of this page: we can discuss these things in a calm logical manner. So far very little of this discussion has been calm, logical, or even about the Taj Mahal article. Drewcifer 20:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, where should I start? In a less patronising vein I think. If my tone was unpalatable please see my previous, measured attempts to direct you to policy which appeared to go unheeded. I welcome your quest for enlightenment at the criteria page, listening is important on wiki, particularly as 40% of the emotionally communicative information we normally receive in face to face discourse is absent on-wiki. But you'll note the 'yawn oppose' and comments about repeating history. That popular misconceptions of policy abound on wikipedia is a breathing reality to me, but apparently news to you. Another reality is the way authors, who strive to do their best on wikipedia either get treated as vandals or trolls who need to be reminded of WP:NPA, when ARBCOM have frequently upheld the need for frank and robust debate. There are harsh words above but no personal attacks. If I sounded angry and annoyed above, then I'm glad, clearly my prose is improving, being ignored and spending inordinate time dealing with ignorance of both policy and subject is wearing and particularly irritating when policy such as WP:NPA is used to justify action with no debate. Lollipops (ie for haste) are not a good incentive for a considered encylopaedia.
To substance - I too lament the lack of discussion. The point at issue, (ie. the nomination) concerned solely the issue that In-line referencing is spotty at best. I have asked repeatedly for a challenges of what statements are challenged and would be more than welcome to discuss such in the calm and logical manner requested. Issues of one sentence paragraphs aren't part of the original nomination, but given that WP:GVF suggests A good article must be reasonably well written and Faulkner'S My mother's a fish is perhaps the best one sentence chapter I can think of; perhaps we can agree that such rules need to be discussed in the context of the article rather than blindly enforced throughout wikipedia? What is specifically wrong with the one sentence paragraphs in this article?--Joopercoopers 22:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to see we are on the same page here: let's discuss the article. My actions (debatable or not) are only marginally important to the discussion at hand. Since the very nature of my concerns with the article are under debate here, I hesitate to expand upon them, especially since I have for all intents and purposes done so already, but here it goes anways: any section or paragraph without an in-line citation. I could give you a list, but like I've already said, it would be easier for you to just go to the article and see for yourself.
But, my interpretation is under debate; a debate which I freely initiated. The rationale behind that discussion is not to have policy explained to me, but to point out and fix a flaw in its language. As it stands, the language leaves much up to interpretation, which is what got us in this mess in the first place. My main concern is the GA standard, and that any vagueness in criteria/policy/guidelines be cleared up. I don't mind being wrong - really I don't. I am more than happy to find my interpretation unpoopular if it results in the strengthening of the GA criteria. My point in all this being: I nominated this article for review based on my own interpretation of vague criteria, criteria which I hope to improve. I would hope that two things result from my nomination of this article: 1) the article be improved in some way (whether it be in-line citations or the prose issues also mentioned), and 2) the GA criteria is strengthened in some way. My goal is not to win a debate, but to improve the encyclopedia. Drewcifer 22:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
No doubt any article, even FA class, could be subject to criticisms of "not enough in-line citations" or open to questions whether part or all was "well written". My second novel comes out Tuesday. I worked on it for more than 20 years, had 3 different editors work on it, and I still know that many parts might be better written. It's a Good book. Probably not a Great or FA class book.
So you can find things to criticize. Does that suggest that the overall nature of the article is that it can't cross the bar of Good Article. Or is it that you hope to make a point of Raising the Good Article Bar? That's how I read your comments. Not that the article isn't Good, but that you want to change the Good Article criteria -- and it involves bouncing a couple of Good Articles to prove a point. Excuse me for feeling gamed.--Nemonoman 23:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
PS You brought this action with only vague allegations that the article lacked sufficient inline citations. Yet you yourself recognized (finally) that the GA criteria doesn't require this, and only belatedly point to a Misplaced Pages-talk page -- not even a Policy page! -- in support of the action. Yikes.
You furthermore have taken a single criticism -- that some sentences may not be well-written -- and belatedly attempt to use THAT as a justifcation for your action.
In fact you had NO cause of action, other than a desire to make a point. If you really felt that there were problems with the article, the Right Thing to Do would have been to list your concerns on the discussion page, or more to the point, attempt to correct the concerns (If combining sentences is your problem, you can easily solve it yourself -- if items are inadequately referenced, you can easily use ).--Nemonoman 01:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's a lot to take in there, so I'll take it one step at a time:
I'm not trying to prove a point. If you look at the other GA/Rs I have started, the majority of them have little to do with in-line citations: The Reputation (still active), Dru Hill (still active), Garbage (archived and delisted), Where Did Our Love Go (archived and delisted), KLF Communications (archived and delisted), etc. This track record shows a few things: I have been consistent with my criticism of article's lack of citations (so I'm not trying to prove a point at the cost of one or two articles), I have been fairly even handed with my criticisms of most articles, and I have not been careless with my nominations (all reviews that have been archived so far have either been delisted or improved by the article's editors).
In almost all of these cases (including Taj Mahal), I did post a notice on the Talk Page in an attempt to give fair warning. And, as I am trying to sweep through a large amount of GA articles as part of the GA sweeps, I can't possibly fix every problem I come across.
As I have said repeatedly, (I think I've said this at least 3 times on this page alone), the vague language of the criteria as they currently stand forced me to interpret the criteria: the fact that I have interpreted them on the side of stringency is not my fault per se, but the fault of poorly worded criteria. The link to the talk page is to a discussion in which I am attempting to rectify this flaw in the criteria, regardless of whether the changes agree with me or not.
In my experience, a good article is not necessarily a "Good Article." Just because an article is well crafter does not mean it passes the GA criteria. Taj Mahal is overall an excellent article, I just found it to be lacking in one particular area.

"Yet you yourself recognized (finally) that the GA criteria doesn't require this" You seem to misinterpret me. I didn't post to a Policy page, instead I copy+pasted text from one. I'm not going to reiterate what I already said just to prove I said it, so just take a look at my post starting with (undent) I suppose you could say I've admitted that the criteria doesn't say that, but what I meant to point out is the unclear wording and its need for interpretation, something which should hopefully be cleared up very soon.

But despite all this, if the changes to the criteria being discussed at WP:WIAGA go they way they seem to be going, this entire convoluted post will pretty much be null-in-void. Though you may want to address the concerns mentioned below (but just remember I didn't make those suggestion, so you can't get mad at me for that too). Drewcifer 02:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


“ In my experience, a good article is not necessarily a "Good Article." ”
So what IS the criteria for a "Good Article" -- if it's not enough to simply be a "good article"?
“ The vague language of the criteria as they currently stand forced me to interpret the criteria." ”
Ah, now I understand. It's completely clear.
“ Taj Mahal is overall an excellent article, I just found it to be lacking in one particular area. ”
However, as you go on to say, this lack might not be an actual lack, but rather the fault of poorly worded criteria.
Ahhhh. So I now I understand my problem in this discussion. I have been trying to make sense.
The vague language of your criticism -- the fact of your demanding Re-consideration of whether an"excellent article" still merits a "Good Article" rating -- made me think that (a) The article's quality had slipped, or (b) The Good Article criteria had changed. In fact, neither has happened, by your own admission. So this is your little tempest, stirred up in your little teapot, for your little gratification.
I'm done playing any further part in this soap opera. List it, or delist it. I don't care.--Nemonoman 09:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm glad I've finally been able to clarify a few things. I think you pretty accurately summarized my position (except for the second to last sentence). However it is important to remember that the criteria has changed. In fact, when Taj Mahal was rated GA, no criteria existed at all, or at least were a far cry from what they are today. And for the record, I don't get any gratification from any of this: why would I gain gratification from a debate that for all intents and purposes I've "lost"? In fact, I'm in the middle of doing my best to change/fix the criteria to avoid debates like this in the future, since I find them unhelpful to the encyclopedia as a whole. No debate should ever be based on the semantics of criteria, as this debate has. Drewcifer 15:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just off hand I see a lot of one and two sentence paragraphs, they should be combined or removed. IvoShandor 17:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree, the article seems to be pretty good, to be honest, it just suffers a little under the "well-written" criteria. I don't know that the article needs to have more inline citations for GA (I don't see that requirement at WP:WIAGA), but the prose could be better combined into coherent paragraphs. Also, the organization seems a bit odd. It starts with Origins, thes skips to Design and Architecture issues, then goes to construction, then has a section called "History". I think a more logical outline would have a "History" section with subsections "Origin", "Construction", and "Post-Construction", then an Architecture section describing the design, etc. As it is, it is a bit hard to follow the history of the building since everything is scattered. I doubt these prose fixes would take very long, and would support keeping it as GA if this was done (I also think this would help on its way to FA.) Wrad 17:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
edit as you see fit. --Joopercoopers 22:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I just think one and two sentence paragraphs are weak writing for an encyclopedia. They break up the coherent flow of the information for the reader, imo. You are free to diagree. They are fine for a novelist, who should toy with the language I think, but for an encyclopedia I think it is weak. IvoShandor 00:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
It's easy to determine the exact number of sentences required to make a good paragraph: If the meaning of the paragraph can be improved with a new sentence, then the paragraph is too short. If the meaning of a paragraph can be improved by removing a sentence, then it is too long. JoopersCoopers's My mother is a fish. example is a good one. My favorite: Jesus wept.
This paragraph is exactly the right length.--Nemonoman 01:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Because of my comments here. I've been informed that I assume bad faith. I find this disturbing.

I and others have worked hard to make a pretty decent article out of a complete rat's nest. Look at the history of this article to see how much effort it takes, often on an hourly basis, to maintain some semblance of scholarly authenticity.

I am sick to death of Misplaced Pages and its culture. I quit. My best wishes to some of the excellent human beings I have met while being an editor. --Nemonoman 11:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion (which has gotten crazily out of hand by the way) as well as the pending revisions to the GA criteria based on discussion at WP:WIAGA, I recommend closing this review and keeping the article as a GA article. However, a few other editors have expressed other concerns besides lack of in-line citations, so I'll refrain from doing so without the constent of those editors. Drewcifer 20:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Great Comet of 1882

Great Comet of 1882 (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

No inline citations, lacking in references as well. Was promoted way back in September 05. T Rex | talk 19:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.

Delist per nom. Drewcifer 19:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Delist per nom. Quote absolutely needs a citation. It is a pretty short article, so I don't know if it really needs more references, but the fact that there are no citations in the article at all means that the material isn't verifiable. Raime 00:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Warned by Agne; how did it slip through the cracks? Delist. (Did we try to identify anyone to notify..?) --Ling.Nut 00:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Spira (Final Fantasy)

Spira (Final Fantasy) (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

This article was promoted to Good status on February 2, 2006, but I have just looked over the page today, one and a half years later, and I think it is no longer worthy of being a Good Article. The article is largely told in an in-universe style, there's no section on the world's reception and criticism, and it has grown too large for only thirty individual references to cover. Can one of you look over the article and review it as soon as possible? That would be nice. Cat's Tuxedo 22:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.

First and foremost, Locations in Spira needs to be merged to this article. A LOT of trimming is needed, and the out-of-universe sections need significant expansion. I doubt there are enough hands to work on this right now, so it should be delisted. — Deckiller 22:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Deck is right, the article needs to be fixed up to current writing in fiction criteria. Judgesurreal777 20:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So shall I delist the article now? Cat's Tuxedo 14:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what should be done, but if you delist it, please consider delisting Locations in Spira too, per the arguments above. Kariteh 14:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Imbrex and tegula

Imbrex and tegula (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

After reviewing the article, I've found it to have the following problems: lack of references, poorly formatted references, no lead section, disproportionately large images, and a lack of breadth (examples of use, for example). Drewcifer 04:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.
Delist, no lead is an instant-fail in my book, no matter how many ways you slice it, you can't have a lead section if all there is is the body. Homestarmy 20:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Weimar Republic

Near complete lack of inline citations (the article was apparently promoted without any at all). I'm fairly certain that standards for GA no longer accomodate this. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Delist - References are the only real problem, but it's definitely an issue. Drewcifer3000 19:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Also, make sure you notify the article's Wikiprojects too. The aim is to get an article improved rather than delisted whenever possible. Drewcifer3000 19:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Regional and national music is believed to be inactive, but I'll still notify.T Rex | talk 22:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't even see that one on the talk page. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Delist Referencing is definitely a problem. But it looks a good study of the period.--Peter cohen 23:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Delist, the article is good, it just lacks sources. If the sources are added again a listing should be possible. Daimanta 23:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Music of Hungary

Music of Hungary (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

A good majority of the popular music section contains original research, I wasn't sure if this was enough to be delisted. This with all the other Music of X articles were primarily written by User:TUF-KAT who has since left. T Rex | talk 11:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.

Weak delist - Certainly not beyond help. The popular music sections in particular need some formatting and referencing. Drewcifer3000 16:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Delist - Unless someone takes the initiative and fixes the referencing issues. At the moment, it doesn't meet criteria. On another note, it's good to see the new template being used *feels special* :) Giggy\ 06:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Music of Hawaii

Music of Hawaii (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

The article doesn't quite meet the broadness criteria. A good portion of the article is unsourced and the last few sections contain original research. There are also expansion notices in the article. T Rex | talk 11:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.

Delist - per nomination. Also the "Jazz" and "Other" sections are poorly formatted. Drewcifer3000 16:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Delist - Similar issues to Music of Hungary (above). Giggy\ 06:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

St Thomas the Martyr's Church, Oxford

St Thomas the Martyr's Church, Oxford (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Although only reviewed a few months ago, the article seems somewhat weak based on its lack of references, poor reference formatting, lack of breadth (only historical and architectual), and small lead section. Chief editors, previous reviewers, and appropriate Wikiprojects have been notified. Drewcifer3000 07:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.
  • Comment 1. Please see comments in the 'Presido' article below - please state what material in the article you think needs citing - ie. good faith challenges. 2. poor reference formating is a MOS issue and as such, a guideline - by what logic do you insist on it as a requirement for GA? 3. To aid 'breadth' can you suggest some areas you feel aren't sufficiently covered so we can improve them? 4. Lead section summarises a pretty short article - seems fine by WP:LEAD. --Joopercoopers 10:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Happy to extrapolate:
  • Lack of references:
    • When I'm wrong I'm wrong. The article seems to have sufficient references given it's size, so my mistake. I've stricken the comment from above.
  • Reference style:
    • GA criteria 1a: "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation."
      • But you objection is the formating of the citations - not included in the GA list - and even at FA (despite Tony1 efforts the contraty) not complying with every ever-changing wishlist of the ever-growing MOS is not a reason not to promote, so it certainly shouldn't be a delist reason here.--Joopercoopers 11:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
        • The layout section mentions references. I'm not aware of any discussion with Tony1, I'm just going by the criteria as they read. But, as far as reference formatting goes, what I usually say is that a particular approach isn't required, but consistency is. The references are currently not formaatted consistently with one another.Drewcifer3000 16:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


  • Lead:
    • From MoS guidelines for lead sections: "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The lead does not mention it's architecture.
  • Breadth:
    • Although I don't actually know if such information exists or is all that relevant, what about the church in modern times? It's obviously still standing, so is it still used? As for the architecture was it built in a certain style? What little knowledge of church architecture I know leads me to believe that alot of churches were built in particular contemporary fashions, each church a bit more extreme than the last. Though like I said, I could be wrong, or this information might not even exist. Overall it just seems like a very small article, especially looking at how big the sources are.
Hopefully these are easy fixes, the second and third in particular. Drewcifer3000 10:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The lead does briefly mention that some of the original architecture is retained. Judging by the photos it seems like a fairly typical English parish church with the usual hodge-podge of architectural styles that's the result of standing for centuries. Except in wealthy town centre parishes (or very occasionally if there was a particualrly wealthy local landowner) and arguably Abbeys and Cathedrals, English churches have tended to grow by accretion, rather than being demolished and re-built all of a piece. As for current activities it's an active parish church of the established Church of England with all that implies. Possibly the significance being under the care of the Bishop of Ebbsfleet rather than the Diocesan could be added, with all that implies for opposition to the ordination of women, from a quick look a tthe parish website tht seems to be the most significant difference from the "norm".
All of that sounds like interesting stuff that should be in the article. To the layman that fills in some gaps. Drewcifer3000 16:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Note 2 of the criteria highly recommends that the article have a consistent style of footnoting. In addition to looking pretty, it's appropriate that credit is given where credit is due, and it's important that all the information be consistent so that it's easy for the user to read. I'll format it if I have time, however, if I or someone else here is not able to do this, it really does need to be done. Lara♥Love 13:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Keep - To expand on my above comment, I went through the article and corrected some minor issues (use of dashes, ref formatting) and I have to agree that the lead could be expanded a bit. Nothing vast, just a couple extra sentences. It's very basic right now. I'd also like to see some expansion in the body, as noted in the above comments. Otherwise, it's a good article. I particularly like the first image and think it should be nominated at WP:FI. Regards, Lara♥Love 14:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would note that even a cursory glance at this building shows it to be cast mostly in the Gothic or Gothic Revival style. IvoShandor 14:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That would be Gothic, based upon its age, somewhere a source must say this, the crenellation on the parapet is a dead give away and the pointed arches on the windows. Looking at the full image through the external link, it looks like most of the additions tried to match up with the original style, though I am sure there are elements from other styles as well, the Gothic Revival movement was quite popular around the time some of the additions and changes took place. IvoShandor 14:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Like I said above, that's interesting stuff, and as a layman I had no idea about any of that. That stuff should be in the article, no? Drewcifer3000 16:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely it should. I wouldn't write an article about a historic building, church or otherwise, without doing as much research as I could about the architecture. IvoShandor 08:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delist - Lead could use some expansion; it is a little inadequate right now. Also, per Drewcifer, I think the scope of the article should be widened. However, these are minor concerns. Otherwise, the article is well-written and well-referenced. I'll change this to a Keep if the lead and body are expanded. Raime 14:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Music of Albania

Music of Albania (Edit · Talk · History · Watch)
(De)listing: Archive at GA/R, WP:GA, T:GA#, Article talk.

Firstly the lead includes irrelevant info such as the political nature of the country. The prose is not all that great and the article is full of redlinks. There are {{fact}} tags in the article and there many unsourced claims such as "music is considered the most sophisticated in the country" in the city of Korca. The further reading section is small for some reason and the books in that section are not in cite book format. T Rex | talk 23:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Before commenting on this discussion, please ensure that the article’s talk page has been notified, with a link to this discussion. Use ] as the section heading.
  • Delist - Not the worst article in the world, but it could use some work. Yea, there's alot of redlinks, though some redlinks is generally ok. But that's kind of alot. And why have a Main article: Albanian folk music when Albanian folk music doesn't exist. That kind of defies logic. Referencing is also fairly messy. References should be after punctuation not before. This. Not this. And the "Notes and references" and "Further reading" sections are a bit of a mess too. And I know there's some way to format audio samples better than the way it is there right now. Also the stuff mentioned in the nomination, though "Further reading" sections don't have to be in cite book format. Drewcifer3000 07:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per Drewcifer. This article has far too many redlinks. The Main article link to a redlink needs to be removed. Any statements with fact tags need to be addressed. Further reading section needs to be consistently formatted - Some have ISBN#s, others don't. Some have bullets, others don't. The reference section is also messy, and could use some cleanup. Citations in the article need to be correctly placed after punctuation. The lead poorly summarizes the article; I don't think this topic warrants a paragraph about the political history of Albania. And the audio section is kind of inappropriate in its current state; it needs some formatting work.
  • Comment: I just removed all the red links, and the main article links, which anyone could have done. IvoShandor 09:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I also trimmed the further reading section (It was basically one writer's bibliography which violated WP:UNDUE) Cite book format? Templates? Those aren't required. The books have at least author, title and publisher, and ISBN if available (anything published before 1966 is highly unlikely to have an ISBN at all btw (See ISBN)), it doesn't matter what format they are in, this isn't FA. IvoShandor 09:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I also think that considering the political history of the nation had influence on its music that a couple sentences relating the two aren't unwarranted, the lead doesn't go into too much detail about that anyway, it mentions it. The fact tags should be cleared up but this article could easily be fixed, are the main editors around? Does anyone know? IvoShandor 09:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Sound sample fixed. Delist unless someone can source the info, because the article is underreferenced. Most of the other smaller issues should be cleared up (except for the small and odd typeface in the notes section, I would add some refs if I knew anything at all about the topic, which I do not, it doesn't look like there are main editors and there doesn't appear to have been any kind of GAC review originally. IvoShandor 09:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)



Hurricane Georges

This article was recently delisted due to needing to be "cleaned up", whatever that means. In leiu of the fact that there is no all-encompassing "An article should be clean" part of the GA criteria, and also because I really don't see how this article fails the GA criteria terribly, I reccomend this article be relisted. Yes, there is that "Other Notes" section at the bottom with some trivia-esque bullet points, but I don't think that alone is reason enough to delist what otherwise seems to be a pretty good article, and how hard could they be to either remove or incorporate into the rest of the article? Homestarmy 23:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

''Relist. I don't see a problem (though it would be nice if the refs had full biblio info and accessdates). Is it standard operating procedure when delisting a GA to change all project assessments? Fine if project GA assessments are reduced, but I thought A was internal to a project and independent of the GA process entirely. Gimmetrow 04:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
From what I've seen, it is usually standard to demote project assessments from GA-class to B-class when a GA is delisted. However, since completing the Good article nomination process is not a requirement for A-class articles, you are correct. Even though this article has been delisted, it can still be assessed as an "A-class" article. However, if an article is thought to not meet GA-criteria, it probably shouldn't be classified as "A-class" anyways. A-class identifies an article as complete, well-written, and well-referenced. If an article is delisted, it probably doesn't meet those standards. Raime 17:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak Endorse Delist due to completely inconsistently formatted references (all should use cite web format would help if all were in consistent cite web format), somewhat short lead, and Notes/trivia section (This can easily be merged into prose). Overall, the problems are pretty minimal, and I'll change this to Relist if they are addressed. Raime 17:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - as far as I know, using citation templates aren't a GA requirement. Consistency is required, but using cite web format is not. Drewcifer3000 18:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, complete inline citations are needed for GA-criteria, and I don't think Havana Effects qualifies as a full citation. But you are definitely correct, templates are not a requirement. But consistency is, and there is no current consistency in the listed references. Using cite web format seems logical in this case. Raime 18:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm just always careful to point out that cite templates aren't required, but they help alot and do most of the work for you. It's definitely a good recommendation to make though, especially in this case. Drewcifer3000 18:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
You're definitely right. I'll be more careful to do so in the future. :) Raime 22:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Now they're formatted, so that point is moot. Titoxd 08:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Endorse delist - The article is quite decent, but the notes section needs to be cleaned up some; full bibliographic info, such as authors, publishers, and accessdates are needed. However, this will change quickly as I have sent a notice to User:Hurricanehink and User:Thegreatdr, who BOTH are fantastic editors who take good care of the tropical storms articles. I have confidence these issues can be fixed easily. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - The delistment was not originally what was planned in my mind. I was gonna downgrade it from A to GA, but I took the advice of another user and downgraded it to B. I can see now that what I have done has become an issue and I apologize for my drastic actions. I am actually working on turning Georges into a Featured Topic and beginning work in ways of sub-articles, (See: Effects of Hurricane Georges in the Dominican Republic). I planned to have this article stable again in a few weeks hopefully. If no one objects, I'm gonna vote that it stay as B until it is ready. I should have the article ready in a couple weeks. Thanks for your time and patience.Mitch 13:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Delist - lacks references and poorly formats what references are there. And the last 6 or so refs are actually the same thing. Hopefully Mitch can fix this article up. Other than the references it's a decent article, so good luck. Drewcifer3000 06:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, nope. They are all different data events by the National Climatic Data Center. As for the formatting, that should not be an issue, as I've gone ahead and formatted them with {{cite web}} and its kin of templates. Titoxd 08:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Woops. You're right. Those 6 or so are still oddly formatted though. The others look nice and pretty though. Drewcifer3000 08:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Because they're awaiting an additional pair of eyes for fact-checking. Otherwise, those pages are quite simple to format. Titoxd 08:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Relist struck through prior vote. I knew this one could get fixed up easily. Good job. This is GA quality in spades now... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Relist Looks good to me. Drewcifer 19:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

National Ignition Facility

This article has been under a lot of GA scrutiny lately (just take a look at the talk page), so I hesitate to bring it up here, but it seems to me like it doesn't quite fulfill all the requirements. My few issues with it are its small lead, a CRAZY caption for the first image, poorly formatted references, entire sections without in-line citations ("Background") and others without enough (the first half of "NIF and ICF"). Drewcifer3000 05:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I don't think the lead is too short, and picture captions aren't really related to the GA criteria, but I do have some concerns about overly dense jargon, such as the second half of this sentence: "....unforeseen problems caused by non-uniformities in the compression of the target (hydrodynamic instabilities).", and I have no idea what this sentence in the lead means, "Nevertheless NIF achieved first light in December 2002", is this some kind of fusion power related euphemism? The first unreferenced section appears partly referenced by its parent section, but indeed, certain critical parts of the article seem to be without citations, where plenty of fact statements are being made. Homestarmy 15:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Surely there's some sort of MoS thing about having an entire paragraph as a caption? My issue with the lead isn't necessarily its length, but that it doesn't summarize the whole article. And of course the reference issues. And I didn't really notice the dense jargon, but I suppose I agree with you on that one. Like I said, I was hesitant to bring it up, but I figured it warranted further review. Drewcifer3000 00:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know of any MoS guideline about picture caption size, but I suppose the lead could be expanded somewhat by going more into the process detailed in the NIF and ICF section. The background section doesn't seem to have much to do directly with the NIF, but its existance doesn't seem unwarranted since this appears to be a rather technical article. I'm not really decided either way on this one, I just though the jargon thing might be useful for anyone trying to fix the article. Homestarmy 00:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe that WP:CAP talks about that. Lara♥Love 15:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well considering that most of this discussion seems to boil down to the caption and the "poorly formatted references", it seems to me that Drewcifer3000 just volunteered to fix it! :-) Seriously though, with the exception of the references issue (see the talk page for a tiring discussion of that topic), is there anything left that really strikes anyone as a GA-fail? Maury 19:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If it was a simple fix, I would do so, but knowing completely nothing about anything the article is talking about, I'm afraid I can't be of much help. My problems with the article are pretty much described in the article's nomination. Looking at the discussion page, I can see that some of the information is un-referenced for decent reasons, mainly because the information is repeated in various sections. So, my main question is, why repeat it? Ideally, only the lead should summarize/repeat the article (and therefore is ok to be unreferenced). Not only does repeating something leave uncited parts of the article, but it's just kind of redundant. As far as the reference formatting, try using citation templates. Those do all the work for you. And the caption, I can see why it is important information, but why not make that it's own section? There's enough text there to warrant a subsection of background at the very least. A lead image isn't necessary, or required of GA status, so moving it wouldn't hurt anything. Hope this advice seems doable. Drewcifer3000 20:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I've tried a couple of the CITE systems, and I can't say I found any of them particularly helpful. Even with the tools, it's just too much work to do the whole CITE thing. Yeah, I know, someone said that you should use CITE, but I can't help but feel that the cabal in question didn't actually have to use it. My real complaint with CITE is that it's inline, and since the template is so frikin' huge, it makes the articles almost uneditable if you do use it. Its so bad that I have given up completely on FA, and only go for GA these days -- GA doesn't even need inlines, and I'm just lazy enough to do those when the feeling strikes me. I have this nasty feeling in my gut that someone will actually go and make a new CITE system that actually works, and then all of the regs will be updated to say that you should use that system instead. And then I'll get messages saying articles are being put into GAR because they use the old system rather than the new one.

But here's the point I want you to consider -- let's say I did re-write all of the refs into CITE... do you think the article would be improved as a result? Or to put it another way, would you describe the current article as bad? Don't get me wrong, I am not writing off your suggestions by any means. But the process of getting even a GA has become so incredibly Byzantine that the idea of going through it again makes me shudder. I want to be sure that the article has real problems, as opposed to being listed for not following some regs that are quite possibly going to change in the future.

Maury 01:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Maury. Verifiability equals credibility. Insisting on citation of sources often improves the quality of an article (by improving the quality of its info sources), but that isn't always the case. However, it does always improve the verifiability of the content. Thanks! -- Ling.Nut 02:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you talking about citing sources (aka references), or CITEing sources? I am talking about the later, not the former. Maury 18:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I empathize with everything you've said: citing can be a very arduous task. Indeed, making a GA is a very difficult task, laregly because of in-line citations. The rationale behind them are manifold, and I won't go into that here, but I can assure you that the GA criteria will continue to require them, even if the actual process of making them is somehow made easier. That said, ask yourself a simple question: is GA status really that important to you? You've definitely made a good article here, so kudos there, but is it really that important to you for it to be a "Good Article" with a capital GA? If it is, then it would be worth putting in some time to add some in-line citations and take into consideration the other comments made. If not, then let it go. Regardless of it's classification in Misplaced Pages, I doubt 75% of Misplaced Pages's readers will know or care. That's just my honest opinion, take it as you will. Drewcifer 05:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
GA does not require inline refs, read 2.b. And, as the article in question does use inline refs, is there any remaining issue of concern here, or should we all just move along? Maury 18:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
To quote directly from WP:WIAGA 2b: "cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles." Ok, but then there's two footnotes, one of which says "Unambiguous citation is best done through footnotes or Harvard references at the end of a sentence (see the inline citations essay). It is highly recommended that the article have a consistent style of footnoting. Articles one page or shorter can be unambiguously referenced without inline citations. General statements, mathematical equations, logical deductives, common knowledge, or other material that does not contain disputable statements need not be referenced." The way that is worded, it is highly up to interpretation. My interpretation of it is this: any complete thought that is not common knowledge must come from some source. If a fact comes from a source, you should reference that source. Pretty simple really. That is my own interpretation of the criteria, but I don't think I am alone. And also, keep in mind that the in-line citations are only one issue out of 4 that I brought up in the original nomination, the others being the lead, caption, and reference formatting.. Drewcifer 22:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. The problem (or at least, the main problem) with that idea is the term "common knowledge." Please note this article is in WikiProject Physics and thus falls within the purview of Misplaced Pages:Scientific citation guidelines.
  2. Is that an oppose vote, or merely a continuation of the philosophical discussion? If it's the former, please show actionable points. But bear in mind #1 above.. :-) Thanks! --Ling.Nut 23:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I suppose it's an Oppose vote. To reiterate the things that I think should be improved: the lead should be expanded to reflect WP:LEAD, the caption of the main image should be fixed somehow (I'd recommend just making the image and the explanation a subsection of the background section), format the references and in-line citations (I'd recommend using citation templates), and of course, add some in-line citations. This last point seems to be a point of contention, but to quote from the Scientific citation guidelines: "The verifiability criteria require that such statements be sourced so that in principle anyone can verify them. However, in many articles it is cumbersome to provide an in-line reference for every statement... Therefore, in sections or articles that present well-known and uncontroversial information ... it is acceptable to give an inline citation for one or two authoritative sources ... in such a way as to indicate that these sources can be checked to verify statements for which no other in-line citation is provided. These inline citations are often inserted either after the first sentence of a paragraph or after the last sentence of the paragraph." I cut some parts out of the quote to make it more readable, so feel free to read the whole paragraph on the main page. The page also has an example which might help. Honestly, a good portion of the article already follows those guidelines, so it really shouldn't be that much of a problem to add a citation at least per paragraph. Drewcifer 02:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Maury, two things: First and foremost, I'm OK with this article as GA. I say Move along, nothing to see here — Pass. Second (and far less important, in this particular context), I still haven't quite figured out what you're unhappy with about citing refs. I mostly like the system we used in Georg Cantor, thou even that could be improved upon.. my main beef is that the inline refs should've been templated to make them clickable back to the relevant reference in the references section... so instead of plain text such as "Dauben 2004, p. 1." you'd have something clickable like Dauben (2004:1) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFDauben2004 (help). In fact. I may just change them some day. I dunno, I'm kinda lazy though :-P HTH --Ling.Nut 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I should have linked to this earlier... go to water memory, click edit, and try to follow the text. It visually illustrates the problems that you end up with when you try to edit them. The solution, IMHO, is to put the REF tag in the text and the CITE at the bottom. That's how it used to work with the original NOTE system, but if I reconstruct the history correctly, everyone complained so they made the new REF system work inline. But then they introduced CITE after this, and I think that's where the problem began. Maury 20:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


Bringin' on the Heartbreak

Originally reviewed and given GA status a year and a half ago, on more recent review, I've found it to have the following issues:

  • No in-line citations at all in the first half of the article. What in-line citations there are are poorly formatted.
  • One image is under Fair-Use dispute
  • Short lead paragraph.

WikiProject Songs has been notified. Drewcifer3000 22:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis (drug)

Article was last reviewed on May 27, 2006 by Cedars, so it's been awhile. Has entirely too many 'citation needed' tags, and there could be issues with the lead section. Might want to check out the section called 'the high', too. Either way, it's probably good for this article to have another look at this time, since it's been awhile. Dr. Cash 00:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delist as per nom. The citation tags are the only real problem though. Hopefully someone can adopt the article soon and fix them up. Otherwise a pretty good article. Drewcifer3000 17:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Hold it This looks like a job for Superman. Let me have a short while with it and see about the cite needed tags. What's wrong with the lead?--SidiLemine 10:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Cool, glad to see someone's willing to work on it. Also, while we're at it, i noticed that the references are formatted inconsistently. Might want to check on that too. Drewcifer3000 17:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Yup, will do. Can someone please add fact tags as needed, and I'll do it as they come. I think this could actually have a shot at FAC. What do you think?--SidiLemine 17:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment I would suggest reconsidering which sources are cited on the more medical matters. Cochrane or other systematic reviews, such as ], are better for reporting the state of play on current research than individual experimental studies. --Peter cohen 20:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm totally new to this kind of articles, and to medical quesytions in general. If you can, please point out the "weak" sources you find and I'll try to replace them with better ones.--SidiLemine 11:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The link that I was suggesting replacing is the one with the ref name "Study Finds No Link Between Marijuana Use And Lung Cancer" at . Unfortunately, I don't have time to get involved with checking all the other citations at present. (Another good article review post yesterday has already distracted me far too much and "interesting" things are happening as a result of my involvement.) If you're looking for the best citations on a topic then the phrase "systematic review" is a good indicator. Basically, it involves the reviewer(s) setting out clear criteria for what counts as something relevant to their area of interest and for assessing what they have decided is relevant. They then search article databases for as many relevant articles they can find and also the "grey literature" of findings that have not been published e.g. because they didn't have interesting results etc. These are assessed according to the defined criteria. Because systematic reviews assess the work of other researchers and put together the results of the papers that have been assessed as of a good standard using transparent criteria, they are just the sort of secondary literature that Misplaced Pages policy favours. Anyway, I'll put cannabis on my watch list and have a look when I have more time.--Peter cohen 20:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the good advice. I'll be sure to look into it.--SidiLemine 15:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Definitely an improvement, but I would say some of the sections still need some in-line citations. I think that is just the nature of the beast: alot of the content of the article is "controversial or contentious" because the subject is controversial and contentious, therefore in-line citations are required. So the problem sections, as I see them, would be the last paragraph of Government debate, Criminalization and legalization (you may be able to lift some sources from the Legality of cannabis page), and The high. Also, the references still need to be properly formatted. I know this sounds like a ton of work, but hopefully still seems doable. Drewcifer 09:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Gustavus Franklin Swift

Main editor Lordkinbote is a retired wikipedian. No other editors have more than 5 edits. WP:BUSINESS, WP:WPBIO, WP:CHICAGO and WP:Illinois notified.

This article has many sections that are unreferenced. I have not examined the article beyond its referencing and nothing else jumps out at me. However, I feel the article is substandard and hope that it gets adopted by someone who can clean it up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Downgrade to B quality for lack of referencing per User:TonyTheTiger. Several sections lack references altogether and the article has few inline references. In the Notes section, there is a inline citation for an author named White, but the note does not indicate which of his two books listed in the Reference section is being cited. Furthermore, some of the material seems to be shared or copied from the article Refrigerator car rather than sources about the subject himself. There is a further problem with this article that it is unlikely that it will be adopted for cleanup anytime soon; despite the large Reference and Bibliograhy sections, the references draw on local sources that are obtainable only from the Chicago library service and therefor expensive to obtain outside this catchment area. However, if a more comprehensive scheme of referencing can to be added to this article and cleanup effected, I would nominate this article for FA status as the subject is hightly notable. I have therefor raised its Business assessement importance from low to medium, as this article is closely related to the development of the Refrigerator car, which in turn is a major driving force in the extraordinary economic development of the mid-West. --Gavin Collins 03:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist as per nom and review above. I agree with the above reviewer, if it wasn't for the issues with inline citations, this could be a FAC. But without it doesn't qualify for GA status. Drewcifer3000 17:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per lack of references, lack of inline citations, and improperly formatted citations. Raime 13:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Griffith

Main editor JCarriker is a retired wikipedian. No other editors have more than 2 edits. WP:WPBIO, WP:CHICAGO and WP:Illinois notified.

This article seem well referenced, but needs to be wikified and rearranged. It does not have a separate WP:LEAD and is redundant in places. I feel the article may be substandard and hope that it gets adopted by someone who can clean it up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delist - lacks a lead paragraph, very limited in scope (merely a historical account), bloated Filmography (I think MoS states that only a few entries should be listed), second External link is unneccessary since it shows the same image already on the page. Also the first image is mis-tagged. Has a fair-use tag, but gives no fair-use rationale. But I think it is old enough to be public domain. Not sure which, but either way it should be fixed. Drewcifer3000 17:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist - Fails to meet layout criteria. It's also not broad. The filmography, however, is selected, as he acted in more than 60 films. And the image does qualify for public domain. Both do, actually. {{PD-US}} would be the tag for that. Lara♥Love 15:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per above comments. It needs a lead paragraph, is not very broad, and needs wikification in some areas. It would help to subdivide the article into separate sections, and it should have an infobox per WP:BIO. More references would help, but I think due its current short length this article's 8 references satisfy GA requirements. However, the existing references need to be consistently formatted. Raime 20:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Pikachu

Given recent history, a delisting of a Pokemon probably needs review. This one was removed because it has some guide-like content and in-universe content.

Also, Charizard was only a redirect for a very short time, and there is nothing in the history of Crawdaunt to suggest it was ever a redirect, so the reason for their delisting is not valid. Gimmetrow 19:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Relist - Similar to the Golduck issue below. Although the issues raised are relevant, I don't believe them to be grounds for delisting, not to mention on-the-spot delisting without any sort of review or consensus. Drewcifer3000 20:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Relist I feel that some good points have been raised, however, i dont believe that they warrant the page being de-listed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Toepoke (talk • contribs)
Endorse delist - I'll change this if the in-universe issue is corrected. Lara♥Love 16:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Relist. The supposedly in-universe section is three paragraphs. Not an issue. Gimmetrow 17:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - there are also some unsourced comments about how "players" (fictional players in the game, or real players?) use their Pikachu. WP:NOT#GUIDE says that this is ok, but it really ought to be sourced to one of the Pokemon fansites or something. -Malkinann 01:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Golduck

Another Pokemon, removed because it has some guide-like content and (basically) because it has a cite-needed tag on the origin of the name. Gimmetrow 19:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Relist - Delisting the article without a review based on a few small issues seems hasty. Although I agree with the points Link to the Past made, I don't think they're grounds for delisting. Drewcifer3000 20:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment the "biological characteristics" section is very in-universe. It's a fictional creature, so its biological characteristics are fictional, and should be treated as such. -Malkinann 06:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Endose Delist - I will change this if the in-universe issue is corrected. Lara♥Love 16:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Relist. The supposedly in-universe section is three paragraphs. Not an issue. Since the the "in-universe cleanup" tag has not been justified on the article talk page, it could be summarily removed. Gimmetrow 17:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I think the complaint about "guide-like" comment may have intended to reference WP:NOT#GUIDE, which essentially says that "saying how something is used is encyclopedic, but saying how to use it is not". I'd expect a Pokemon's article to have (sourced) information about the particular R-P-S arguments that make that Pokemon strong against x type or weak against y type. -Malkinann 01:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

David Hammond

Although it was given GA status only a month ago, this article seems somewhat weak to me. The article is very small, has a few redlinks, choppy/short sentences, poorly formatted references, and a poorly formated External Link section (and only one External link, to boot). Also, the main infobox image is fair-use, but as per WP:FUC criteria #1, images of living persons cannot be fair-use. Drewcifer3000 15:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: Redlinks are not criteria to delist. Mrprada911 03:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist: Not even close, though I don't think red links matter if they are notable. If they do, they absolutely shouldn't. That fair use image needs to go if this person is alive, it should be deleted, but I am not an admin. Also, this article doesn't even come close to being broad in its coverage. IvoShandor 19:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist: Reads more like an artist biography from a theatre programme than an encyclopaedia article. Sentence in lede garbled. Missing basic information such as date of birth. No references to books - I would have expected a notable person to appear in theatrical reference books.--Peter cohen 14:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep:I wrote this article, so I'll address the criticisms; It is no sin for an article to be short as long as it is comprehensive, and if it is missing something, (besides a free image, which I can get, and i removed the fair use image), what does it need? And when did "short sentences" become good prose or formatting external links become a GA removal criteria and not a minor fix? Please remember "I Don't like it" is not a criteria for removal. Judgesurreal777 23:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright, i added an external link, removed the red links, formatted both external links, added his birth date and location, and removed the fair use image. However, the references format is great, I don't see anything wrong with it. Judgesurreal777 00:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edits have improved the article a great deal. Luckily it didn't take much to fix some of the problems. My mistake about the reference being inconsistent, what I meant was that they didn't use citation templates. Although I'm a strong supporter of using them, this isn't a requirement of GA status, so I've stricken the comment from my nomination above. As for the other issues, it isn't merely that the article is short, but that it's length is just a pretty easy indication of an article's lack of breadth. As it stands, I think the article could use a Filmography of some kind, as well as some expansion of the teaching/directing section. For instance, it mentions a number of the plays he worked on, but only in one sentence. Most of those sentences equate to something like "Hammond worked as the director of X." And then its off to the next similar sentence about some other project. It would be good to expand each of those sentences into at least a few more, if not a full paragraph detailing his involvement, the play itself, it's reception, his approach, and stuff like that. As it is, it reads somewhat like proseline.
I wouldn't worry too much about the article being delisted right away. You're actively trying to improve it based on this review, so no one is anxious to delist the article unless it proves to be beyond help. Drewcifer3000 19:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It still needs a thorough copy edit. Taking one sentence as an example, Hammonds theatrical works were a staple of the North Carolina theatre scene for over a decade, and continues to teach at New York Universitys graduate acting program and recently at Guilford College. is missing two apostrophes and is garbled by the change of subject between the two clauses without the second subject being stated. --Peter cohen 20:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I listed David Hammond as GA because the article seemed to be GA class. Also you can see that I did not quickly promote the article, see Talk:David Hammond#Fail GA. Also as a side note the Fair Use image of a livening person has been removed. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribs) 13:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment The article really seems to fail the broadness criteria of a Good Article. See WP:WIAGA. While article length viewed in isolation should not be a reason for delisting, it woudl appear, given the sources, that there is a LOT of expanding that could go on. To state it another way, the article fails to give the full picture of the subject given the availible sources. The length is not commensurate with the availible source material, and thus seems to be less-than-broad enough. I am avoiding delist vote because it appears that an active editor is interested in improving it, and I want to see where this goes. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


The Reputation

The leading editor Bdj (only editor with more than 4 edits) Teemu08 (2nd leading editor with many WP:GA, WP:FC credits), WP:CHICAGO, WP:Illinois and WP:ALM have been notified. Originally reviewed and given GA status a year ago, on more recent review, I've found it to have the following issues:

  • Inappropriate fair-use image in infobox (which doesn't have a fair-use rationale either)
  • Although the band is now defunct, the article speaks about the band in present tense at times.
  • Inconsistent reference style.
  • Very limited in its scope. Just a historical account.
  • Small lead paragraph.
  • No external links.

Drewcifer3000 04:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Delist per nom. Lead needs to be expanded, image issues need to be dealt with, prose and tense needs to be improved, references need to be correctly and consistently formatted (including wikification of dates for user preferences). Lara♥Love 18:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per issues raised by Drew and Lara. Giggy 00:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Major problems are improperly formatted references and very inadequate lead, and the fair use image without a fair use rationale is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with in order to meet criteria. Prose also needs to be improved, and I think the "Releases" section would work better as a table. Raime 17:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm going to try to revamp the article based on suggestions found here, starting with the references and image (I've already located a free license one on Flickr). --Brandt Luke Zorn 03:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Great work overall. Though I still think the lead and the bredath (Music section) need work. Actually, one follows the other: the lead is so short since there really isn't much to the article other than a timeline. You could definately mention their releases in the lead though, maybe not each by name, but at least mention how many albums they released or something like that. There seems to be quite alot of info from reliable sources in the references, so maybe some direct quotes would do the Music section some good? Also you may want to change that to "Musical style" rather than simply "Music." Drewcifer 08:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Henry Rollins

Article has an unnecessary trivia section and a very large amount of lists. Article also lacks a section on the criticisims of the artists work. --Tarret 03:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delist - Necessity of quote in the lead (which is not recommended) is questionable. Wikilinked term in quote is also not recommended. Terribly under-referenced. References also need to be consistently formatted. Otherwise, it shouldn't be too far from GA. Correct the noted issues and renominate at WP:GAC. Lara♥Love 05:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
It's still under-referenced. Fact tag near the end (although, there needs to be additional references past that one tag). Also, the inclusion of the official website external link in the body needs to be removed. Lara♥Love 13:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. (Removed the external link). It needs more references and expansion; it doesn't cover Rollins career in Black Flag too well. CloudNine 13:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Not enough references, improperly-formatted references, way too list-y (I'd recommend separating the end into a new discography/bibliography article, perhaps List of Henry Rollins works or something like that), a big uncited trivia section, switches between citations and external jumps, no sections on either the impact and popularity nor criticism of his work. -- Kicking222 18:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Delist Keep Inconsistent referencing (Link no 3 should have been an inline reference and appears to be broken). Trivia section should be deleted/integrated. Personally, I don't have a problem with the rest of the lists. The biography section from the last three pargraphs of Henry Rollins#Black Flag down is very sparcely referenced. Given the number of forked articles, I'd guess that a lot of the facts are referenced in those articles. Things like Rollins's friend being shot should be easy to source and fixable in a relatively short time. If the referencing can't be fixed in reasonble time from now, then delist stands.(Datestamp matches my striking initial comments and inserting new text.)--Peter cohen 21:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC) In view of progress since I last looked, I've changed my vote from conditional delist to conditional keep just to acknowledge what is happening.--Peter cohen 23:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The article will have to be completely rewritten before that. It is based on a complete copyvio of this article. That's still a great work you did Cloud Nine. If you are willing to reword it, I'd be glad to help with the few missing sources.--SidiLemine 14:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Amazing. Does that mean it isn't suitable as a source?
  • Delist - Not broad in coverage, lacks alot of references. Drewcifer3000 20:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist - Broadness is a serious issue, and there are a few tags that need resolving. The Radio and Television work is a real problem; there are only two recent things listed, where as I know for a fact he has done a LOT more TV than this. He's a frequent contributor on the VH1 nostalgia programs, he's done a 1/2 hour standup special on Comedy Central (Live and Ripped). A very quick google search turned up this: Not saying it is an adequate or reliable source, but it's a start. IMDB might be a good start too... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, large parts of the article are still unreferenced or in need of more referencing, such as the entire Rollins Band section, and most of the Black Flag section. Plus, the article contains no reception of Rollin's work, for an artist of his type there is LOTS of criticism (positive and negative) out there to draw from. This article makes NO review of the reception of his work, which again, seems to indicate a lack of broadness required for a GA. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, I agree. Still referencing and expanding; I'll create a 'Legacy' section soon. CloudNine 10:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Another suggestion: The Works section should have a paragraph or two talking about his works. That's not to say you should just list them, but give a brief overview of both his solo works and works within a band. Just having a link for a section isn't all that great. Drewcifer3000 03:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep it's a LONG way away from FAC, but IMHO, it is a GA. The references could be enhanced, but it's not grounds enough to delist.Balloonman 05:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I still don't see where the major problems have been adressed (broadness and referncing issues. see above). This has been here for a month. Even if the vote is deadlocked, we should archive this as a no-consensus. Could everyone please re-read the article and see what you think about this. I'd like to see this one off the backlog soon... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems like CloudNine is still working on the article, but I still don't think it meets criteria. Since it has been here for a month, and there still seems to be alot of work (criticisms, prose cleanup, etc) I'd recommend delisting the article for now with an invitation to renominate the article here when chief editors feel the article is ready. However there is no consensus here to delist, so at least archive this discussion and hope for the best. Drewcifer 10:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I haven't had too much time to work on the article recently, although I think it's improved greatly since the initial version. (My priority is the Rollins band section) I'm not sure about including a "Musical style", "Criticisms" or "Legacy" section; Rollins' only solo releases have been spoken word, and I've not read many criticisms of them. What do you think? CloudNine 10:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I take part of my comments above back. Criticisms are usually reserved for specific articles or songs, since people's opinions might change drastically. I guess my only concern with the article is an overall lack of breadth (the whole is one big Biography section), but I'm just not sure what else to add. Catch 22 I guess. Drewcifer 10:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. Drewcifer 02:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Drewcifer 02:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Drewcifer 02:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. stuff
  5. and junk
  6. Drewcifer 02:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Drewcifer 02:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. Drewcifer 02:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. stuff
  10. and junk
Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment Add topic